Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎163r] (325/442)

Supply {Committee) 10 July 1912 Foreign Office. 2012
sustain the thinly-veiled slavery which we
know from evidence, which I do not think
is so flimsy as has been suggested, has
been revealed. The hon. Member oppo
site considers the planters are kindly and
just. I should not be surprised if their
kindness and justice is enforced by the
rhipocerous hide generously applied, as it is
generally shown by their landing the very
small proportion of indentured labourers
who go back to the mainland, in a penni
less condition, on the margin of the coast,
thousands of miles from their homes. I
only venture to suggest that there is a
great responsibility upon us which, I am
sure, the Foreign Secretary will not over
look. I wish more especially to refer to
the opium question and the position which
it occupies at the present moment in China.
A few days ago there appeared in the
“Times” the following communication:—
“ The Chinese Foreign Office has received a communi
cation from the British Government warning China of
the possible consequences of the continued infringe
ment of the opium agreement by the provinces whereby
the sale of Indian opium is interfered with and the
trade prospects of Indian opium dealers are jeopar
dised.”
A rather neat comment is appended by the
correspondent of the “Times.” He
says:—
“ The Chinese do not take seriously warnings of this
kind, and believe it impossible that Great Britain would
delay recognition of the Republic when it is asked on
the ground of Republican opposition to the Indian
opium traffic.”
I fear, and I am expressing a fear held
by many, that the great opium crime of
last century, which has poisoned our rela
tions with China for over half a century,
should again be an evil influence at the
commencement of a new regime in China ;
and I would emphasise the fact that, so far
as this House is concerned, it is not merely
a question between the revenue of India
and that of China. The Foreign Office, act
ing under the instructions of this House in a
Resolution passed on 30th May, 1906, was
instructed to put an end as soon as pos
sible to the conditions that were then
existing. What occurred in 19071 The de
cision to take ten years to right the wrong
is within the memory of the House, as is
also the Conference at Shanghai and The
Hague Opium Conference. With regard
to the latter, the indication was that the
opium question had assumed an interna
tional aspect. It is recognised now to be
a deadly evil by half a dozen nations, and
we no longer can possibly pursue the sel
fish course wffiich w'e adopted during the
last century. It is less possible
than ever for us to force this
traffic upon China even during the tem
porary period when we are seeking to
bring it to a close. The argument founded
upon the poor Indian taxpayer* has rather
lost its force during the last year or two,
seeing that a great surplus revenue, owing
to the rise in the price of opium, has really
given the Indian revenue almost as much
in a year or two as was expected to be re
ceived during the whole ten years. The
new agreement which "was come to in May,
1911, recognises the sincerity of the
Chinese Government and their pronounced
success in diminishing the production of
opium in China. Yet this very agreement
was made an instrument for forcing into
China, in advance of the instalments’
agreed upon, quantities of uncertified
opium. Now again we are told that there
are larger stocks, and opium speculators
apparently desire the British Government
to back their speculations and put pres
sure upon the Chinese Government to en
force and encourage wholesale buying and
to discourage the local authorities putting
impediments in the way of retail trade and
opium smoking. I trust that pressure
from this quarter will not lead the Govern
ment to reverse its policy. Our declared
object is to end the opium traffic from India
to China, and I take it that every effort Of
the Chinese Government to stop smoking
and retail trade should be looked upon as
an act of good faith in support of our
policy. We recognise their right to take
measures to check the retail trade. The
treaty contained the following paragraph:
“The foregoing stipulation shall not derogate in any
manner from the force of the la ws already published, or
hereafter to be published, by the Chinese Government
to suppress the smoking of opium and to regulate the
retail trade in the drug in general.”
Yet we find, when these measures are
taken, representations are made to the
central Government that such measures
taken by the local authorities are injuring
trade. A special effort was made at Hang
chow a few weeks ago. The Chinese au
thorities decided to vigorously stamp the
opium vice out of the city and the pro
vince, but the British Consul objected to
this action and telegraphed to the Minis
ter at Peking. It was claimed that it
would be an indirect hindrance to British
trade and therefore contrary to the treaty,
although they do not stop the foreign
opium coming into the Province, yet if they
close up native Chinese shops the British
opium will have no sale, and so there w r ill
be a hindrance to British trade. Part of
our agreement with China rests on the as
sumption that she is going to put a stop to
the traffic, and where she has stopped it