CO129-298 - Governor Sir Blake Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne - 1900 [3-4] — Page 470

469

vernment, should not interfere, and (3) that the largely enhanced fee would bend to kill the small traders, and drive the arms' trade to Macao.

A number of other objections were raised to the

details of the Bill.

4. On the 22nd. of December, the Bill was at the

request of the Chamber of Commerce referred to the t body for its consideration, and on the 10th. of Jamary the Chamber form rded a letter from 9 out of a total of 19 European Dealers in Arms covering a Memorandum on the

subject of the Bill.

It is, perhaps, worth noticing here that none of the British Firms and neither of the two leading German Firms dealing in arms signed the letter in question.

I am not able to say, however, whether the 10

Pirms that did not sign failed to do so by cccident or

by design.

I enclose a copy of the Memorandum for your

inform tion.

5.

al

Ar far as practicable the suggestions made in

the Memorandum and in the speech of the learned Counsel

before the Legislative Council for amendim nts in the

details of the Bill were adopted, but the princip res- trictions which were objected to were retained, and the

Bill was reed a third time and passed on the 5th. of

April, after one amendment, had been moved that it should

not come into operation for 6 monthr, on which the Senior Un-official member voted with the Government, and another

that the fee of $1,200 per annum should not be payable

bill the first of January, 1901, on which Mr. Chater and

Mr. Keswick voted with the Government.

The enclosed report on the Ordinance by the Attorney General explains in what particulars it differs

from

Enel: 2. Printed no date.

Enel. 3.