CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848 — Page 296

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

203

Board

of

Trade

ELF

18. The Opium Farm did not exist until the following year, 1845. See the date of the Ordinance.

The Opium Farm was not the aim of the Europeans (there were Europeans) who farmed it, indeed by Mr. Matheson's statement in 1848 he was a man without capital and therefore had nothing to lose. That he could get redress from the Police Courts is also incorrect. In the Police Records, I find only 2 cases in which the European Farmer applied for the assistance of the law to enforce their rights; one is the case already alluded to: forming appendix 44 No.1946; in the other No.1980 a Chinese was charged with selling Opium without a License; he was convicted, and fined $50; on the evidence of one of the Farmers, and others. Yet Mr. Matheson in No.1949 gives a different account of the obstacles which led to the failure of the speculation of these Europeans, but again he affirms in No.1950 "that were these obstacles removed the difficulties would remain." Such obstacles alone were not sufficient to account for the failure.

I am not aware that any persons were precluded by Government from bringing provisions to Mr. Matheson. I think such a prohibition in the highest degree improbable.

Edit History

2026-05-17 07:31:41 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
203 Board of Trade ELF 18. The Opium Farm did not exist until the following year, 1845. See the date of the Ordinance. The Opium Farm was not the aim of the Europeans (there were Europeans) who farmed it, indeed by Mr. Matheson's statement in 1848 he was a man without capital and therefore had nothing to lose. That he could get redress from the Police Courts is also incorrect. In the Police Records, I find only 2 cases in which the European Farmer applied for the assistance of the law to enforce their rights; one is the case already alluded to: forming appendix 44 No.1946; in the other No.1980 a Chinese was charged with selling Opium without a License; he was convicted, and fined $50; on the evidence of one of the Farmers, and others. Yet Mr. Matheson in No.1949 gives a different account of the obstacles which led to the failure of the speculation of these Europeans, but again he affirms in No.1950 "that were these obstacles removed the difficulties would remain." Such obstacles alone were not sufficient to account for the failure. I am not aware that any persons were precluded by Government from bringing provisions to Mr. Matheson. I think such a prohibition in the highest degree improbable.
Baseline (Original)
203 Board of Trade ELF 18. The Opium Farm did not exist wuhl the following year, 1845. See the date of the Bedinance. The Opinn Ferm was not the Amin of the beropean (there AVOUES 2. Sucopeans) who farmed it, indeed by Mr Mathesons Batement in To 1948 he was a man without VE capital and therefore had nothing That he could get to lose redress from the Police Couds it also incorrect. In the Police Records I find only 2 bases in which the European Farmer applied for the assistance of the law to enforce then rights; one is forming appendis 44 the case already attuded to: In the other No.1946 No 1980 a Chinese was charged with selailing Opium without - & License ; he was convicted, and fined $50; on the evidence of one of the Farmers, aand others. Yet Mrr Matheson in e No 1949. gives a different account of the obstacles which led to the failure of the speculation of these Europeans. but again he affirms in No 1950 "' that were these obstacles removed the difficulties would remain . Such obstacles alone were to account for the failure. Jam not aware that sufficient that any persons acc prebubated by Geveniment prose bringing provisions to Mr. Matheson . I think such a probibition in the higlust degree improbable. : to
2026-05-17 07:31:41 · Baseline
View content

203

Board

of

Trade

ELF

18. The Opium Farm did not exist wuhl the following year, 1845. See the date of the Bedinance.

The Opinn Ferm was not the Amin of the beropean (there

AVOUES

2. Sucopeans) who farmed it, indeed

by

Mr Mathesons Batement in

To 1948 he was a man without VE

capital and therefore had nothing

That he could get

to lose

redress from the Police Couds it also incorrect. In the Police Records I find only 2 bases in which the European Farmer applied for the assistance of the law to enforce then rights; one is

forming appendis 44

the case

already attuded to: In the other

No.1946

No 1980

a Chinese was charged with selailing

Opium without - & License ; he was

convicted, and fined $50; on the

evidence of one of the Farmers, aand others. Yet Mrr Matheson in e

No

1949.

gives a different account of the obstacles which led to the failure

of the speculation of these Europeans. but again

he affirms

in No 1950

"' that were these obstacles removed

the difficulties would remain .

Such obstacles alone were

to account for the failure.

Jam not aware that

sufficient

that any persons

acc prebubated by Geveniment prose

bringing provisions to Mr. Matheson .

I think such a probibition in the higlust degree improbable.

:

to

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.