469
vernment, should not interfere, and (3) that the largely enhanced fee would bend to kill the small traders, and drive the arms' trade to Macao.
A number of other objections were raised to the
details of the Bill.
4. On the 22nd. of December, the Bill was at the
request of the Chamber of Commerce referred to the t body for its consideration, and on the 10th. of Jamary the Chamber form rded a letter from 9 out of a total of 19 European Dealers in Arms covering a Memorandum on the
subject of the Bill.
It is, perhaps, worth noticing here that none of the British Firms and neither of the two leading German Firms dealing in arms signed the letter in question.
I am not able to say, however, whether the 10
Pirms that did not sign failed to do so by cccident or
by design.
I enclose a copy of the Memorandum for your
inform tion.
5.
al
Ar far as practicable the suggestions made in
the Memorandum and in the speech of the learned Counsel
before the Legislative Council for amendim nts in the
details of the Bill were adopted, but the princip res- trictions which were objected to were retained, and the
Bill was reed a third time and passed on the 5th. of
April, after one amendment, had been moved that it should
not come into operation for 6 monthr, on which the Senior Un-official member voted with the Government, and another
that the fee of $1,200 per annum should not be payable
bill the first of January, 1901, on which Mr. Chater and
Mr. Keswick voted with the Government.
The enclosed report on the Ordinance by the Attorney General explains in what particulars it differs
from
Enel: 2. Printed no date.
Enel. 3.