8
principle, from which it was obvious that an increase in the price of prepared opium did not involve a breach of treaty, and would have the effect of stopping the smuggling of opium into Hong Kong. The present deliberations on their opium policy were being conducted on the lines of the Governor of Hong Kong's expression of opinion, and would not cause dislocation either to Chinese or foreign opium traffic.
I have the honour to communicate the report of the Opium Prohibition Bureau for your information, and avail, &c.
(Seal of Viceroy.)
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government. ]
OPIUM.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[1143]
(No. 477.) Sir,
No. 1.
132 2764
Pro January 1 28 JAN 10
SECTION 1.
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received January 11, 1910.)
Peking, December 21, 1909. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 313 of the 21st October, and to report the developments which have taken place in connection with the enforcement of the opium regulations at Nanking since my despatch No. 368 of the 6th October was written.
The course of events at Nanking has been practically the same as that at Canton, which formed the subject of my despatch No. 448 of the 2nd instant, and the question at both places really resolves itself into the acceptance or rejection by His Majesty's Government of the Imperial regulations of 1906, The Chinese Government has supported the Viceroys at both places in closing shops which have infringed these regulations by selling opium in retail without a licence, and the foreign merchants have protested against this as constituting an undue interference with the trade and reacting unfavourably, as it undoubtedly does, upon their wholesale operations.
At Nanking the Ho Chun Hong was opened under the auspices of Messrs. Sassoon and Co., who protested against its closure on the ground, amongst others, that the late Viceroy had given an assurance that the regulations would not apply to foreign opium, whether wholesale or retail.
However that may be, the present Viceroy seems determined to enforce the regulations on native and foreign opium alike, and is supported by the Central Government.
Mr. Max Müller, when passing through Shanghae lately, explained the situation verbally to Messrs. Sassoon and Co., who, however, appealed to their rights under the British Treaty of 1842 and the monopoly clause of the French Treaty of 1858. The contentions put forward in respect of these treaties have already been fully dealt with in my despatch No. 12 of the 6th January last.
As, however, the manager of the Ho Chun Hong has been in prison for several months and is reported to be ill, I have several times pressed the Wai-wu Pu to have the man released, giving them at the same time to understand that I would not insist upon the reopening of the shop.
They have so far declined to comply with this request for the reasons stated in a letter of the 10th instant, copy of which I have the honour to transmit to you berewith.
His Excellency Liang Tun-yen, whom I saw again to-day on the subject, promised to telegraph again to the Viceroy at Nanking urging the release of the man, and I shall continue to press for this, but I do not feel justified in offering further resistance to the enforcement of the Imperial regulations of 1906 without explicit instructions from yourself.
While this is being written I have received a private letter from His Majesty's consul-general at Canton, dated the 6th December, in which he states that the opium dealer who was imprisoned for violating the regulations there has been released, and that his fellow-dealers have resumed direct imports. The deadlock, which has obtained there for some months, would therefore seem to be at an end.
I have, &c.
J. N. JORDAN.
شدند
Enclosure in No. 1.
Memorandum communicated to Sir J. Jordan by Wai-wu Pu.
AT a recent interview with the board Sir John Jordan stated that the Ho Chung Opium Hong at Nanking was a partnership with Sassoons and Co., whose Chinese manager had been arrested and imprisoned on account of the enforcement of the regulations for the prohibition of opium. Sir John Jordan stated that he had no
[2606 7-1]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.