10.
11.
Harbour Master and Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & company, Limited had asked that the opium dump Agreement and certain other papers should be laid on the table, and the Governor in replying stated that he was quite aware that there was ground of Complaint from Messrs. Jardine's point of view, that the Government had under consideration an Ordinance intended to meet the desideratum Messrs. Jardine desired, and that the first reading of such Ordinance was done at hand (see book).
On the 28th February 1890, no such Ordinance having been brought before the Legislative Council, your Petitioners wrote to the then Colonial Secretary asking when it would be introduced (see book) and having received no reply to this letter your Petitioners on the 3rd May 1890 wrote to the then Acting Colonial Secretary pressing the subject and asking for definite reply (see book).
On the 8th May 1890 the then Acting Colonial Secretary replied that a bill on the subject was in print and would be very shortly introduced into the Legislature (see book).
12.
13...
14.
Nothing however was done on the part of the Government, so far as your Petitioners know, and accordingly on the 8th September 1890 Petitioners again wrote to the then Acting Colonial Secretary respectfully asking the Government definitely to state its intentions in the matter (see book).
The Acting Colonial Secretary's reply can be found in the book.
Eventually some effort was made by the Government to deal with the question and a bill was read for the first time at a meeting of the Legislative Council held on the 24th July 1891 Consolidating and amending the laws relating to raw and prepared opium. This bill is printed in extenso in the Hongkong Government Gazette of the 26 July 1891 at page 628 and the following pages.
By this bill a slight measure of relief would have been granted to your Petitioners. For instance all Opium with regard to which any offence under that Ordinance was committed might be seized and forfeited and if it was seized on board either of your Majesty's ship and was not on the manifest of such ship it was not to be delivered to the opium Farmer. The relief however proposed by this bill would have been far from adequate inasmuch as it did not enact that opium found on board a vessel and which was not on her manifest might be seized and confiscated even though accompanied by a certificate from the Opium Farmer, which it, your Petitioners submit, is the protection to which they are fairly and reasonably entitled.
This bill however was withdrawn the reason for this being given by His Excellency the Acting Governor at a meeting of the Legislative Council held on 7th October 1891 in the following words: "The Opium Ordinance which was read a first time shortly before our vacation circumstances have since shown the desirability of continuing to keep separate as heretofore the law as regards raw and prepared opium respectively which it was proposed by the bill to amalgamate The Bill will therefore be withdrawn and two new ordinances will be at once introduced dealing separately with these two matters."
17.