J
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
OPIUM.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[34581]
No. 1.
[August 16.]
SECTION 3.
Sir,
India Office to Foreign Office.-(Received August 16.)
India Offes, August 15, 1912. WITH reference to your letter dated the 26th July, 1912, on the subject of the restriction of direct opium shipments from India to Macao, I am directed to forward, to be laid before Secretary Sir Edward Grey, a copy of a despatch from the Government of India on the general question of restricting the exports of uncertified opium.
I am to say that the Marquess of Crewe would be glad to receive any observations
on the letter that Secretary Sir Edward Grey may wish to offer.
It may be remarked that the question of prohibiting or restricting the direct export of opium from India to a particular country, whether at the request of the country or on the ground that the traffic is mainly for contraband purposes, is distinct from the question of fixing a limit to the aggregate amount of opium which may be exported during the year to all countries other than China. With regard to the latter question the limit for 1913 has not yet been fixed. With regard to the former question, the Marquess of Crewe has already accepted the principle that if any country prohibits or restricts the import of opium, export of opium from India will, on the application of the Government. concerned and in co-operation with it, be prohibited or restricted to a like extent.
A copy of the Government of India's letter has been communicated to the Colonial Office.
Enclosure in No. 1.
I am, &c.
R. RITCHIE.
39
Government of India to the Marquess of Crewe.
My Lord Marquess,
Simla, July 18, 1912. OUR attention has been drawn to the telegram No. 120, dated the 29th May, 1912, from His Majesty's Minister at Peking to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which a copy was forwarded with Sir Thomas Holderness's letter dated the 7th June, 1912. In that telegram Sir John Jordan remarked, referring to the smuggling of uncertified Indian opium into China, that "the remedy seems to lie with the Government of India.'
2. We are deeply sensible of the debt which India owes to the firm advocacy by Sir John Jordan of her legitimate claims, and to the zeal with which he has endeavoured to insist on the performance by the Chinese Government of its treaty obligations. We are aware that at the present time the situation is such that his task is particularly difficult, and we can understand that the smuggling of uncertified opium is a factor which must tend still further to increase his difficulties. We are very reluctant therefore to take exception to any remark made by Sir John Jordan on the merits of any part of the opium question. Nevertheless, we feel unable to allow the above statement to pass unchallenged. We should regard it as most unfortunate if it should appear to your Lordship that the efforts of Sir John Jordan are in any way hampered by the acts or omissions of the Government of India, and we feel that we must firmly repudiate the notion that we are either responsible for, or able to remedy, the smuggling of Indian opium into China.
3. The nature of the particular measure which Sir John Jordan would like us to apply will be gathered from the following sentence in his letter No. 220, dated the 9th May, 1912, to the Foreign Office. "The fact that seizures of uncertificated opium are being made is sufficient proof that its annual export from India, reduced though it was to 14,000 chests in 1911, is still in excess of the requirements of nou-Chinese markets, and I cannot urge too strongly the desirability of reducing the export to the actual needs
[2604 q-3]
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.