[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government. 444
OPIUM.
23222 Rece
Rro 28 JUL 10 [July 19.]
CONFIDENTIAL.
[25500]
No. 1.
SECTION 1.
Sir,
Foreign Office to India Office.
Foreign Office, July 19, 1910. WITH reference to the letter from this department of the 13th instant, I am directed by Secretary Sir Edward Grey to transmit to you, to be laid before the Secretary of State for India, the accompanying copy of a despatch from His Majesty's chargé d'affaires at Peking, forwarding a despatch from Mr. Jamieson, His Majesty's consul- general at Canton, together with a translation of the regulations imposing additional taxation and other restrictions on the sale of prepared opium at that port.
Article 6 of these regulations lays down that every tael of boiled opium shall pay a tax of 30 cents. This imposition gives ground, in Mr. Max Müller's opinion, for protest on the part of His Majesty's Legation, as it imposes a heavy additional tax on foreign opium in a treaty port, and therefore infringes the additional article to the Chefoo convention, which, as interpreted by Sir E. Grey, lays down that foreign opium after the payment of duty and l-kin shall be free from all taxation whatsoever in a treaty port. The Chinese Government, it is true, have never accepted this point of view, but Sir E. Grey is not, as at present advised, inclined to modify the attitude taken up by Sir J. Jordan on this subject in 1908-9, nor can he concur in the contention put forward by the Cantonese authorities that the trade in raw and prepared opium is in no way interfered with, and that the opium smoker is the sole victim of the new regulations.
He would, however, be glad, before sending any instructions to Mr. Max Müller, to be furnished with Lord Morley's views on the question at issue.
Mr. Max Müller does not appear to consider any of the other articles as radically objectionable, but Sir E. Grey is inclined to think that the tendency of all of them is to go beyond mere licensing, and that in practice they almost impose restrictions upon our wholesale trade which are contrary to our treaty rights.
Articles 4 and 7 seem to be specially objectionable on this head. It is laid down in article 4 that prepared opium merchants when purchasing raw opinm must enter into a bond to boil down the opium within a prescribed time, and article 7 lays down that time as three days-that is to say, that whereas before the prepared opium merchant was exempt from taxation until he opened the package, he is now compelled by regulation to open the package for the purpose of boiling the opium within three days, and, once open, the opium becomes liable to taxation. This, notwithstanding Mr. Max Müller's view to the contrary, seems to be tantamount to a tax on foreign opium and illegal penalising of British trade.
Sir E. Grey would also be glad to be furnished with Lord Morley's views as to this point.
I am at the same time to transmit to you the accompanying letter from the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce,t giving their views as to the position of the trade in raw opium in Kwangtung.
* Mr. Max Muller, No. 210, June 24, 1910. [2812 t---1]
I am, &c.
F. A. CAMPBELL.
† Not printed.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.