21
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
EPELNIC.O. 882
| | | | | | | |
5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
3. Regarding the Penang farmers whose contract was determined last year
and against whom legal proceedings were taken to recover the estimated damages the Government had sustained through the failure of the farmers, the defendants allowed judgment to be signed against them to the extent of $389,000 and threw themselves on the consideration of the Government. Having ascertained that the utmost that could be recovered was $50,000, I have with the advice of the Executive Council, agreed to accept that sum in full discharge of all the claims against them by the Government.
This sum nearly represents the actual loss sustained by the Government for 1890. The farmers themselves have lost about $450,000 as shewn by their books which were examined by Government officers.
4. The Penang farms have been put up to tenders for three years from the 1st January next: It was not deemed advisable to enter into any arrangements with those who hold the farms until the close of this year.
5. The form of contract has been carefully revised, and the Singapore farmers have bound themselves to comply with any alteration of the Excise law which be intro-
may duced during their extended contract. That law is now being examined and reported on by a committee of members of the Legislative Council. It does not seem likely, I understand, that any radical changes will be recommended.
6. In conclusion I may state that the amount now being received and to be received in respect of the Singapore farms for the extended period of three years, is in excess of that paid during the period of 1886-1888 by $86,000 a year, and that although for this year the Penang farms are let at the rate of $19,000 a year less than that received during the above-mentioned period, there is reasonable expectation that the new contract will show an annual increase of $60,000 to $70,000 over that received during the same period of 1886-1888.
I have, &c.
14670.
No. 21.
LORD KNUTSFORD to Sia WILLIAM ROBINSON (Hong Kong).
(No. 263.)
[Answered by No. 23.]
SIR,
Downing Street, October 31, 1891. THE attention of your Government has probably been called to the debate which took place in the House of Commons on the 10th of April last on the subject of the opium traffic.
2. Speaking on behalf of the Government, Sir James Fergusson said: "The Secre- "tary of State for the Colonies has, I know, expressed his dislike to the farming
system, and he will call upon Colonial Governments to consider the practicability of substituting another system, and by fixing the price of the licenses as highly as possible, thereby reduce the number."
C
K
C
The subject was again brought up in connexion with the Civil Service Estimates on the 13th of July, and attention was promised to the matter.
3. I am aware that when, a few years ago, an attempt was made by the Colonial Government to dispense with the farming system it did not meet with unqualified success, but I shall be glad if you will consider whether it might not be possible to repeat the experiment of placing the opium traffic directly under the Government, or by some other modification of the existing system to diminish the evils of the opium traffic without seriously crippling the revenue.
I have, &c.
KNUTSFORD.
CECIL C. SMITH.
14670.
(No. 264.)
Six,
No. 20.
[Answered by No. 27.]
LORD KNUTSFORD to SIR C. C. SMITH.
Downing Street, August 18, 1891. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatch of the 23rd of June, reporting the steps which you have taken with regard to the Singapore and Penang opium farms, and I have to express my approval of what has been done.
2. In the fifth paragraph of your Despatch you state that the Excise law of the Colony is being, or has been, examined and reported upon by a committee of the Legis- lative Council, and as bearing upon this subject, I would call your attention to the debate on the opium traffic which took place in the House of Commons on the 10th of April last.
"The
44
Sir James Fergusson then said, speaking on behalf of the Government: Secretary of State for the Colonies has, I know, expressed bis dislike to the farming system, and he will call upon Colonial Governments to consider the practicability of substituting another system, and, by fixing the price of the licenses as highly as possible, thereby reduce the number.'
The subject was again brought up in connexion with the Civil Service Estimates on the 13th of July, and attention was promised to the matter.
3. As the farms of the Colony, or some of them, have just been relet, it is clear that no change could, under any circumstances, be made at the present time, but I wish you to consider, and in due course report whether the farming system could be dispensed with or whether the existing arrangements could be modified in diminish the evils of the opium trattic without seriously crippling the revenue.
any other
way so
I have, &c.
Sir Cecil-C. Smith.
• No. 19.
as to
KNUTSFORD.
569.
No. 22.
ACTING GOVERNOR BARKER to LORD KNUTSFORD. (Received January 11, 1892.)
[Answered by No. 24.]
Government House, Hong Kong,
December 7, 1891.
(No. 391.) MY LORD,
I HAVE the honour to transmit to your Lordship, for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure, Ordinance No. 21 of 1891, entitled "An Ordinance to repeal "Ordinances No. 1 of 1884 and No. 17 of 1886, and to amend the law relating to the preparation of opium," and Ordinance No. 22 of 1891, entitled "An Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 22 of 1887.”
CL
2. I enclose copies of the reports by the Acting Attorney General on both these Ordinances, in which are enumerated and explained the various material alterations in the law that have been made.
3. I also annex copy of a memorandum, drawn up at my request by the Colonial Treasurer, who deserves much credit for the manner in which he has studied and made himself thoroughly acquainted with the details of this intricate subject, pointing out the objects with which the principal amendments in the two Ordinances have been made.
The remarks of Mr. Mitchell-Innes, together with the observations of the Acting Attorney General, will, I trust, sufficiently explain the nature of the various amendments, so that further comment on them from me appears unnecessary.
4. In the eighth paragraph of his memorandum Mr. Mitchell-Innes refers to a speech of the Honourable Mr. T. H. Whitehead on the subject of the system of farming the opium monopoly, and I attach a report of the speech for your Lordship's information.
The logical conclusion of Mr. Whitehead's remarks would be, either that the Govern- ment should wash its hands of opium altogether and not interfere with the trade in it in any way (which would necessitate the abandonment of the Agreement of 1886 with the Chinese Government, and tend to make Hong Kong the base of much smuggling into C 3