379

{

Sa 2:1981 225ef? 64-

punishment in the Straits, they should pay in favor rate for them, to be the subject of consideration between the 5.0.9717/ too governments _ and mital that wrangement cost be affected, the existing arrangements should contume in dor, unaffected by any negotiations between the Goots of India and the Straits, to which Hongkong

was not a

The result was that an item

for 1870

any

P.7 of Estimat

679

of $2,163 affeared in the Straits Estimates in 266 of Revenue as a reimbursement recoverable from the Houghong Goot for 62 convicts. as I cannot find that

reconsideration of the subject and taken place, I suffuse that in forwarding this claim to 21July /70 Hongkong, we assumed it to be the " existing arrangement" above referred to In refly, feu! Whitfied very shortly

Such

states that no convicts have been sent to Lubosen the Straits Since 1856_ that Hongkong has no desire to send

any there _ that this is the first occasion on which any claine has been made_ that he cannot recognize its justice, especially as convicts are profitable, rather than costly.

25/7654

If this be 30,

the "exxisting arrangement

is that Hongkong pays, and for a long time. has pard, nothing for her convicts in Singa fore

and

– and I can find no trace of any such payment being made, wither to the office, or to the Straits. I think this point must in the first place be cleared up, and I think we

shoud write to Sir H. Ond to ask when. the last payment from Houghong to the India office was made the basis on white amount was determined. "" fancy that the India Office accent of conte practically abandoned all clarins on Hongkong and took the whole advantage of their tabor. a similar enquiry should be addressed to Hongkong. The records in the Colony should shew the late of the last payment and its proportion to the number of convict

above

But if we discover that no payments have been 30 made, I fear that the

so last clause of our tespatch 20 reporred to, tends to exempt Hongkong frome future liability.

198

on this account

So proved. How the item

placed under the head

retineates

A

Rist

25/11/70

the Shait

head of Revenue in noverathe from Hong Kong unferred

to the cost of convicti sent there popully (as

[eal Whitfield says) but wit later than 1856, and

Umaining

Share This Page