701
THE HUNGKUNG GUVERNMENT GAZE I IEȘ
EMBER, 1980.
intended for entertaining rooms. So far as the Trustees were concerned, he was, himself, most anxious that this grant should not be withdrawn, and he still hoped that His Excellency might yet be induced in the Supplementary Estimates to insert the vote now withheld. He thought the difference between His Excellency and the Committee was now reduced to a very small matter indeed. It was only, as far as he could make out, the mention of the name of the Chinese. He had it on the word of his honourable friend (Mr. KESWICK) that no respectable person, Chinese or otherwise, who applied to the person in charge for admission to the Museum at any hour of the day when it was open, save and except Saturday forenoon, when it was reserved for Chinese women and children, would be refused admission. If this was the case he saw no occasion for any mention of nationality. He saw no reason why the same notification should not be put up as was in the Library. He had reason to believe that of late no respectable man had, as a matter of fact, been refused admittance except during the time reserved for Chinese females. He did not see why the sum of $1,200 should be kept back from being expended in such a useful manner, upon such a mere matter as this mentioning of nationality. On principle he had the same objection as His Excellency to any distinction being drawn. Then the question came to be, who was to give way? Was it to be the Committee or His Excellency? His opinion was that the Committee should give way. His Excellency was the head of this Colony and representative of Her Majesty the Queen; and on such a point as this, where almost nothing, hardly anything was involved, he thought the Committee with a good grace might give way.
the
Honourable NG CHOY stated that as the subject under discussion concerned the Chinese commu. nity, he thought it was incumben, on him, with His Excellency's permission, to make a few remarks. Being an annual subscriber to the City Hall, he had lately received a pamphlet containing the corre spondence that had passed between the Government and the City Hall Committee with reference to the Museum notice, but until he had just heard some documents read by His Excellency, he (Mr. NG CHOY) was not aware that the notice was altered after the departure of Sir RICHARD MACDONNELL. Now, the notice put up at the door of the Museum, modified as it was, was to this effect,--that the forenoon was set apart for the Chinese and the afternoon for those persons who were not Chinese. And at the end of the notice there was this proviso,--that any respectably dressed and well-behaved person could gain admission to the Museum at any time on application to the Curator or person in charge. He would ask, since any respectably dressed person could visit the Museum, what necessity there was to retain the dis- tinction of nationality? Although the matter was not practically of much importance, he considered a great principle was involved in the question. He had been abroad, and while there he had visited mary public institutions, but he had never seen such a notice as this. The reason the City Hall Com- mittee gave for making that distinction, was to prevent a collision between the lower class of Chinese and the corresponding class of other nations. But in the Public Gardens, which were open to all alike without distinction of nationality, he had never heard there had been a row between Chinese and Euro- peans. But if the principle of class distinction was to prevail, where was it to end? It might apply to the Public Gardens and other public places of this Colony; nay, you might as well apply it to the public roads, by setting apart one side for Chinese and the other for Europeans. He thought, therefore, there was no valid excuse for drawing the distinction in the Museum notice. It had been said that the Chinese had never objected to the notice. But that was not true, because the Chinese did complain about it. If reference were made to the Chinese newspapers, it would be seen that articles had been written bitterly complaining of this invidious notice. As he said before, the matter involved a great principle, and he would venture to ask the honourable member on his right (Mr. KESWICK) and the other members of the City Hall, if they would like to see such a notice put up, supposing they them-* selves were Chinese? If they did not, then why did they put such restriction on the Chinese? He was sorry if he said anything that might hurt, the feelings of any member of the community, but he deemed that, sitting there as a member representing the Chinese community, it was his duty to make the remarks he had made, and he would not be worthy of the seat he had the honour to occupy if he did not speak out what he conceived to be right and say what he thought he ought to say.-(Applause.)
The ATTORNEY GENERAL.-Your Excellency, I will not presume to say much on this matter. but I have been so far acquainted with the history of it, having had many of the
of the papers connected with it under my notice since I have been in the Colony, that I think I may be able to say one or two words on the question as it stands on these papers and has been brought before us to-day. I cannot help thinking that in the report presented to the annual meeting of shareholders there are one or two features which make it particularly incumbent upon a member of the Executive who has an opportunity, as I have here to-day, to take a part, or at all events not to shrink from taking a part, in the discussion which has arisen, because names of great weight, and names entitled to great respect are introduced and their views are referred to, not very fully, but they are referred to in a way which might almost raise the suggestion that Your Excellency, in insisting upon this great question of principle-as Your Excellency has explained it, and as my Honourable friends Mr. RYRIE and Mr. No Cuor have put it-is standing alone or in some sense separated from the Executive and other persons of high standing in the Colony. Now, the question which has arisen with regard to the administration of the City Hall is, as Your Excellency has pointed out, primarily a question of good faith. I won't go so far as to say it is a question simply of precise contract, but it is a question, having regard to the document on which the City Hall grant was originally made and to the minutes