This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
37107
[Aug22.] 347
TREGE 8 OCT 03
SECTION I
No. 1.
Sir,
India Office to Foreign Office.-(Received August 22.)
India Office, August 21, 1905,
I AM directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Campbell's letter of the 7th August, relative to a further attempt on the part of the Chinese opium authorities to impose an additional tax on opium. It is asked whether, in view of Mr. Townley's opinion that no argument will be effective with the Chinese Government, except a warning that the Additional Article of the Chefoo Convention will be abrogated, the Secretary of State for India is still of opinion that this course would not be prudent.
In reply, I am to suggest that Sir E. Satow, who, it is believed, has now returned to China, should be asked to consider carefully the grounds advanced in support of this view in my letter of the 19th November, 1902, and to say whether he thinks the apprehensions justified, or that a point has been reached not merely in the Canton Province, but also in other parts of China where Indian opium is consumed, when nothing could be lost by reverting to the Tien-tsin Treaty.
[2091 y-1]
I am, &c.
(Signed)
A. GODLEY.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
37107
[Aug22.] 347
TREGE 8 OCT 03
SECTION I
No. 1.
Sir,
India Office to Foreign Office.-(Received August 22.)
India Office, August 21, 1905,
I AM directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Campbell's letter of the 7th August, relative to a further attempt on the part of the Chinese opium authorities to impose an additional tax on opium. It is asked whether, in view of Mr. Townley's opinion that no argument will be effective with the Chinese Government, except a warning that the Additional Article of the of the Chefoo Convention will be abrogated, the Secretary of State for India is still of opinion that this course would not be prudent.
In reply, I am to suggest that Sir E. Satow, who, it is believed, has now returned to China, should be asked to consider carefully the grounds advanced in support of this view in my letter of the 19th November, 1902, and to say whether he thinks the apprehensions justified, or that a point has been reached not merely in the Canton Province, but also in other parts of China where Indian opium is consumed, when nothing could be lost by reverting to the Tien-tsin Treaty.
[2091 y-1]
I
am, &c.
(Signed)
A. GODLEY.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.