and we have been haggling over it and trying to get the best terms we can because we want money in this colony. But at the same time we know that to let the Farm at a certain value must be under certain conditions and circumstances, and those circumstances and conditions it is now wanted to alter, and if the Farmers suffer loss—well, they are honourable men and are not going to allow smuggling. Morally speaking, I think that is not the way of looking at the question. I think if we want to be upright and so on we should do away with the Opium Farm altogether or let it under very plain conditions from the very beginning. Say we only demand a certain amount of money and we lay down that only such an amount of opium as will suffice for general consumption in this colony shall be allowed and so much for legitimate export—how much are you prepared to pay for this privilege? But instead of that we allow them a certain quantity; that quantity will perhaps suffice for three or four times the daily consumption of this colony. How are the men to raise sufficient revenue to pay us? Now, we wish to make the conditions as strict as possible, and provide everything against the men. We want, in fact, to be righteous on one hand and get money out of it on the other hand. At the same time the present Farm has nine months to run, and I think it is exceedingly unfortunate for them that they should have those nine months to run. As I said before, their representative did not make it at all clear in what way the damage would be sustained. So far as I am concerned I do not oppose the second reading nor would I be a party to pass this law. There is, however, one suggestion of the learned counsel which has passed without notice, and that is about the quantity of opium. I think there should be a limit of quantity, so that all those on board a steamer who are consuming opium on the voyage should not be liable to seizure. I think that as regards the prepared Opium Ordinance a man must be possessed of over two mace, and as regards dross opium over two taels, before he is liable to a fine. I hope the Attorney-General will consent to putting in a limited quantity.
His EXCELLENCY—You will move that in Committee.
Hon. HO KAI—I mention it now because I have not heard the Attorney-General touch upon it and I did not know whether he would allow it to be done in Committee or not, and so as to give him earlier notice I mention it.
Hon. C. P. CHATER—Sir, I have no arguments to bring forward in this matter, but a request to make. It is that your Excellency would be pleased to agree to a suspending clause being inserted in this Bill, thereby enabling the Ordinance to go home to the Secretary of State with all the arguments brought forward to-day by the learned counsel for the Opium Farmers, so that he will have the whole matter placed before him before the Ordinance is made law. I think if this request is granted it would only mean the delay of another month. We could pass it to-day, and if the Secretary of State was still of opinion that the Ordinance should be passed, then it would only require simple confirmation and the Ordinance would be in force at once. At the last meeting of Council your Excellency told us in pretty plain terms that your instructions were definite, that, whether we liked it or not, by the official majority, if necessary, you must pass this Bill—whatever we may do the Bill has to go through. Consequently I ask your Excellency whether you will be pleased to agree to a suspending clause being put into the Bill so as to enable the whole of the facts and arguments to be placed before the Secretary of State, for I am certainly of opinion that the Secretary of State could not have been aware that if the Bill was passed in its present form, that, sir, by doing what we are doing to-day, it would perhaps place the Government in such a position as to have an action brought against it and perhaps have the Farm, which is let at a very large sum of money—$29,000 a month—at a moment's notice thrown up, thereby causing the Government of Hongkong a loss, a very large loss, to the revenue from that source.
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD—I recorded my vote against the first reading of this Bill on the first occasion as a protest against a measure of such importance being hurried in any way through the Council. I regret, sir, that the Government did not take the unofficial members more into their confidence and submit for their consideration a copy of the petition from the Steamboat Company, a copy of the reply of the Secretary of State, as well as a copy of the despatch from the Governor to the Secretary of State accompanying the petition from the Steamboat Company when it was sent to London. Had this been done, and ample time given for the due consideration of the question, I have not the least doubt that an amicable arrangement could have been arrived at between the Opium Farmer and the Government. I support what the hon. senior unofficial member has said, and I would ask your Excellency to promise that a suspending clause will be introduced into the Ordinance, and, if necessary, arrangements can be made by the letter forwarding the Ordinance to have the Secretary of State's decision wired out immediately the Bill arrives at home. I submit, sir, that it is very necessary that we should not act hastily in a matter which is of such very grave importance to the rate-payers of this colony.
His EXCELLENCY—I understand that the hon. senior unofficial member has in some sense made it a condition that on my agreeing to add a suspending clause to this Bill he will vote for the second reading. I am not at the present moment in a position to give that undertaking. Before doing so I should like to hear from other hon. members—as, for instance, the hon. member who seconded the second reading of the Bill—whether there is any objection to such a course. I therefore cannot agree at present to add a suspending clause to the Bill. When we go into Committee that question will be considered, and at the end of the discussion it will be open for any hon. member to move the addition of a suspending clause, and there will then be an opportunity for other hon. members of Council who may object to state their objections. I do not feel at liberty to give the undertaking at present.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—The only remark that I would make in reply to what the hon. member representing the Chinese has said is that his suggestion did not entirely escape my attention, but my desire was not to go into details at great length, and I thought the matter would come up in Committee. Hon. members may know that there is such a legal maxim as de minimis non curat lex. You may not of course smuggle tobacco into France and other countries on the continent, but if you have a pouch of tobacco it is not laid down that you must not have a pouchful, or that the pouch must be three inches by four in size. They leave the law to be administered with common sense, and up to the present time we have had no difficulty about minute quantities of opium being seized; in fact, we have been told that the Chinese Customs officers do not seize minute quantities of opium in the possession of a man smoking on a voyage, and I do not suppose that there would be the slightest inconvenience in practice if we passed this. It is difficult to say exactly the quantity you would allow to be carried. I do not suppose that the Customs authorities would take any notice of a man who merely had enough to smoke while he was going to Canton or Macao. But these matters can be better discussed in Committee.
The motion was then put and the Bill read a second time without a division.
Council then went into Committee on the Bill. Upon section 1, which enacted that the Ordinance should be read and construed together with Ordinance No. 21 of 1891,
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD moved that the section be struck out, on the ground that it was wholly unnecessary.
There being no seconder the amendment fell to the ground.
Upon section 2, which provided that no person should have in his possession any opium on board any ship, &c.,
Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD—I wish to move that the word "steamer" be substituted for the word "ship."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—This is a matter which I have considered. Why I want the word kept in is because "ship" is used in the principal Ordinance and is there defined as meaning "any steam or sailing vessel, junk, boat, sampan, or any kind of craft used for the conveyance of persons or things by water, or which may be so used." That is very broad indeed. I do not know why anyone should raise...