CO129-362 - Public Offices - 1909 — Page 776

*

C.0.

774.36184

This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]

CHINA TRADE.

CONFIDENTIAL,

[36698]

No. 1.

(REGE 3 NOV 09

[October 4.]

SECTION 3.

(No. 340.) Sir.

Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received October 4.)

Peking, September 17, 1909. WITH reference to my despatch No. 228 of the 24th June, I have the honour to enclose a despatch from the acting British consul-general at Canton, reporting that certain regulations for the control of the opium trade had suddenly been enforced in a manner which threatened seriously to interfere with the wholesale trade in foreign opium.

As this sudden activity on the part of the Canton Opium Prohibition Bureau appeared to me to affect adversely the legitimate interests of the importers of foreign opium, and to be opposed to previous assurances of the Chinese Government that the wholesale trade of foreign opium should not be interfered with, I addressed a note to the Wai-wu Pu, copy of which I have the honour to enclose.

I have, &c.

Inclosure 1 in No. 1.

J. N. JORDAN.

(No. 97.) Sir,

Acting Consul-General Fox to Sir J. Jordan.

Canton, August 26, 1909. I HAD yesterday the honour to telegraph to you that the sudden enforcement of certain of the new regulations for the control of the opium trade by the Opium Prohibition Bureau, involving the arrest and imprisonment of a Canton dealer and a purchaser of raw opium, had caused a cessation of imports of Indian opium into Canton and a serious decline in prices in Hong Kong.

I added that the bureau proposed to levy an additional tax on both raw and prepared opinm, and that I was protesting to the Viceroy against this interference with the wholesale trade, in accordance with the instructions contained in your despatch No. 39 of the 17th June last.

I have the honour to enclose copy and translation of my despatch to the Acting Viceroy on this subject, and copy of a letter received this morning from Messrs. David Sassoon and Co., of Hong Kong.

While I have informally urged the Viceroy's secretary, Taotai Su, to endeavour to obtain the release of these men, pointing out the serious consequences that are likely to ensue from their detention, I have refrained from officially demanding their release, as the Chinese authorities, even although they have allowed the clause in the regula tions (section 2, referred to in the proclamation of the 18th May, 1909, enclosed in my despatch No. 58 of the 28th May, making it illegal to purchase opium without a permit) to remain a dead letter, are undoubtedly within their rights in enforcing it.

I have confined myself to protesting against the dislocation of the Hong Kong opium business, which has been caused by this sudden action on the part of the Prohibition Bureau.

As regards the proposed tax on raw and prepared opium, I have reminded the Acting Viceroy that such a tax, if levied on the raw opium in its original package, is contrary to treaty, and, if levied on prepared opium, that such levy can only be imposed under instructions from the Wai-wu Pu, and with the consent of His Majesty's Minister in Peking (see legation despatch No. 8 to Canton of the 7th May, 1906).

I am informed that the new tax will take the form of a levy of 13 taels on every ball of raw opium (one ball = circa. 48 tacls weight) and of a further 4 mace per tacl weight on the ball when prepared. As a 48-tael ball of raw opium produces about 28-8 taels of prepared, the second tax will amount to about 11:50 taels per ball, in all 25.50 taels per ball.

[2470 2-3]