THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 2ND MARCH, 1867.
57
Lastly. On the ground that this, being a measure of taxation, should under the terms of Lord Stanley's despatch to Governor Bowring dated the 5th March, 1858, meet with the concurrence of the Majority of the Legislative Council, whereas the expressed opinions of the Majority of the Council were against the second reading of the Ordinance, and the Majority of one vote which appears as the actual result of the voting on the occasion was obtained solely under the pressure of that obligation on Official Members to vote, even against their convictions, for a measure proposed by Government, which places us, and all other non-Official Members of Council, necessarily in a minority of votes on questions affecting the welfare and interests of the Colony and its residents, even though the opinions of the Majority of the Council may be with us and against the proposed Government measure.
Hongkong, 29th August, 1866.
(Signed,) ( (
ܕ,
>
J. WHITTALL.
JOHN DENT.
H. B. GIBB.
His Excellency replies in the following terms; and directs an entry thereof to be made on the Minutes:- REPLY OF HIS EXCELLENCY.
I gladly find myself once more in a position to give this Council and the Community at large such explanations, as I hope may remove many misapprehensions connected with the measure submitted to you for placing your finances on a sounder footing,
I would have done so earlier, but felt it right to accede to the wishes of certain gentlemen, who asked for time to complete a Memorial against the proposed Stamp Bill. Accordingly I first adjourned the Council till last Friday, and on receipt of a further communication from the same gentlemen, adjourned the Meeting to this day.
To make the interval as useful as possible I published in the Government Gazette of the 1st instant the Schedule intended to be affixed to the Bill-a Schedule of that description and extent which from the first I had hoped, and which I should have preferred, to have framed in Council with your aid, after a careful sifting of the items in the Singapore Act. That Schedule has now been several days before the Public, and I am quite ready to amend it still further, if improvements can be suggested.
The Memorial transmitting resolutions against the Stamp Ordinance and presented to me this day has also been some time before the Public-whilst the Protest of three of the non-Official Members of Council, which you have just heard read, was laid before me by those gentlemen a week back. I have therefore the advantage of dealing with both instruments at once, and ascertaining whether either contains reasons, hat should stay the action of the Executive in this matter.
I must here remind you that a Public Meeting was held on the 28th ultimo to get up a Memorial against the imposition of any Stamp Duty, and that previously I had become aware that the intentions of Government were very generally misrepresented and ill understood.
I therefore took at once such measures as placed fully before the Public my intention of raising just as much and no more by the proposed Duty as might meet the probable annual deficit-assumed to be about $120,000. It was also stated that the published Schedule of the Singapore Act would be so modified as to meet the limited requirements of this Colony.
Very extensive circulation was given by the Press to those explanations, but nevertheless they were completely ignored subsequently, by the Meeting, and unnoticed in the Protest.
Hence the value of those documents is impaired, for, I presume that here as elsewhere it is desirable and convenient that parties protesting should know against what they protest. Thus a great portion of both the Memorial and Protest is really irrelevant, and directed against a proposal which I do not make, and which I never did intend to make.
Still through both documents runs a line of argument applicable to any Schedule of Stamp Duties, viz.: the argument that the finances of the Colony exhibit no deficiency of a permanent character- and, if they do, that a Stamp Duty is not the best mode of meeting it.
Before dealing with these points I must advert, to one assertion of the Memorialists-who affirm that "though the proposed Stamp Act was originally given out to be merely a temporary measure to "provide for the alleged deficit of 1867 it appears" from a subsequent statement by me that $120,000 "is fixed as a yearly addition to the Colonial Revenue to be derived from the new Duty.'
72
I regret that such an assertion should be made so lightly, as it almost imputes a breach of faith to the Government for which there is not the shadow of a foundation. I recall to your recollection that on the 25th July I laid before you a statement of the financial position of the Colony and having shown that there had been for some years "an annually increasing deficiency"-I stated it was impossible to permit its continuance, and that there were two modes of dealing with it-by diminishing your Expenditure, or increasing your Revenue. I gave reasons for preferring the latter course, and my intention to ensure such result by a permanent increase of Revenue was obvious from the context, and especially from my recommending a Stamp Duty, the least likely of all taxes to be introduced for one year only. It so happens however that I left no room for mere inferences. I put an end to all doubt by subsequently adding the words "whilst I come here you with estimates necessarily exhibiting a large deficit and a deficit, which there is no reasonable hope of soon seeing disappear, I rely on your 'finding permanent funds to meet that deficiency, &c., §c., &c.”
66