CO129-373 - Public Offices - 1910 — Page 205

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

OPIUM.

CONFIDENTIAL.

[34462]

0.0.

31429

[September 23.]

RECE

SECTION 1.

Ara

13.00 10

No. 1.

204

Messrs. E, D. Sassoon and Co. and Messrs. David Sassoon and Co. to Foreign Office

(Received September 23.)

Sir,

9, Fenchurch Avenue, London, September 22, 1910. WE have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, and note that Mr. Max Müller is pressing for a reply to his original protest against the enforcement of the recent opium regulations at Canton. We beg leave to point out, however, that this matter has now been on hand for several months without apparently any tangible result having been achieved, and at this rate of progression many months may yet elapse before a settlement is arrived at. May we urge that under the circumstances His Majesty's chargé d'affaires at Peking may be instructed to press matters to an early conclusion, or failing immediate settlement, insist upon the suspension of the tax and regulations pending a definite arrangement ? otherwise it is clear the Chinese will delay the settlement as long as possible so as to secure as much revenue as they can at the expense of British merchants.

We have received this week from Hong Kong a copy of a letter written by Mr. Jamieson, His Majesty's consul-general at Canton, dated the 16th August, giving particulars of un interview with the head of the Opium Prohibition Bureau, who was accompanied by two of the acting governor-general's foreign secretaries. From this letter we learn that the Chinese state the various cases of seizure and interference with transit-pass opium' have arisen out of the fact that those in whose charge it was were not holders of the requisite permits authorising them to handle opium, aud proceedings were taken against them on that ground." Mr. Jamieson continues : Against this principle that the officials can say who shall and who shall not handle opiùm, and under what conditions, I could not see my way to raise objection."

In expressing himself thus, Mr. Jamieson clearly overlooks the fact that the Wai- wa Pu have admitted that the tax and regulations are illegal. The opinion is gaining ground that Mr. Jamieson's attitude from the beginning is entirely responsible for the present trouble, and that had he at first shown more firmness and a greater sympathy towards British merchants' interests, the question would have been satisfactorily settled long since. As an instance of the firm tone adopted by the representatives of other Powers we extract the following from a letter dated the 26th ultimo, received this week from our Hong Kong house, viz., "You will be interested to learn that some opium was shipped lately to Canton through a French firm, under the protection of the French consul, and sold by them, and the drug was allowed to go to the interior without the levy of the new tax, whereas opium purchased from other sources continues to pay the illegal tax."

Mr. Jamieson in his letter of the 16th ultimo, referred to above, writes that when one of the foreign secretaries asked if some modus vivendi could not be suggested, he (the consul-general), without committing himself officially, said that "an extension of the time limit (for boiling) would to some extent remove from the levy the stigma of being, in effect, nothing but a direct impost on foreign raw opium. They then went away,

," he continues, "prepared to consider an extension of the boiling-down time to six months.'

This suggestion, in our opinion, should never have been made, unofficially or otherwise, as it will only tend to delay a settlement. Whether the time limit for boiling is ten days or six months, the tax will be collected from the raw opium dealers as hitherto, and the trade will remain paralysed. We regret having to record the opinion that, so long as Mr. Januiesou deals with these negotiations in so half-hearted a manner, a satisfactory result is likely to be long delayed.

In view of the fact that the Chinese authorities have admitted the illegality of the new impost, and yet hesitate to rectify matters, we beg to suggest, for the consideration of His Majesty's Government, that, as the Chefoo Convention has been broken by the Chinese, pressure might he brought to bear by a threat on the part of the British Government to withdraw the benefits granted to the Chinese Governmbut by that convention.

[2890 %-1]

1