CO129-381 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1911 [11-12] — Page 275

Extract from the Hongkong Daily Press of the 10th and 11th of Novecuber 1911.

Meeting of the Legislative founcil held on the 9th November 1911.

Hon. Ma &a. Hewitt. The text point to

which I wish to refer is with regard to the com- pensation received from the Imperial Govern- ment for loss of opium revenne. In the first year we received £9,000; this year I under- stand we received £12,000, and next year to receive a similar sum, making in all a sum of £33,000. This eaunot by any man er of means be considered by the unofficial members as satis- factory. We had a sort of half promise from the Imperial Government in carrying out the policy forced upon us and forced upon them by a more or less catch vote-that we should receive substantial compensation. We have had to fare a very heavy loss, roughly, from $200,000 to $300,000 a year, which will go on increasing, and all they have given us is the miserable pittance of $340,000 in full satisfuc- tion of the less forced upon the Colony. This is unreasonable, and we want to make the strongest protest against such prasimonious treatment on the part of the Home Gov- ernment. Those people who rightly or wrong- ly" considered the closin of the divans was going to stop the opium habit were acting largely on sentiment and a very imperfectknow- lede of the details of the case, and I think they should have the courage to recommend to the Home ratepayers at least that this Colony should receive adequate compensation for adopt- ing policy which was forced upon us. I ran only repeat the statement made by Sir Frank Swettenham that the case

so for 38 the Home Government is concerned is !

our morals and other people's money."

2

Hin. Dr. Ho Kar-Sir, I wish to express my general concurrence with the hon member representing the Chamber of Commerce in his criticism of the Budget speech, but I cannot quite agres with him on some small particulars, especially in his strictures on the architects of the Post Office and the law Courts. Nor can I quite agree with him with regard to his re- marks on the policy of the Imperial Government in suppressing the opium trade. Although I quite agree with him and the other unofficial members in thinking that the compensation granted to us by the Imperial Government is far from adequate to the loss we have sustained or will sustain through that policy, yet I never was one to oppose the most enlightened and liberal policy of the Imperial Government in their endeavours to assist (hina in putting down the evil habit of opium smoking in hor vast empire

C 0261 1:0

on

His Excelluicy. WThe Hon. fember wh| 12 spoke first raised the question of the contribu tion given by the Imperial Government on behalf of the loss to this Colony opium. A copy of this debate with the Views expressed by the hon. member, as also these expressed by the senior unofficial membor, will, of course, be sent to the Secretary of State in due course. Personally, I fam bound to say frankly that I do not fully share the views which the hon. member repre- senting the Chamber of Commerce has express- ed, because I think it is the duty of a British colony to support British poliny, and I do not think it is dignified for a colony of this size and requisade to be suing in forma pauperis for additional grants. Zet us look at the facts. The first as regards the general trude in spium. The country of export and the country of import together agree to restrict a certain line of goods. The middleman naturally suffers. He has had ten years notice. Surely the exporter and importer are perfectly free agents, and if pressure is brought to bearon the exporter

importance

it is for him to protest, and not the middleman,? A s

to the restrictions on the import of uncertified opium The average amount we received for the licence of opium divans was $1,755, and the somewhat reduced tender we received the Opin Farm this year was ascribed to the clos- ing of the divans, though I think there may probably have been other cans's as well. The Toporial Government has for three years given us almost exactly balf of our loss. This year the amount we lost only seentete $11,764. I do not consider that ungenerous. If, later on, further restrictions are imposed on this Colony and the Imperial Governmout does not give any farther asssistance, it will be time enough then for as-te-raise an outery. I can recollect hearing in a previous debate more than one member say- ing that this Colony supported the policy of the Imperial Government.Y

they were imposed

at the request of

the merchants their selves to there

Con le no grisoan

Grissance on that score.