CO129-363 - Public Offices & Others - 1909 — Page 109

2

anxious to shorten the ten years' limit." He then refers to Yunnan as a test case. This province is emphasised by Sir J. Jordan in his letter to you of the 30th September, 1906 ("China No. 1 (1908)," p. 2), as being specially difficult. Yet Sir A. Hosie mentions that "the 21st January, 1909, is fixed on by the viceroy as the date on And he adds: which both the cultivation and consumption of opium must cease.'

If this herculean task succeeds it is not unlikely that the time limit will be reduced in other provinces," We have reason to believe that the task has succeeded. missionary in Yünnan, Mr. H. A. C. Allen (and we are much gratified by the way in which your officials in China have used and trusted the missionaries in this matter), writes in April last: "The poppy has practically ceased. It was beyond the guess of But our late viceroy the most sanguine that it could disappear in so short a time. ruled with a strong hand and the thing was done."

A

It is noteworthy that this energetic governor has since been promoted. The Province of Shansi is also reported by a correspondent of the "Times," on the authority of a British official sent to investigate, to be entirely free.

an

In view of the above facts, we venture to suggest that China is in no need of such incentive" as you think the ten years period provides, and that her energy and aspirations should, on the other hand, make the British Government willing to shorten the time limit.

2. The satisfaction of China with the Ten Years' Limit.-We have noted these official expressions of approval, but are led to believe on the testimony of men well acquainted with Chinese ways, that they are largely the outcome of that excessive politeness which is a well-known characteristic of the people. No doubt China is pleased with what has been agreed on. She knows that it is not so long ago that she would have applied for such a concession in vain. She may well be both surprised and gratified that after these many years of controversy, the British Government should show that the resolution of Parliament, declaring the trade to be morally indefensible, no mere academic opinion, but that it has been accepted by them as the principle which is now to dominate their policy and has led them to accept the ten years' arrangement. At the same time from the facts we have mentioned, it seems evident that China herself is eager to shorten the period, and would welcome a corresponding move on your part.

3. The Revision of the Treaties.-You say in your reply to the memorial that "His Majesty's Government are bound to uphold British treaty rights." We would are altogether, respectfully submit that this principle has limitations. If the "rights

or largely, on the side of only one of the contracting parties, surely the sooner a change is made the better. Only thus amongst nations can that sense of justice be main- tained which you, Sir, recently in addressing the journalists of our Empire, rightly designated as the chief characteristic of the rule which enables us to hold our great dependencies. It is, we think, true historically, that the treaties both of Nankin and Tientsin, the former entered into at the close of what is truly called the opium war, were agreed to by China because of her felt impotence, after encountering the might In 1877, Sir Thomas Wade, referring of Western arms, to come to any other terms.

to Sir R. Alcock's proposed revision of the Tien'tsin treaty which was rejected by Calcutta because it added 20 taels per chest to the opium duty, wrote thus, "This It was the first instrument affecting rejection added greatly to our difficulties.

Why British trade that had not been extorted from the Chinese by force of arms." then should not a revision of the treaties of 1842 and 1858 be attempted now, so that China may be given by the treaty Powers a similar right to deal with opium as these Powers have lately given her to deal with morphia ? That some change in the existing system was deemed not unlikely, is implied in your telegram to Sir J. Jordan of the 4th January, 1908 ("China No. 1, (1908)," p. 29), where a possible proposal of the Chinese Government to obtain the right to impose direct restriction on import of Indian and other opium in treaty ports by convention with treaty Powers, is mentioned. A revision is not therefore a mere counsel of perfection, and that it is not far from the region of practical politics is indicated in the bringing forward of a resolution by America at Shanghae, which, if it had been passed, would, when carried into practice, have necessarily resulted in the proposal which we advocate.

the

We are accordingly brought to the inevitable conclusion that the only obstacle in way is the finance of India. But we would once more remind you that again and again the House of Commons has declared that the money thus got is through a trade which is "morally indefensible." The issue at root is therefore a moral one. question of "revenue v. righteousness or justice," and we are convinced that in such

It is a

3

a case a Christian nation should, not by degrees but at once, sacrifice revenue so that it may be exalted by righteousness. We have pledged ourselves to do what we can to help China in this matter. The Shanghae Commission, representing twelve countries, has given her unanimously a certificate of "unswerving sincerity " in her efforts. But the first official report from Peking says explicitly that "Whether she can obtain the goal she seeks without Government control of opium, both native grown and imported, is somewhat doubtful. At present she is debarred from doing so by the treaties" ("China No. 1 (1908)," p. 32). Surely it is not too much to ask that you, with your well-known sense of justice, should make an effort to give China the right which she alone of all nations is deprived of. She has again and again sought to establish this control at Canton ("China No. 1 (1908)," p. 28); also at Nanking ("China No. 1 (1908)," p. 26), at Chefoo (“ China No. 2 (1908)" p. 8), and in Kiang-si ("China No. 2 (1908),” p. 11), and in every case the opium merchants-British subjects, but not of British race-have appealed to British authority, and China, conscious that she is not yet strong enough to set aside the treaties--as we, in similar circumstances, would not hesitate to do-has been compelled to yield.

We cannot but think that the position of His Majesty's representatives in China must be felt by them to be very anomalous when they are thus constantly compelled to put in force the provisions of treaties which confessedly stand in the way of that reform which we have promised to help China to accomplish. We trust you will excuse us for entering at such length into this matter, on the ground that our object is to assist and strengthen you in it. Public opinion in Scotland is progressive on this subject. So long ago as 1859 the Edinburgh Merchant Company petitioned Parlia- ment against the traffic, and we are confident that if you saw your way to take action along the lines we have indicated, you would have the approval of the great majority of the electors of all parties.

We have, &c. (On behalf of the Committee),

DUNCAN M'LAREN,

Chairman of Executive.

P€×vu, "LEL"d;}n; 24, 2

108