CO882-(4-5) — Page 403

سلسالسا

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

C.O. 882

5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

I have, &c.

RIPON.

15611.

114

No. 37.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON to Sm C. B. H. MITCHELL.

(No. 341.)

SIR,

[Answered by No. 38.]

Downing Street, October 19, 1894. I HAVE the honour to inform you that Her Majesty will not be advised to exercise Her power of disallowance in regard to Ordinance No. 9 of 1894 of the Legislature of the Straits Settlements, entitled "An Ordinance to consolidate and amend the law for "collecting a Revenue of Excise on Opium and the preparations thereof," a transcript of which accompanied your Despatch, No. 245, of the 7th of August last.*

2. I observe, however, that the amendment introduced in s. 11 of this Ordinance does not fully carry out the instruction contained in paragraph 4 of my predecessor's Despatch, No. 139, of 8th May 1891+, since under s. 19, which is substantially a re-enactment of s. 13 of the Ordinance of 1870, as amended by the Ordinance of 1884, the master of a ship arriving with chandu on board in transitu would be liable to penalty and forfeiture of the chandu for having the chandu in his possession, custody, and control.

I request you, therefore, to introduce an Ordinance amending s. 19, by expressly excluding from its operation chandu on board a ship arriving at a port in any settlement as sea stores or as part of her cargo carried for importation at some port not being a port of the Settlement.

3. In Sir Cecil Smith's Despatch, No. 60, of 27th February 1893, it was proposed that the law should be amended by providing that only male Chinese should be admitted to the licensed opium shops, and I observe from the Government Gazette of 16th February last that the present Ordinance as originally drafted would have made it an offence to knowingly permit "any person other than a male Chinese to smoke chandu in "a farm shop," but in the Ordinance as passed, the words "a male Chinese altered into "an adult male." I shall be glad to know why the Legislative Council

made the above alteration.

14

are

4. I have hitherto deferred answering the above-mentioned Despatch from your predecessor pending the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on Opium, but, as regards one point raised in that Despatch, namely, the question of the limitation of the number of licensed opium shops, I desire now to say, without at present ex- pressing a final opinion on the subject, that I should be glad to learn that you propose to make some reduction in the number of licensed shops in the settlement of Singapore. The number last year amounted to 471, as against 132 at Hong Kong, although the Chinese population at the latter place is, or was prior to the outbreak of the plague, considerably greater than at Singapore,

115

entered into his contract under the Ordinance as it passed the Legislative Council, might consider that he had a fair claim to compensation, and I would, therefore, suggest that the amendment should staud over till the time arrives for re-letting the farm.

3. In paragraph 3 your Lordship refers to the alteration of the words "a male Chinese to "an adult cale." This amendment was carried in committee of the Legislative Council on the 22nd June on the motion of Mr. Donaldson, who referred to representations made by the farmer that sub-clause (e) as it stood would restrict his trade, because, especially in Province Wellesley, there were many Siamese smokers.

4. Although the number of licensed opium shops in Singapore as compared with Hong Kong is very large, this can be accounted for to some extent by the fact that in this settlement there are no less than five races of smokers, while in Hong Kong there is only one, viz., Cantonese. The circumstances in Hong Kong are also different. In Singapore the opium shops are small, accommodating only some 10 or 20 smokers, while in Hong Kong these shops are two or three storeys high, and furnish sleeping benches for over 100 smokers. The same distinction may be made between Singapore and l'enang, as the houses in the latter settlement, although fewer in number, in proportion to population, than in Singapore, have larger sleeping accommodation. It may be expected, however, that, with the increased fees for licenses, the number of farm shops will decrease.

I have, &c.

333.

No. 39.

C. B. H. MITCHELL,

The MARQUESS OF RIPON to SIR C. B. H. MITCHELL. [Answered by No. 42.]

(No. 41.)

Downing Street, February 7, 1895.

SIR,

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatch, No. 400, of the 6th of December last, and to inform you that I see no sufficient reason for post- poning the amendment of s. 19 of the Opium Ordinance, 1894," proposed in my Despatch, No. 341, of 19th October last,† until the time arrives for re-letting the opium farm. I do not consider that it would injuriously affect the opium farmer's rights, since s. 11 of the Ordinance already purports to exclude all chandu în transitu from his control.

2. I request you, therefore, to introduce the amending Ordinance without delay unless you wish to address further observations to me by telegraph.

3. As regards the other points referred to in your Despatch under acknowledgment, I will address you further when the Report of the Royal Commission on Opium has been issued.

I have, &c.

RIPON.

333.

No. 38.

SIR C. B. H. MITCHELL to the MARQUESS OF RIPON. (Received January 7, 1895.) [Answered by No. 39.]

(No. 400.) MY LORD,

Government House, Singapore, December 6, 1894.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's Despatch, No. 311, of the 19th October,§ in which Her Majesty's approval of Ordinance IX. of 1894 is conveyed.

2. In accordance with paragraph 2 of that Despatch, I have had an amendment drafted on the lines proposed by your Lordship for the purpose of excluding from the operation of s. 19 of the Ordinance chandu on board a vessel in transitu as sea stores or as part of her cargo carried for importation at some port not being a port of the Settlement. If, however, such an amendment were now passed, the farmer, who has

‡ No. 27.

§ No 37.

• No. 36.

↑ Not printed.

5559.

SIR,

(No. 352.)

No. 40.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN to SIR C. B. H. MITCHELL. [Answered by No. 43.]

WITH reference to the Governor, No. 60, 27th February 1893, Governor, No. 36, 12th February 1894. Governor, No. 70, 8th March 1894. Governor, No. 245, 7th August 1894. Secretary of State, No. 841, 19th October

1894.

Governor, No. 400, 6th December 1894. Secretary of State, No. 41, 7th February

1895.

Downing Street, November 1, 1895. correspondence noted in the margin," relative, to the consumption of opium in the Straits Settlements, I have the honour to invite your attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Opium [C. 7723], copies of which have already been forwarded to you.

2. You will observe that Sir W. Roberts, M.D. [Memorandum on the General Features and the Medical Aspects of the Opium Habit in India, App. to Report, pp. 99-119], has not come to any definite -conclusion on the question, whether opium smoking is more harmful or less barmful than

• No. 38.

U 74470.

↑ No. 37.

- † Nos. 27, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, and 39.