CO129-372 - Public Offices - 1910 — Page 534

2

Moreover, I did not take into consideration the fact that considerable stocks of opium existed in Hong Kong and other places outside of China and India from which the excess import into China could be supplied, as I was unaware of the fact till I read it in the India Office letter of the 9th June, but I shall now take an opportunity of explaining this to the Wai-wu Pu.

I have, &c.

W. G. MAX MÜLLER,

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

530

[August 2.]

SECTION 2

со

25501

RECE

19 AUG 10

OPIUM.

CONFIDENTIAL.

[27719]

No. 1.

Mr. Max Müller to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received August 2.)

(No. 228.) Sir,

Enclosure in No. 1.

Memorandum to the Wai-wu Pu.

SIR ALEXANDER HOSIE is now on a tour of investigation in the provinces with a view to furnish a report to His Majesty's Government as to the present position of opium cultivation in China, and as to the advance made in the matter of suppression during the period covered by the present agreement between the two Governments.

If the result of Sir Alexander Hosie's inquiry is favourable, and shows that China has fulfilled her part of the agreement, His Majesty's Government are prepared to consent to a continuation of the agreement for a further term of three years provided that the merchants engaged in the wholesale trade with China are allowed free trade within the treaty ports, and that the number of wholesale dealers is not arbitrarily reduced.

W. G. MAX MÜLLER.

Peking, July 9, 1910.

Peking, July 15, 196 AS I have reported in my telegram No. 119 of the 11th July, I took the opportunity of my interview at the Wai-wa Pu, referred to in my immediately preceding despatch, to draw Mr. Hu Wei-te's attention to the fact that my repeated representations in regard to the new regulations for the taxation of opium in Canton had produced no effect. My instructions were that a prolongation of our agreement with China was to be made dependent on non-interference with the wholesale trade of the British opium importers in treaty ports, and a strict observance of the rules of the additional article to the Chefoo convention in regard to the taxation of foreign opium. In reply to my repeated protests the Wai-wu Pu had merely forwarded to me a telegram from the Viceroy denying that the regulations imposed additional taxation on foreign opium, and explaining that the procedure adopted is for the control of the native merchants, and that when opium is sold certificates are issued to the prepared opium shops and the smokers, who, after the opium has been boiled, are ordereil to pay I said that these on each tael of prepared opium, foreign or native, a tax of 30 cents. explanations sounded very plausible, but that the upshot of the regulations was that foreign opium was forced to pay in a treaty port taxation beyond that laid down in the additional article.

I said that only the previous day I had received a telegram from His Majesty's consul-general at Canton that the authorities were levying the new tax on purchasers of opium at the time of purchase, in contravention of treaty and of the undertaking given to Mr. Jamieson by the Viceroy. I strongly protested against this procedure, and the board admitted its illegality and promised to telegraph to the Viceroy accordingly. I could not, however, extract from the board any admission of the illegality of the new regulations if properly applied. I mentioned that I had heard that the regulations were soon to be extended to Swatow, and I begged that this should not be done for the present. I have since heard from the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce that the enforcement of the regulations at Swatow has been postponed till the 21st instant. I have informed the officer administering the Government of Hong Kong of the further representations I have made, and have promised to do what I can to prevent the enforcement of the regulations at Swatow.

Since writing my despatch No. 210 of the 24th ultimo, I have received from Sir F. May copies of two despatches which he had addressed to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Nos. 202 and 210 of the 15th and 21st June, which have doubtless been communicated to you by the Colonial Office. Though not agreeing with many of Sir F. May's contentions, I do not consider it necessary to enter into a controversial discussion on his conclusions. I have already given my views on the new regulations in my above-mentioned despatch, and I would add that I agree generally with Mr. Jamieson's criticisms in his despatch to Sir F. May, which forms an enclosure in the despatch forwarded herewith. Mr. Jamieson's remarks as to the absence of any grounds for alleging the existence of any monopoly only bear out what I said in my despatch No. 210 of the 24th June, and I fully share his view that His Majesty's Government can hardly protest against regulations introduced with a view to guarding against fraudulent returns on the part of the opium boiler. I feel, on the other hand, that Sir F. May is justified in maintaining that the obligation to boil down, within three days, all raw opium purchased, constitutes indirectly an additional impost on I may add that raw opium and affords good ground for a determined protest. Mr. Campbell endorses what Mr. Jamieson says as to the Chinese word "chuan,” which he informs me is properly rendered by "tax" in this case and not by "monopoly.",

I have, &c.

W. G. MAX MÜLLER.

[2860 b-2]

B