§ Mr. THEODORE TAYLORI wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State for India a question of which I have given him private notice. Can he now state the result of the negotiations with China with a view to the early termination of the Hindu-China opium traffic, and, in particular does the new agreement permit China to exclude Indian opium as soon as she can show that her own small remaining production has entirely stopped, and what the estimated quantity of opium in bond in Hong-Kong and Treaty ports which is to be admitted in the next seven clays at the hitherto unlowered rate of duty?
§ Mr. MONTAGUA Treaty was signed with China yesterday, and the summary of that Treaty, which appears in this morning's "Times," may be taken as correct. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative, and, roughly speaking, the amount of uncertificated opium now in Hong-Kong and Treaty ports is about 21,000 chests, so that, on the assumption that that figure is correct, the Indian export of opium to China during the year 1912 will be 18,500 chests, as against 25,500 chests, as it would have been if the uncertificated stock had not been taken into account.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEHow does this change affect the revenues of India, and what provision is to be made to make up that loss?
§ Mr. THEODORE TAYLORHave not the Indian revenues already received as much money as they expected during the nine or ten year period owing to the great reduction of the quantity of opium produced in China?
Captain MURRAYIs any contribution to be made from the Imperial Exchequer towards the burden which will be thrown upon the Indian taxpayer by this treaty?
§ Mr. MONTAGUOf course, the result of the reduction of the output of opium has been very much to inflate the prices winch have been received for opium. During the next seven years, if there is no alteration in the rate of reduction, the revenue received by India from the export and sale to China will have entirely disappeared—a revenue of over three millions sterling. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend, it is premature, I think, for the moment to consider the contribution from 1043 the Imperial Exchequer until it is seen what China does under the new agreement, but I think it is interesting to note the suggestion made by a representative of British taxpayers.
§ Mr. MacNEILLHow does it come to pass that this China Opium Agreement, which is a matter of very great importance, has been ratified behind the back of the House of Commons altogether and that this House now learns of it for the first time?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe method of concluding treaties with foreign countries is well known to the hon Member, and if he has any objection to take he had better address it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
§ Mr. MacNEILLI have asked him often.
§ Colonel YATEIs it the fact that by this Agreement India will be robbed of three millions of revenue so that the revenues of Persia may be increased?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe Government of India have decided as soon as may be to stop the sale of opium to China, and I have received no intimation of the unwillingness of the Indian cultivator and taxpayer to bear his part in this meritorious policy.
§ Colonel YATEHow much revenue will be lost to India and will accrue to Persia by this policy?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIf the hon. Member will study the terms of the treaty when they are available he will see that precautions have been taken that no other supply of opium shall reach China in opposition to the supply from India.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESWill the Under-Secretary give an answer to the question whether it is not the case that India has already received from the opium traffic as much revenue as she estimated she would receive?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think this Debate ought to be now adjourned.