the present, farmer from the date of its purchase to the
declared and a permit to store obtained", and as Mr. Clementi was able to trace every tael of opium bought by Memoranda Page 3 of F.Lugard's opium
Page VII
Memo. with
25273 para
L
date of its sale", it should not be impossible to
ascertain the loss sustained
-
whilst we have the auth- ority of the Straits Opium Comission for the state- ment that "opium consuption varies inversely with the price".
If this suggestion is accepted we might put it, to the Governor, and so, whilst giving a ruling on the divans, reserve the farmer's compensation for a final decision.
The larger question of policy will, I take it, stand over until the Straits Opium Report has been considered and until the present Hongkong farm expires, Scalso will the financial question.
But there remains to be decided the question
of publication of Sir F.Lugard's Memorandum,I think it should be avoided, if possible, because
(1) it deals largely with matters which are (or will be) under discussion by the International Commission. (2) it discloses on Page 9 what would be held to be the official policy of the Hongkong Government
(3) it contains the suggestion for non-abolition of divans, which, I assume will not be accepted.
I presume that Colonel Seely will wish some reference made in our reply to paragraph 10 of the confi dential despatch of 27th October which deals with his speech in the House of Commons on July 28th last.
894 2/12.
1st Foot-
to Page 81 Sir F.Lug {report.
Till The Internation Commisvin complated it h
Hansard pag
1259.
His Majesty's Governmetnt will presumably not be con-
vinced by this extraordinary despatch so far as te
reverse the decision that the dens mast be closed.
In that case it seems to me useless to adopt a piecemeal
policy. If only a few of the dens are elesed their patrons
will doubtless take to frequenting these that remain
⚫pen and nothing will have been effected. Unless the
declared policy is to be reversed the only rational
course is to close all the dens.
That brings up the question of opspensation. But here we
get little help from Sir F Lugard wke has entangled
kimself in a centradiction. Either the closing of the
dens will decrease consumption and se cause less to the
farmer or it will net decrease consumption and therefere
the farmer will net lese. Either point of view is tenable
but betk cannot be held at ence. Before considering
the question of compensation it seems essential to decide
between these alternatives and this can only be done
by experience. I submit that the right course is te
inform the farmer that the divans are to be closed at
•nce; that in consideration of this change in the cireus-
stances the Govt is willing te relieve him of his contract
if he likes but will net pay him anything for less eff
expected profit! ir, an the other hand, he wishes to
keep sp his contract he can de se but ne compensation
will be paid his unless he can shew that he has sustained
less by reason of the closing of the divans. He sust
For Jamage
prove this by an action before the Supreme Court.
This measure may seem drastic but I think it is perfectly
equitable.
*
Hong Kong will not like it but they will be
soothed if H.M.G undertake to pay a considerable part
of the damages. It seems desirable te knew now how much
H.M.G are prepared te de in that direction.
283077-
W. & S. Ltd.-16679-6000--10-07.
-1979-6000-4-08.
T
Page 90Page 91