PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
6
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
142
sumed that if Government thought fit the headman would be ready to vacate his headmanship. When the rent of Pitigal Korale North came on for sale, a village headman made a bid and his bid was accepted. I assumed that he had intended to bid from the very outset, and that he came for that purpose. He may have bid at the suggestion of the Mudaliyar, but there was no indication that he acted under compulsion.
D. The purchaser of the rent of Pitigal Korale North, Simon Fernando, has, in signing the conditions of sale, declared that he is not connected with any arrack rent. If this declaration is proved to be false, he is liable to forfeit Rs. 725. I do not think, however, that he is interested in the Chilaw arrack rent; if so, the fact is not generally known.
Mr. Corea mentioned the fact in casual conversation after the sale was over-not during the sale. (He kept quiet during the sale.)
E. The Kalpitiya and Puttalam Pattu Divisions were at first put up sepa- rately and then jointly, as suitable bids were not forthcoming. The amount realised was only Rs. 1,140. These two divisions are sparsely populated, hence the low figure fetched for the rent.
4. The scheme of toddy taverns for the Puttalam and Chilaw Districts had been discussed with the Government Agent and the Excise Commissioner, and had received the sanction of Government. It provides 66 caddies for a population of 127,255 surely no extravagant provision. It would be rash to say that in all cases the best possible localities have been selected for the caddies, but the actual require- ments of the Districts have been studied as carefully as possible, and any mistakes that have been made can be corrected next year, in the light of further experience. Chief headmen, of course, are apt to minimise the amount of illicit toddy consumed in their own divisions. According to them, the consumers of illicit toddy, as well as the cattle thieves and the whole class of undesirables, are always over the border -in some other District. It is true that the illicit toddy drinking is less general in the Chilaw District than in any other District of the Island, but it exists to a greater or less degree in all divisions of the District. To pretend that it does not is to close one's eyes to the facts.
Puttalam Kachcheri,
34891
June 15, 1912.
(No. 544.)
J. CONROY,
No. 8.
Assistant Government Agent.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.
Downing Street, 13th November, 1912.
SIR,
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 633, of the 17th October,* in which you transmitted a statement from the Excise Memorial Committee with regard to the Excise Ordinance.
2. I should be glad if you would cause these gentlemen to be informed that I am not satisfied that the Government of Ceylon have failed to redeem their pledges with regard to the licensing of toddy taverns, and that I see no reason for the appoint- ment of a Committee of Enquiry such as they suggest.
3. I should also be glad if you would add that, as they will now have learnt, it has been decided that local opinion shall be consulted in the various districts of the Island by means of the establishment of Advisory Committees.
• No. 7.
I have, &c.,
L. HARCOURT.
11413
143
No. 9.
THE ACTING GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
(No. 167.)
(Received 7 April, 1913.)
[Answered by No. 10.]
The Queen's Cottage, Nuwara Eliya, Ceylon,
21st March, 1913.
SIR,
IN continuation of previous correspondence, I have the honour to transmit herewith three copies of a Memorial addressed to you by the Low Country Products Association of Ceylon, on the subject of the new Excise System which has been introduced into this Colony, together with a copy of a report on it by the Excise Commissioner.
2. This Memorial was received in the Secretariat on the 14th January last, and I regret that, owing to extreme pressure of business, it has been impossible to forward it to you at an earlier date. I was unwilling to send it forward without a detailed analysis of the various points made by the Association, and this has necessitated a laborious study of the voluminous correspondence on the subject.
3. In paragraphs 6 to 10 of the Memorial an attempt is made to disprove the inference drawn in paragraph 12 of Sir Henry McCallum's despatch, No. 466, of the 22nd August, 1912, that in the Kurunegala District" the reduction of the number of licensed taverns, far from leading to reduced consumption, resulted in a notable stimulation of illicit sales, to an actual increase of consumption, and to large quantities of liquor being bought and sold in circumstances which released them from all regulation and control" (vide page 13, Sessional Paper XLII. of 1912,† a copy of which is enclosed for convenience of reference).
4. The Memorialists assert in paragraph 7 that "the amount of revenue derived from liquor sales can be accepted as an index of the amount of liquor consumed only if the excise duty per gallon remains uniform, and under no other circumstances." No exception can, of course, be taken to this statement, and Mr. Horsburgh gives illustrations exemplifying the application of the principle. It is, however, clear, as stated by the Excise Commissioner, that the Memorialists in the same paragraph, and in support of their attempt to prove that the statement made in Sir Henry McCallum's despatch, No. 466, of the 22nd August last* is fallacious, use the term "excise duty per gallon as synonymous with the term "amount of rent per gallon." This use is wholly inaccurate and misleading, and Mr. Horsburgh has exposed the weakness of the Memorialists' argument in this respect in his report. I may also draw attention to the fact that, while the of 1897 and 1910, Memorialists make a comparison between the "excise duties "
at the same time they proceed to compare the revenue of 1899 with that of 1903. Their first argument is in effect that the rent paid per gallon rose 100 per cent. between 1897 and 1910, and that therefore the revenue from arrack, if the con- sumption remained the same, should have similarly increased, but that it only increased by 26 per cent. This figure of 26 per cent., however, only relates to the period 1899-1903, and Mr. Horsburgh shows that during the period of 1897-1910 the increase was 126 per cent.
5. In paragraph 7 reference is made to what is termed "a deliberate attempt to reduce consumption by increasing the price of the retail vend," which came into operation just before the year 1899. The Memorialists do not correctly state the object which the Government of that day had in view. The chief object of the Government in adopting the advice tendered by Mr. Ellis in 1897 (vide Sessional Paper XXXI. of 1897,† a copy of which is enclosed for convenience of reference), that the selling price of arrack should be altered from a maximum of Rs. 4.48 to a minimum of Rs. 4.48 per gallon, was to check illicit sales, and to transfer those salos to licensed taverns. Mr. Ellis found that, owing to the restriction placed on the price which could be charged for arrack when sold in quantities of not less than a gallon, the renter made a very much smaller profit than he made when he sold by the glass. He was, however, compelled to sell a very large proportion of his arrack in gallons, because his taverns were so far apart that in many cases his customers had
↑ Not reprinted.
• No. 4.