CO885-11 — Page 630

1

85

624

गय

· PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.882/11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

59890/24

No. 67.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE, GOVERNOR.

CONFIDENTIAL.

(Sent 5.30 p.m., 2nd January, 1925.)

TELEGRAM.

[Answered by No. 69.]

Your telegrams of 9th July* and 18th September.† First Opium Conference resulted in preparation of draft Agreement which however had not American Delegation strongly been signed when Second Conference assembled. criticized results achieved at First Conference and tabled proposals for amendment of 1912 Convention, including an amendment of Article 8 providing for reduction of opium imported for smoking by 10 per cent. annually so as to abolish smoking in ten

year.

Countries directly concerned contended that American proposals not within com- petence of Second Conference. As result of impasse Conference adjourned till 12th January and signature of Agreement prepared by First Conference was deferred.

It has now been decided (1) that British Delegate will sign Agreement; (2) that formal view that Second Conference is not competent to decide questions relating to opium smoking relegated to First Conference should not be abandoned, but (3) that for reasons of policy, and in order to remove impression that Powers concerned are unable to meet American criticisms, opportunity should be given to American Dele- gation to state their views and to other Delegations to reply; (4) British Delegate to renew suggestion already made that League of Nations should appoint impartial Com- mission to visit countries concerned to examine facts as affecting possibility of further measures of repression.

I am being pressed to agree to British Delegate being authorized to make some declaration which will meet the charge that Malaya is deterred by revenue considera- tions from carrying out obligations under 1912 Convention, for gradual and effective suppression of opium smoking. Would you object to statement that replacement of opium revenues in Malaya presents great difficulties and that it would in any case take several years but that you are appointing strong Committee to study whole question of gradual and ultimately complete replacement of opium revenue in the whole of Malaya by revenue from other sources and to prepare a scheme for reorganization of finances of Colony and possibly also of Protected States with a view to rendering them inde- pendent of opium revenue within reasonable time. Can any definite interpretation of reasonable time be given in terms of years?

In considering this proposal you should bear in mind (1) that when circumstances render effective application of Article 6 possible Malayan Governments must be pre- pared to do without opium revenue possibly at short notice; (2) that if such Committee were appointed it would be necessary that they should have definite instructions to prepare concrete scheme.

As regards Hong Kong it is proposed to announce that Government' Monopoly will be closed when His Majesty's Government are satisfied that growth of poppy in China has practically ceased and smuggling of opium into Hong Kong has come to an end. Would such a statement be embarrassing to Malaya.

Telegraph reply to reach me 7th January at latest.—AMERY.

59890 24.

No. BS

SIR GRINDLE (COLONIAL OFFICE) to SIR M. DELEVINGNE (HOME OFFICE). DEAR DELEVINGNE,

Downing Street, 5th January, 1925.

Your letter of the 30th‡ about the proposed Declaration on opium policy. It seems to us to be very necessary that the suggested statement about Hong Kong should include an indication of the sort of satisfaction we should require as to effectiveness of the suppression of the cultivation of the poppy in China. We obviously could not leave it that the Hong Kong Monopoly would be closed down merely on the

* No. 29.

+ No. 36.

No. 66.

statement of the Chinese themselves that all danger of the smuggling of Chinese opium into the Colony had ceased. Nor can we agree to the Declaration being made in such a form that a temporary cessation of smuggling might be held to oblige Hong Kong to adopt prohibition..

While on this point there is another small matter of phraseology in your original "The enforcement of prohibition by suggestion, which I think I ought to mention. His Majesty's Government is a form of procedure which is not adopted in dealing with Colonies even where the Secretary of State can in the last resort control the It is a small point, legislature and force through ueasures by purely official votes. but the susceptibilities of our local unofficials are rather acute. It should be that with the concurrence of His Majesty's Government Hong Kong has already stated its willingness to close down the opium monopoly.

As regards Malaya, we did not suggest that action there should hinge upon action in Hong Kong, but that action in both places should be regulated with regard to the situation in China. We might say "within a fixed period from the date at which it is established that China has permanently ceased to grow the opium poppy

+

On the major point which divides us, i.e., the question of a public statement about the financial considerations in Malaya, we feel that we cannot go further than we have done, without giving the Governor and High Commissioner an opportunity of stating his views. We have accordingly sent him a telegram of which I enclose a copy.*

One other small point of phraseology. We prefer, for obvious reasons, not to stress unduly the independence" of the Protected States. Besides, in the last resort we have Treaty rights which enable us to impose any policy which does not We would, therefore, prefer you to clash with native custom or Mohammedan Law.

talk about "the Malay States under British Protection."

936/25.

No. 69.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

Yours, &c.,

G. GRINDLE.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 2.5 p.m., 6th January, 1925.)

TELEGRAM.

6TH JANUARY. Your Confidential telegram of 2nd January.

* Opium.

I

agree

to statement that replacement of opium revenue in Malaya presents great difficulty. In our own interests we are naturally going to investigate every conceivable method of replacement and reorganization of finances of the whole of Malaya with a view to rendering them indepedent of opium revenue, but I could not agree to appointment I would, of a Committee with definite instructions to prepare concrete scheme. however, agree to appoint an exploratory Committee whose views might render possible appointment of the Committee you propose and might also throw light on possible definition of reasonable time which cannot be defined at present.

Regarding your warning that when circumstances render effective application of Article 6 possible Malayan Governments must be prepared to do without opium revenue, possibly at short notice, please see my long telegrams of 9th July† and 18th September.‡ cannot believe that the Imperial Government could possibly enforce on Malaya abolition of opium revenue at short notice in view of what I have said in those tele- grams respecting proposals of less drastic nature. I must again press the advice I have previously tendered that Malaya should be permitted to work out scheme proposed by its own Committee. Even if financial difficulties did not exist I consider gradual At the same time I should welcome progress necessary for humanitarian reasons. appointment by the League of Nations of impartial Commission as it would afford Western enthusiasts opportunity to learn Eastern facts.

I have no objection to announcement regarding Hong Kong. Its publication will not embarrass Malaya any more than it may embarrass Hong Kong. The formula is not applicable to Malaya at present, but if the situation changes and circumstances allow I would then be prepared to consider adoption of that formula as a substitute for our own scheme.

* No. 67.

† No. 29.

‡ No. 36.