took considerate pains in the debate to
show that the amount of the grant should
not be fixed till something like an accurate estimate of the loss to the Colony
was framed. He now argues that he may be "in doubt" as to the proportion of the sum which H.M.G. will ask Parliamentary sanction
to defray." And he hopes that the
contribution (whatever it may be) will be annual for some time.
The actual promise made
was that
as a result of
on 43471/08. "H.M.G. recognize that as a result
of giving effect to their policy, the Colonial
Revenue must suffer a loss....
on their
part
they
will
be prepared
to act under Para 45
to find
a
substantial contribution towards
making good to the Colony the revenue which it is found to have lost as the direct
result of measures adopted under their instructions
I quote this in full since
a
good deal
of
others was laid in debate on the
direct loss that will be caused to
the Colony by the suppression of the traffic
56 It is clear that the prosperity of Hong
Kong will be injured in other ways by the loss of revenue from the Opium farm. My point is that H.M.G. have promised to
allow for and make good a substantial contribution to defray loss from the
direct loss
of
the
farm
and I should like to
offer
that
necessarily
in view of the wider loss, which will be large in view of the importance of the opium traffic, the contribution from Imperial funds should be equivalent to the whole of the loss on the revenue from opium
the
I gather from p.146 of the debates that Sir W. Meigh's view is; though for my own part it is conceivable that a difference of opinion might arise as to what losses could properly be ascribed
directly
to the question of continuing the grant
I cannot find in the papers any definite statement; but I feel that it will be in a bad
position to come, and argue for some
Page 14
(1768)
'60 0009 'L-1801 'M' 'V '80/11 0009 '92--2006 M (0681)
the
Open
the
time to come, and argue for some