CO129-382 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 313

2

"Peking Daily News" of the 13th instant, and furnished to that paper by a correspondent who signs himself. "Z. X." and states that it has recently been sent to His Majesty the King by the Chinese people. The names of the signatories are not reproduced, but there must be many among the 400,000,000 of China whom they purport to represent whose interests and tastes lie counter to the object of the petition.

I have, &c.

J. N. JORDAN.

311

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

OPIUM.

CONFIDENTIAL.

[378]

No. 1.

[January 17.]

SECTION 1.

Sir,

Foreign Office to Colonial Ofier.

Foreign Office, January 17, 1911.

I AM directed by Secretary Sir Edward Grey to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant, forwarding a copy of a despatch from the Governor of Houg Kong respecting the illegal enforcement of certain opium regulations by the Canton Viceroy and their detrimental effect upon the Colony of Hong Kong.

I am to state in reply that, as Mr. Secretary Harcourt is no doubt aware from a perusal of the Opium Confidential Print supplied to your department, the question continues to engage the serious attention both of the Foreign Office and of His Majesty's Legation at Peking. As recently as the 20th December last, in a telegram addressed to Sir John Jordan respecting the sudden change of attitude on the part of the Chinese Government regarding the proposed extension of the three years' arrangement for a further period of seven years, stress was laid on the right of the Government of India to insist that the provisions of existing treaties respecting the import of opium into China and to freedom of trade should be strictly observed by China, and that, if she desired to modify those provisions, she must proceed in the usual way by negotiation with the treaty Powers. Sir John was at the same time instructed, in informing the Wai-wu Pu of the objections entertained to their action, to make it clear that, pending the resumption of negotiations on the basis of our recent proposals, His Majesty's Government would insist on the strict observance of treaty rights.

As regards Sir F. Lugard's criticism of the action of His Majesty's consul-general at Canton, Sir E. Grey is of opinion that Sir John Jordan's despatch No. 445 of the 10th December, copy of which was sent to you in my letter of the 4th instant, offers a satisfactory explanation of that official's proceedings, and that the belief entertained by the Government of Hong Kong that Mr. Jamieson has acted in opposition to the view taken by His Majesty's Minister and the Foreign Office is based on a misapprehension. Whilst accepting as substantially accurate the view that the action of the Chinese authorities has greatly interfered with the opium trade at Hong Kong, I would draw your attention to Mr. Max Müller's despatch No. 214 of the 29th June last, in the last paragraph of which he reports that there appeared to be little doubt that Messrs. Sassoon and other dealers had artificially raised the price of opium at the Government sales in India and had imported larger quantities of the drug to Hong Kong, Shanghai, and other ports than appeared warranted by the demand in the market.

F. A. CAMPBELL.

I am, &c.

[1857 r—

-1]