Type: Confidential.
CHINA TRADE.
No. 1.
[October 31.]
688
SECTION 1.
The Marquess of Lansdowne to Sir E. Satow.
(No. 296.) Sir,
ON receipt of your despatch No. 242 of the 7th July last, a communication was addressed to the Secretary of State for India on the subject of the scheme proposed by the Viceroy of Canton for raising additional revenue by means of the taxation of prepared opium,
Foreign Office, October 31, 1904,
I inclose a copy of the reply which has been received from the India Office,* from which you will observe that Mr. Secretary Brodrick considers it to be doubtful whether the interpretation of the Additional Article to the Chefoo Convention put forward in your note to Prince Ching of the 4th July can be defended in argument, and whether, therefore, it would be prudent to make the alleged infraction of that particular interpretation a ground for threatening to abrogate the Article.
As pointed out by the Acting British Consul-General at Canton in his despatch to you of the 11th June last, the language of the Article seems to favour the less stringent construction which the Chinese Government have now placed upon its provisions, and in this view Mr. Brodrick is disposed to agree.
It is suggested in the letter from the India Office that, by the employment of the words "the hitherto accepted view" of the intention of the Article in the last paragraph of your despatch, you possibly imply that you are not satisfied that the view there referred to is correct.
I request, therefore, that you will favour me with your observations as to what evidence there is, in your opinion, in favour of that view, considered in connection with the correspondence on the subject of the Chefoo Additional Article laid before Parliament in 1885, a copy of which is inclosed for convenience of reference.
In regard to this point, you will recollect that my despatch to Sir M. Durand of the 29th May, 1902, favoured the interpretation that no terminal tax can be imposed on foreign opium until the internal duty on native opium is equal to the internal li-kin charge levied on foreign opium.
Whichever may be the correct view in regard to this point, there appears to be no doubt that valid objection can be taken to the proposal on the ground that, as stated by Mr. Campbell, it will not be made effective on native opium. Should you concur in this view, you are authorized to enforce such a contention by the exercise of the discretionary power given you in my despatch No. 87 of the 17th March last, provided the circumstances of the case comply with the conditions laid down by the Government of India, which were inclosed in that despatch.
I inclose, for your information, a copy of a further letter which has been received on the subject from the India Office,‡ in which it is stated that the Government of India is also of opinion that the scheme should be strenuously resisted—if necessary by a threat to abrogate the Additional Article.
I am, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.
*India Office, October 20, 1904. ↑ "China No. 5 (1885)."
India Office, October 20, 1904.
* Ty:
rpe.
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
No. 1.
erament.]
[October 31.]
688
SECTION 1.
The Marquess of Lansdowne to Sir E. Satow.
(No. 296.) Sir,
ON receipt of your despatch No. 242 of the 7th July last, a communication was
Foreign Office, October 31, 1904, addressed to the Secretary of State for India on the subject of the scheme proposed by the Viceroy of Canton for raising additional revenue by means of the taxation of prepared opium,
I inclose a copy of the reply which has been received from the India Office,* from which you will observe that Mr. Secretary Brodrick considers it to be doubtful whether the interpretation of the Additional Article to the Chefoo Convention put forward in your note to Prince Ching of the 4th July can be defended in argument, and whether, therefore, it would be prudent to make the alleged infraction of that particular interpretation a ground for threatening to abrogate the Article.
As pointed out by the Acting British Consul-General at Canton in his despatch to you of the 11th June last, the language of the Article seems to favour the less stringent construction which the Chinese Government have now placed upon its provisions, and in this view Mr. Brodrick is disposed to agree.
It is suggested in the letter from the India Office that, by the employment of the words "the hitherto accepted view" of the intention of the Article in the last para- graph of your despatch, you possibly imply that you are not satisfied that the view there referred to is correct.
I request, therefore, that you will favour me with your observations as to what evidence there is, in your opinion, in favour of that view, considered in connection with the correspondence on the subject of the Chefoo Additional Article laid before Parliament in 1885, a copy of which is inclosed for convenience of reference.
In regard to this point, von will recollect
Aurang
of the 29th May, 1902, favoured the interpretation that no terminal tax can be imposed on foreign opium until the internal duty on native opium is equal to the internal li-kin charge levied on foreign opium.
Whichever may be the correct view in regard to this point, there appears to be no doubt that valid objection can be taken to the proposal on the ground that, as stated by Mr. Campbell, it will not be made effective on native opium. Should you concur in this view, you are authorized to enforce such a contention by the exercise of the discretionary power given you in my despatch No. 87 of the 17th March last, provided the circumstances of the case comply with the conditions laid down by the Govern- ment of India, which were inclosed in that despatch.
I inclose, for your information, a copy of a further letter which has been received un the subject from the India Office,‡ in which it is stated that the Government of India is also of opinion that the scheme should be strenuously resisted-if necessary by a threat to abrogate the Additional Article.
I am, &c.
(Signed)
LANSDOWNE.
*India Office, October 20, 1904. ↑ "China No 5 (1885)."
[2206 hh-1]
India Office, October 20, 1904.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.