PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O.
• 882
2
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC. | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
58
1871.
Dol. c.
£ . d.
Aug. 7.
Oct. 9.
Paid interest to Captain Harvey on 200 dollars for 1 month
and 4 days, at 2 per cent. per month Paid interest on 500 dollars for 3 months, at 2 per cent. per
month..
4 40
..
+4
0 19 10
··
35 0 8 30
6 7 17 117 4
40 50
9 2 8
88 20
19 16 11
1.
Paid interest on 150 dollars for 2 monthe 23 days. Nov. 13. Paid Captain Harvey interest on 300 dollars for 4 months,
at 3 per cent. per month..
Total
Whatever may be thought of Mr. Hennessy's communication in other respects it is quite obvious from his own account of matters that he materially assisted in misleading the Directors as to the real state of the mines, and the services of their Manager, Mr. Lumsden.
Mr. Hennessy's allegations about the mines first paying their way; then having a small balance of profit, "being the first profit obtained at the mines for nearly twenty years," like his statements to Sir James D. Elphinstone that Mr. Lumsden was "making large profits for his employers every month," were most erroneous and quite unwarranted by the real state of affairs at Labuan.
If it be true, as stated by Mr. Hennessy, that he and Mr. Lumsden sent home pay bills, showing profits of any kind, this just proves how both indulged in fallacies so mis- leading and illusory. Is it necessary here to refer to the question so forcibly put by Governor Bulwer. "Would it be even safe to assert that the position of the Company was in any way better in 1871 than it was in 1868 ?”
As to the new steamer which Mr. Hennessy states the Directors proposed to call "John Pope Hennessy," the Directors regret that Mr. Hennessy thought it necessary to refer to a matter of this kind in an official despatch. All that was done was this: in one of the Company's letter's addressed to their Manager, Mr. Lumsden, it was stated that it was desired to name the next steamer after Mr. Hennessy. This, however, only shows how much reliance was placed on Mr. Hennessy's glowing accounts of the state of the mines, and of Mr. Lumsden's services in working them, all which led them to believe that a third steamer would soon be necessary to convey the anticipated large output of coals to market.
Mr. Hennessy, in reference to the charges for police, states that one of Mr. Lumsden's first acts on his arrival in Labuan in May, 1868, was to sign a bill jointly with Mr. Morell, the Manager of the preceding Coal Company, for the amount then due for this very service. Well, if he did so, he never communicated the fact to his employers, the Directors of this Company. As stated in the Company's communication to Lord Kimberley of 27th July last, the first intelligence the Directors had of any charge for police was in 1871, and it is to be borne in mind that not one word is stated in reference to police in the contract betwixt the Company and the Government.
Accordingly, on 9th February, 1871, the Directors wrote to Mr. Lumsden as
follows:-
The Directors observe that you have paid a very large sum of money for the first time in the history of the colony for police, and without having informed the Company here, or obtaining their consent to any such payment. The Directors decline to confirm this payment and will not pass it."
The first entry for police in Mr. Lumsden's accounts is under date 21st September, 1870, when there occurs a payment of 2391. 198. 7d. sterling, being from the period from 16th May, 1868, to the 31st December, 1869.
The next entry is under date 20th December, 1870, amounting to 2567. 18s. 6d. sterling for the year 1870.
Latterly, the sums for police were paid monthly.
Now, no explanation was given why the sums for police were kept back for a year and a half and otherwise dealt with in the above manner.
Mr. Lumsden refers to what he calls the "new police" but the Directors do not know what this means although they have heard incidentally that the police were armed men or Koldiers.
The fact that Lord Kimberley on the suggestion of Governor Bulwer, reduced the annual charge for police from 2301, to 871. 10%, is the best proof that the Directors had reason to complain on this head. Mr. Hennessy himself confesses he had recommended that the charge for police should be altogether abandoned.
The fact also that the charges for hospital accommodation were reduced from 1461. 5. to 731. 2s. 6d. is also proof that the Directors had good reason to complain on that head also.
The charges for convict labour are still under investigation, but, from Mr. Hennessy's
59
own statement, it appears that he recommended that the charge should be reduced to 18 cents per man per day, whilst hitherto the charge has been and still is from 25 up to 35 cents per man per day.
This, it is submitted, proves that the Directors had good grounds for complaining in regard to those charges. If, however, all work is in future to be done by contract, as suggested by Governor Bulwer, this matter, in that way, will cure itself.
As to the charge of 1001. yearly for rent, which Mr. Hennessy states he recom- mended to be reduced to a nominal sum, it is so far gratifying to the Directors to be able to relieve Mr. Hennessy from the charge of having made this exaction. But it is somewhat inconsistent with his position in that respect to maintain, now that the rent of the 10 acres of land, which he states were let in connection with the jetty is less than what "one of the Chinese merchants would willingly pay for it." Mr. Hennessy over- looks the fact that the formation of the jetty at this Company's expense would materially enhance the value of ground in the neighbourhood. It is not stated that the Chinese merchant offered a rent before the jetty was made. Mr. Hennessy also overlooks the fact that this Company were bound not only to supply coals for Her Majesty's service at 11. per ton, but (under heavy penalties) to maintain at all times a supply of lighters to put the coals on board. It was "in consideration of the premises Her Majesty for herself and her successors" agreed to give the Company land on certain terms which other parties, not under such obligations, could not expect to get.
It is important to see what this Company were entitled to. They were entitled to- 1st. 1,000 acres of land at the price of 11. per acre.
2ndly. To occupy rent free any land required for roads railroads, or tramways, necessary for or connected with the working or carrying on of the coal mines and premises, or any of them.
Srdly. To occupy ground for wharves, quays, or jetties, not exceeding in all 500 yards of water frontage.
Now, the Directors submit that land for railroads or tramways, necessary for or connected with the working or carrying on the coal mines and premises, or any of them, includes all ground necessary for a terminus, and that it is of no consequence, in con- sidering this right, to say that because the terminus is in the neighbourhood of the wharf, quay, or jetty, the ground so required for the terminus is to be charged a rent, more particularly an exorbitant rent, of 101, per acre.
The wharves, quays, or jetties were not to exceed 500 yards of water frontage, being 1,500 feet. This single wharf, quay, or jetty, is stated by the Colonial Secretary to have a frontage of 400 feet, with a depth of about 200 feet, that is, extending into the water. The Directors do not admit these measurements because their information, obtained lately, is that the jetty extends only 160 feet into the water; that it is 30 feet broad, except at the end, where it takes the form of the letter T, where it is 90 feet broad.
But, in any view, the Directors submit that their statement that the 1001. is charged for a single jetty is substantially correct. They also submit that the bargain for wharves, quays, or jetties, includes "a wharf site," and everything necessary for a wharf, quay, or jetty.
The fact that the Governor for the time being recommended that it should be given rent free is proof that he took the same view of the matter as the Directors take of it.
It is stated by Mr. Hennessy that there was a lease for the 100%. rent for twenty-one years. But the Directors have never seen such a document, and they were no parties to it. Mr. Hennessy refers to my letter to you of date 3rd August last, correcting Mr. Lindsay's statement that he did not believe that the charges for lighterage were ever fixed by the Governor as required by the contract of lease. But after all, the Directors rather think that these charges for lighterage were not regularly fixed. At all events, they wish to know when and where the matter was arranged, and to be furnished with a copy of the agreement. The Directors ask this all the more freely because they believe that the allowances for lighterage hitherto are inadequate to meet the tear and wear and loss on the lighters, several of them having been worn out or entirely destroyed by the heavy gales which at certain seasons prevail at Labuan.
The only other matter requiring special notice is that in regard to the Borneo Mines, which belorg to the Sultan. All that the Directors can state in regard to this is that this Company were to have taken possession of these mines to prevent opposition to the Labuan Mines; but the Company never took possession, and the last account the Directors had of them was an intimation dated so far back as 10th June, 1871, made on behalf of the Sultan, that if the Company did not take the mines he was determined to let them to other parties, who were in treaty with the Sultan for them. The Directors * No. 15.