CO882-(4-5) — Page 404

116

opium eating or drinking. As the Commissioners remark (paragraph 81), the latter habit has in the Straits Settlements been generally assumed to be much more dangerous than opium smoking, but this view is apparently not borne out by the evidence taken in India. The question is touched upon in the Government Analyst's Report, enclosed in your Despatch, No. 322, of 9th August last,* and it might perhaps be well to instruct that officer to make further investigations on the subject.

3. In view of the objections raised in your predecessor's Despatch of 27th February 1893, I am not prepared to suggest, at any rate at present, the abolition of the opium farm system, although it may be possible to introduce some modifications in the working of that system.

4. Generally speaking, the Commissioners make no recommendations for amending the arrangements for the retail sale of opium in India, which they consider “are sufficiently restrictive" (paragraph 194). Those arrangements, which are based on the principle of raising "the maximum revenue from the minimum consumption" (paragraph 33), are described in paragraphs 34-40 of the Report, and I shall be glad to know whether, in your opinion, the system in the Straits Settlements could be improved by adopting any of the rules in force in India-modified, of course, to suit the special circumstances of the Colony-such rules, for instance, as relate to the limitation of the number of licensed shops, the retail price of opium, and the maximuin amount saleable by retail at one time to any individual.

5. As to the limitation of the number of smoking divans, I shall be glad to know, with reference to the fourth paragraph of your Despatch, No. 400, of 6th December last,† what has been the precise effect of the new system, by which the license fees have been increased and the shops brought more directly under Government control, the fees being paid to the Government instead of to the farmer. To what extent has the number of shops been reduced? Has there been any corresponding reduction in the total number of persons frequenting the shops in Singapore, and the other Settlements ?

And do you consider that the license fees could with advantage be still further increased?

6. As regards the retail price of prepared opium, I request you to inform me whether you concur in the views expressed in paragraph 6 of your predecessor's Despatch, No. 60, of 27th February 1893, that it is desirable to retain, at the next letting of the opium farm, the condition which fixes the maximum price at which the prepared drug may be sold. As you are aware, no such condition is enforced at Hong Kong.

7. I should be glad if you would also further consider and report upon the proposal made by your predecessor, that Malays should be excluded from opium smoking shops. In the third paragraph of your Despatch, No. 400,+ of 6th December last, you reported that the proposal to allow only Chinese to be admitted to such places was dropped because it would have had the effect of excluding many Siamese smokers in Province Wellesley. This difficulty might be met, if necessary, as it is met in the analogous case of Burmah, referred to in section viii. of the Report of the Royal Commission on Opium, by providing that "Malays" should be excluded, and only "non-Malays" admitted to the shops. If you consider it desirable to make this change in the law, it should only take effect from the expiration of the term of the present opium farm, so as to avoid any question of compensation to the farmer for loss of trade.

I have, &c.

J. CHAMBERLAIN,

46

117

2. I enclose copy of a Despatch* which I have addressed to the Governor of the Straits Settlements on the subject, and I request you to furnish me with a report upon the various points raised in that Despatch, as far as they are applicable to Hong Kong.

3. I observe that Mr. A. M. Thomson, in paragraph 17 of his answers to the questions of the Royal Commission, which were among the enclosures to your Despatch of 16th January 1894, and which are printed at page 191 of Vol. V. of the Proceedings of the Commission, states his opinion that "the opium smoking divans are a disgrace to the Colony. They should not be permitted at all, unless with great care as to the "conditions, sanitary or otherwise." I shall be glad if you will especially report upon this point, and in connexion with it consider the advisability of adopting the system, which has been introduced into the Straits Settlements, of bringing opium smoking shops more under the control of the Government, by providing that they should be licensed by the Government, and that the license fee should be paid to the Government instead of to the opium farmer. At the same time the license fees might perhaps be considerably raised, as they have been in the Straits Settlements. Such a change, if adopted, should, of course, only take effect from the expiration of the term of the existing farm.

I have, &c.

476.

SIR,

No. 42.

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

SIR C. B. H. MITCHELL to MR. CHAMBERLAIN. (Received January 6, 1896.)

(No. 487.)

Government House, Singapore,

December 10, 1895.

WITH reference to Lord Ripon's Despatch, No. 41, of the 7th February last,+ I have the honour to forward Ordinance No. XIII. of 1895, entitled "An Ordinance to "amend 'The Opium Ordinance, 1894.'

"

2. I also enclose a copy of the Attorney-General's report on the Ordinance.

I have, &c.

Enclosure 1 in No. 42.

C. B. H. MITCHELL.

I, JAMES ALEXANDER SWETTENHAM, Colonial Secretary of the Straits Settlements, do solemnly declare that the Ordinance hereunto annexed is a true and correct copy of the Ordinance No. XIII. of 1895, entitled "An Ordinance to amend The Opium * Ordinance, 1894,'” passed by the Governor and Legislative Council of the Straits Settlements on the second day of December 1895.

Witness my hand this third day of December 1895.

J. A.

SWETTENHAM,

Colonial Secretary,

Straits Settlements.

5559.

No. 41.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN to SIR WILLIAM ROBINSON. [Answered by No. 44.]

(No. 265.) SIR,

Downing Street, November 1, 1895.

WITH reference to your Despatches, No. 63, of 11th March 1893, and No. 11, of 16th January 1894, regarding the consumption of opium in Hong Kong, I desire to draw your attention to the Report of the Royal Commission on Opium, copies of which Lave already been forwarded to you.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

Ordinance No. XIII. of 1895.

An Ordinance to amend "The Opium Ordinance, 1894."

(L.S.)

C. B. H. MITCHELL,

Governor and Commander-in-Chief.

2nd December 1895.

It is hereby enacted by the Governor of the Straits Settlements with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council thereof as follows:---

I. This Ordinance may be cited as "The Opium Ordinance Amendment Ordinance . 1895" and shall be construed together with and as a part of "The Opium Ordinance

• Not printed.

† No. 38.

‡ No. 27.

§ Nos. 29 and 83,

• No. 10.

Q 2

↑ No. 89.

། ། ། ། ། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O. 882

Reference :-

5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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