CO882-(4-5) — Page 362

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

5

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

38

some people would say the same of opium; but to condemn the practice while suggesting that the Government should take the monopoly over is very far from being a logical con- clusion, and in view of the Chinese infractions of the law I really do not see any harm in the Government farming out the monopoly. In England I have no doubt there would be a great outcry against it, but we have to remember we are dealing with Chinese, and they do not look upon the matter in the same way. They naturally object to certain restrictions, but these have to be taken to prevent smuggling, and I do not believe if the Government took over the farm themselves, as has been proposed, that we should get more than half the amount that is now paid every year.

Hon. P. Ryrie-My own opinion is that this opium revenue will be taken away from us before long. You will see that Exeter Hall will

go for us. I was told by the late lamented Sir John Pope Hennessy that we should lose it before long, and I think we had better not make too much noise about it.

The Acting Colonial Secretary:-We know that if certain subjects are placed before certain individuals certain remarks will follow. As my hon. friend has said, I suppose if strong drink were mentioned to Sir Wilfrid Lawson we might expect a tirade against it, and if opium is mentioned to certain other people we may expect an oratorical declama- tion against the evils of its use. There are those who hold these views, but I was some- what surprised after the eloquent speech of the hon. member in which he declaimed against the evils of the use of opium and suggested that the Government was degrading itself by associating itself directly or indirectly with this opium, that he should propose to grant the farmer a monopoly for two years. If the whole thing is so very wrong surely the Government should leave it alone altogether. I do not see the logical conse- quence that because the use of opium is very bad and that traffic in it should be dis- couraged, we should therefore grant the farmer a license for two years only instead of three, or the alternative that at the end of two years we should continue the heinous crime of dealing in opium ourselves, having bonded warehouses and charging nothing on opium transhipped to foreign places. As far as local consumption goes the hon. member said he would charge a small duty and that that might go to pay the preventive staff. If that is the only thing we are going to get out of it we should be in the position of acquiring no revenue from the traffic, and Government officials would have to be asked to do the work now performed by the excisemen. We should have all the evils we have now and only receive a very small amount of duty. I do not mean to say monopolies are good things as a rule, but taking time, place, and circumstances into consideration, and con- sidering the people we are dealing with, I think there is something to be said for the system. I would also ask the hon, member to consider whether this is a fitting time to consider this question. There is an American saying that it is a great mistake to swap horses while crossing a stream, and it seems to me a great mistake just when we are about to advertise for tenders to the farm to suggest that that period of the right shall be reduced from three years to two, and so probably discourage tenders. After these tenders are finished with it will be quite time enough to consider whether the license shall be for two or three years, but it seems very inexpedient to discuss this matter now when one contract is finished and we are about to make another. I think the hon. member will admit that the establishment of bonded warehouses would touch a great many vested interests on the raw and that there would be a great outcry from those holding those interests. thing of this sort requires a great deal of consideration and should not be done in a hurry, and I think it is a great mistake to approach this question just as the present farmer's term is expiring and we are going to make a fresh contract.

A

The Acting Attorney-General I do not think that I can with advantage add much to what has been said by the Acting Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Treasurer, but there is one misapprehension which I should like once for all to remove. The hon. member who represents the Chamber of Commerce in his letter, of which his speech was an enlarged exposition, treated the opium question as though it were a purely new question and had come before the Council for the first time. People living in the Colony would not be misled, but people living outside and in England might very easily be led to the serious misapprehension that the Government were going to introduce an opium monopoly for the first time. There is another point on which I think there is some mis- apprehension, and that is the suggestion as to bonded warehouses. The papers here, if I may refer to the papers, or at any rate one or two of them, have referred to the suggestion us if it had never occurred to the Government, and as if it were an entirely new idea which had been made a present to the Government. That is utterly fallacious and The matter has been before the Government time after time, and they have never burked consideration of the question. If in the future the bonded warehouse system or some other system of like nature can be properly worked so as to do away with

untrue.

39

this opium farm, there is no doubt that it will receive full consideration at the hands of the Government.

Hon. Ho Kai :-I may point out that the question is not one of limiting the period to two or three years as the Acting Colonial Secretary seems to suggest. If you look at clause 15 it states that it shall be for any such period as the Governor in Council shall think fit, so that the real question is not whether there shall be a limitation of one, two, or three years, but whether there shall be any limitation at all. The custom here has been for the Government to let out the farm for a period of three years, but under this clause it is quite open to the Governor in Council to let the farm for a considerable period over three years, for 10 years as is done in Macao. I think on that ground alone my hon. friend has done well in calling attention to this clause. Personally I do not object whether the period is limited to two or three years, but I certainly think there should be some limit. I support my hon. friend on general grounds for the abolition of the monopoly altogether. On moral grounds and on economic grounds I also agree with him. I think the Government should have no hand in the collection of a revenue on raw or prepared opium, that the port should be absolutely free. If bonded warehouses are established for opium, wines and spirits may be taxed next. With regard to the evils that exist in connexion with the opium farm, a great many arise from the Government accepting higher tenders from strangers in the Colony. People from Singapore take over the farm, they know nothing of local requirements, and they employ Malays as excise officers, who know nothing about the Chinese, and who are a great cause of the murmur- ing and complaints. I think the amendment proposed a very good one. I am in favour of making the period two years rather than leaving it indefinite.

Hon. T. H. Whitehead: I have no wish to appear obstructive, and if it will meet the wishes of hon. members and your Excellency I will substitute three years instead of two as the period of limitation.

The Colonial Treasurer: Even then I certainly could not advise the adoption of the amendment. So far the practice has been to let the farm for three years, and in all probability three years will be the period proposed this time, but if any good offer for a longer period were made, I have no doubt your Excellency would want a free hand, and I think you should not be tied down to any particular time.

Hon. P. Ryrie: I agree to the alteration to three years, though I would rather see the period fixed at two years.

His Excellency: I think it very undesirable that the hands of the Government should be tied in the way proposed. With the sanction of the Secretary of State there might be good reasons for extending the time. After the expression of opinion, I think it might be left to the Government to do as they think best in the interests of the Colony.

Hon. P. Ryrie: Your Excellency may not be aware that when this question came up some years ago, the then Governor called a meeting of the combined councils, took their opinion, and adhered to it.

His Excellency: Was that on the subject of the length of period for letting the farm ? Hon. P. Ryrie: Yes.

His Excellency: Probably that would be done again if special circumstances arose which rendered it necessary.

The Council then divided on Hon. T. H. Whitehead's amendment.

FOR.

Hon. T. H. Whitehead. Hon. Ho Kai.

Hon. P. Ryrie.

The amendment was declared lost.

AGAINST.

The Acting Surveyor-General.

The Colonial Treasurer.

The Registrar-General.

The Acting Attorney-General. The Acting Colonial Secretary. His Excellency.

Hon. P. Ryrie: The official phalanx again. Hon. T. H. Whitehead: With regard to sub-section 4, which requires the opium farmer to furnish a record of all opium supplied to him, I propose the addition of the words, “and of such further details as may be required.” I think it makes the clause more complete. I have no doubt the Governor has power to call for such details, but I think it might be desirable to have it placed in the Ordinance. I do not wish to move any amendment, I simply offer it as suggestion.

The Colonial Treasurer said he thought the addition of the words unnecessary. The clause as it stood included the terms suggested.

E 4