CO129-457 - Public Offices - 1919 — Page 336

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

C.O

OPIUM.

CONFIDENTIAL.

J

[40380]

25600

327

[March 14.]

RES (REU 28 APR 19

SECTION 1.

No. 1.

Sir,

India Office to Foreign Office.-(Received March 14.)

India Office, March 13, 1919. I AM directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 22nd January last, forwarding copy of a telegram from His Majesty's Minister at Peking on the subject of the Chinese Government's suggestion for an exchange of notes formally declaring that the Opium Agreement of 1911 had come to an end, and in reply to the second paragraph of your letter to forward, for the information of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, copies of two telegrams from the Government of India, dated the 6th and 17th February. Copies of the papers referred to in the latter telegram were forwarded to the Foreign Office with the letters from this Department of the 18th May, 1914, and the 16th May, 1917.

As regards the question of the exchange of notes proposed by the Chinese Government, it will be observed that the Government of India, in their telegram of the 6th February, state that, as they are not satisäed that opium cultivation in China has ceased, they do not consider that the agreement has terminated. It is observed on the other hand that Sir John Jordan in his telegram of the 14th January speaks of the termination of the agreement as a fact, and assumes that the question is one only of the formal recognition of the fact. The difference between the two points of view enforces the objection which Mr. Montagu has taken to the proposed declaration. For a statement that "the Agreement of 1911 has or had) terminated" would be ambiguous and susceptible of two constructions. The Government of India would evidently interpret it in what seems the most natural sense, as meaning that both parties to the agreement had completely carried out their obligations in accordance with the agreement. If this interpretation be adopted, it is to be remarked that if it is not possible now to make the suggested declaration, because the Chinese authorities did not carry out their obligation to suppress the production of opium in China within the time specified by the agreement, it is clear that, strictly speaking, it never will be possible.

There is, however, nothing to show that the above interpretation coincides with Chinese views, or covers all that would be read into the suggested declaration. The Chinese Government appear to have given no reason for their suggestion, and Mr. Montagu cannot but feel that, though the matter may not be of much practical importance, it would be undesirable to place formally ou record a declaration of doubtful significance from which the Chinese Government might conceivably bereafter claim to draw some inference highly objectionable to His Majesty's Government. He would, therefore, suggest either that the proposal for an exchange of notes (for which so far as His Majesty a Government are concerned no reason can be seen) should be allowed to drup, or, if it is thought desirable to follow it up for the sake of the opportunity of protesting against the recrudescence of opium cultivation in China, that the declaration should be reduced to a shape in which its meaning would be clear and unmistakable.

I am also to reply to your letter dated the 10th February, on the subject of the suggested publication of Sir John Jordan's despatch No. 530. While he does not wish to be understood as himself putting forward such criticisms Mr. Montagu feels that, in view of the complicated and often obscure history of the opium question in China in the last few years, a single brief despatch of this kind if published alone would almost inevitably be liable to criticism either as attaching undue importance and finality to the particular phase of the question with which it mainly deals, or as misrepresenting the significance of and the relations to one another of the various incidents recorded, including the steps taken at different stages on behalf of His Majesty's Government. He feels very doubtful, therefore, whether publication would not be more likely to give rise to useless discussion of questions that it may be hoped are now finally disposed of, than to lead to any useful end. If, however, Earl Curzon of Kedleston considers that publication would be to the public advantage, Mr. Montagu will not

[2877 o--1]