those who are permitted by your Excellency's Government to trade with him. Such a monopoly would prevent other dealers from participating in the opium trade, thus destroying healthy competition and crippling business, thereby causing heavy loss to importers, who will be at the mercy of a few licensed shops who would be able to dictate their own prices.
The effect of clause 4 is to create a monopoly, and, as existing shops gradually decrease in number and no new shops are permitted to take out licences, the trade will soon be in the hands of a few privileged individuals. So many pretexts can be found for closing down existing establishments that a small ring or Trust of the kind feared would probably be created within a very short period of time.
The procedure laid down by these Regulations is burdensome, and necessitates the payment of a licence fee on each occasion that an individual purchases opium. This will of necessity hamper trade and prevent the free buying and selling of raw Indian opium.
The British firms interested contend therefore that the new Regulations form the nucleus of a monopoly which will place the control of the raw opium trade in the two Kwang Provinces in the hands of a few individuals or in the hands of the Provincial Government itself.
I have the honour to point out to your Excellency that the restriction on trade contemplated by these new Regulations is directly contrary to Article 5 of the Treaty of Nanking, by which the British merchants are permitted "to carry on their mercantile transactions with whatever persons they please." By Article 10 of the same Treaty, "such merchandize may be conveyed by Chinese merchants to any province or city in the interior of the Empire of China," and by Article 14 of the French Treaty of Tien-tsin it is clearly laid down that, "Aucune Société de Commerce privilégiée ne pourra désormais s'établir en Chine, et il en sera de même de toute coalition organisée dans le but d'exercer un monopole sur le commerce.”
I would remind your Excellency that last year an attempt was made at Nanking to create a similar monopoly, and that in this case the Central Government, upon the representations of His Majesty's Minister to the Wai-wu Pu, fully recognized its illegality und ordered the measure to be withdrawn.
I would further remind your Excellency that the Indian Government is co-operating with the Government of China in its efforts to suppress the use of the drug by reducing the annual export of opium from India. This of itself will automatically bring about the total suppression of the import of Indian opium within a period of ten years. It is, therefore, not only contrary to Treaty, but totally unnecessary, to adopt these harsh measures to restrict the sale of Indian opium in Canton.
Under the circumstances, I feel it my duty to bring the protest of the British firms interested to your Excellency's notice, and to request that your Excellency will give instructions to have the restrictions which have been placed upon the free sale of Indian opium in the two Kwang Provinces by these new Regulations removed without loss of time.
I avail, &c.
(This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government)
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[39933]
(No. 580.)
Sir,
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir J. Jordan.
Foreign Office, November 23, 1908.
I HAVE received your despatch No. 484 of the 21st ultimo respecting new Regulations at Canton for licensing opium shops.
I concur in the view contained in the penultimate paragraph of your despatch that it is difficult to object to the Regulations ab initio, and inadvisable, as Hong Kong firms seem satisfied, to take any further action in the matter, if the Canton Viceroy carries out his promise to issue a Proclamation pointing out that his new Regulations only apply to the retail trade in opium.
I am, &c. (Signed) E. GREY.
[2020-4]
(Signed)
H. H. FOX.
8
those who are permitted by your Excellency's Government to trade with him. Such a monopoly would prevent other dealers from participating in the opium trade, thus destroying healthy competition and crippling business, thereby causing heavy loss to importers, who will be at the mercy of a few licensed shops who would be able to dictate their own prices.
The effect of clause 4 is to create a monopoly, and, as existing shops gradually decrease in number and no new shops are permitted to take out licences, the trade will soon be in the hands of a few privileged individuals. So many pretexts can be found for closing down existing establishments that a small ring or Trust of the kind feared would probably be created within a very short period of time.
The procedure laid down by these Regulations is burdensome, and necessitates the payment of a licence fee on each occasion that an individual purchases opium. This will of necessity hamper trade and prevent the free buying and selling of raw Indian opium.
The British firms interested contend therefore that the new Regulations form the nucleus of a monopoly which will place the control of the raw opium trade in the two Kwang Provinces in the hands of a few individuals or in the hands of the Provincial Government itself.
I have the honour to point out to your Excellency that the restriction on trade contemplated by these new Regulations is directly contrary to Article 5 of the Treaty of Nanking, by which the British merchants are permitted "to carry on their mercantile transactions with whatever persons they please." By Article 10 of the same Treaty, "such merchandize may be conveyed by Chinese merchants to any province or city in the interior of the Empire of China," and by Article 14 of the French Treaty of Tien-tsin it is clearly laid down that, "Aucune Société de Commerce privilégiée ne pourra désormais s'établir en Chine, et il en sera de même de toute coalition organisée dans le but d'exercer un monopole sur le commerce.”
I would remind your Excellency that last year an attempt was made at Nanking to create a similar monopoly, and that in this case the Central Government, upon the representations of His Majesty's Minister to the Wai-wu Pu, fully recognized its illegality und ordered the measure to be withdrawn.
I would further remind your Excellency that the Indian Government is co-operating with the Government of China in its efforts to suppress the use of the drug by reducing the annual export of opium from India. This of itself will automatically bring about the total suppression of the import of Indian opium within a period of ten years. It is, therefore, not only contrary to Treaty, but totally unnecessary, to adopt these harsh measures to restrict the sale of Indian opium in Canton.
Under the circumstances, I feel it my duty to bring the protest of the British firms interested to your Excelleney's notice, and to request that your Excellency will give instructions to have the restrictions which have been placed upon the free sale of Indian opium in the two Kwang Provinces by these new Regulations removed without loss of time.
I avail, &c.
0.0.
(This Document is the Froperty of His Britannic Majesty's Government 7
CHINA TRADE.
CONFIDENTIAL.
>
[39933]
(No. 580.)
Sir,
No. 1.
Sir Edward Grey to Sir J. Jordan.
Ra
401 [November 28
SECTION 4.
Foreign Office, November 23, 1908. I HAVE received your despatch No. 484 of the 21st ultimo respecting new Regulations at Canton for licensing opium shops.
I concur in the view contained in the penultinate paragraph of your despatch that it is difficult to object to the Regulations ab initio, and inadvisable, as Hong Kong firms seem satisfied, to take any further action in the matter, if the Canton Viceroy carries out his promise to issue a Proclamation pointing out that his new Regulations only apply to the retail trade in opium.
I am, &c. (Signed) E. GREY.
[2020 -4]
0
(Signed)
H. H. FOX.
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.