Circular N. 4142 of the Territorial Department Revenue from the Officiating Secretary to the Government at Bombay Castle, Charles Edward Fraser Tytler, to the Resident in the Persian Gulf [‎12v] (14/44)

[ 4 ]
Regulation prescribes the conditions and restrictions under which the retail sale is to be
15 1 have accidentally discovered in the course of this inquiry, that ihe retail sale of
opium is differently regulated in Gu^erat and in the Deccan. In Guzerat any Native* may
obtain a license to self opium on payment of a fee of Rs. 20 for twelve months. In the
Deccan however, the exclusive right of selling opium within certain limits is disposed of by
public auction to the highest bidder, for a similar period-t I do not know under what autho- ^
rity this difference has arisen, and it may be as well to inquire.
16 The usual effect of imposing high duties on a valuable commedity in great demand
was soon experienced. An extensive contraband trade in opium sprung up, and an entrepot
for the illicit trade was established at the Portuguese settlement of Demaun, in the vicinity
of Surat, at which place several thousand chests of Malwa opium were annually imported,
chiefly by the circuitous route of Sciude, from whence it was exported direct to China. The
continuance of this trade would have been fatal to our opium monopoly, and with the view
of counteracting' it, in 1830 it was found necessary and expedient to relax the restrictive
system imposed by Regulation XXI. of 1827, on the sale and purchase of opium produced
beyond the limits of the Presidency The name given to each of the three divisions of the territory of the East India Company, and later the British Raj, on the Indian subcontinent. of Fort \\ illiam, and to admit ol the direct passage ami
importation into Bombay of opium the produce of Malwa, under permits, for ultimate ex
portation by sea. Accordingly Regulation XX., dated the 17th November 1830, was passed,
rescinding Sections I. and II. of Regulation XXI. of 1827, as far as related to Malwa opium,
and making it lawful to import such opium into Bombay for exportation by sea by the
direct route 'from Malwa, under a rowana or pass, in consideration of such amount of fee as
Government may from time to time deem expedient, instead of the ordinary duties leviable
under Regulation XXI. of 1827. All Malwa opium unaccompanied by a pass, or any quantity
in excess 0 of that specified in the pass, is still subject to the duty imposed by Regulation
XXI. of 1827, which, in fact, with the above exception, remains in lull lorce up to the
present day. , . ™ ,
17. Under Regulation XX. of 1830 no opium except that produced in Malwa can be
protected by a pass. In 1841 it was decided that opium produced in Scindia's districts in
Kandeish must be treated as all other opium not the produce of Malwa, that is, be liable to
the duty of Rs. 12 the Surat seer. In April 1841 a Persian merchant residing in Bombay
applied for permission to import opium from Bushire, on payment of the usual duty on
each chest of 140 lbs. He was informed in reply that Regulation XX. of 1830 applied only
to Malwa opium, and that opium imported from Bushire would be liable, uudei Schedule A
of Act I. of 1838, to a duty of Rs. 24 per seer of 80 tolas' weight. In both these cases the
heavy rate of duty demanded was tantamount to prohibition.
18. The Honorable Court of Directors The London-based directors of the East India Company who dealt with the daily conduct of the Company's affairs. have justly observed, (despatch to the Government
of Bombay in the Revenue Department, dated the 28th February 1844,) that *' the price which
we can expect to obtain on our passes must be regulated by the cost which the merchant
would be compelled to incur by the selection of other routes by which our territory is avoided,
as for instance that through Kattiawar to the sea coast, or that through Rajpootana and the
Punjaub into China, via Leedakh" ; and the same authority have stated in the same despatch,
that " it is desirable on every account to maintain the price at the highest amount which
experience may show can be levied, without forcing the trade into other channels." Very
nearlv the same principle had been enunciated by this Government in 1841, when the po
litical authorities in Guzerat were required by circular dated 21st January 1^41 to
report whether the pass-fee could not be increased " without a diversion of the traffic in the
drug into routes over which it is difficult to establish an effective system of control."
* Vide the petition of an inhabitant of Kaira, praying for a refund of the fee, the party licensed having died, and
the Collector's report thereon, dated the 23rd March And 27th April 1841.
f Vide petition from an inhabitant of Indepore, and Collector of Sholapore's report thereon, dated the 24th
March and 22nd April 1841.