142
They had little power, other than that of the strike or riot. Such power was to be met not by reason but by force.
Such attitudes influenced the manner in which the Hongkong Government related to the Chinese community in the nineteenth century.
The Telegraph editor implied that the Governor used threats because he was dealing with Chinese, that he would not have treated the Europeans so.
The charge was that “he got out of his depth in a perfect torrent of assumed righteous indignation, because forsooth, a Chinaman had dared to speak in public against a galling ill-considered Government measure. Because a Chinese gentleman of the highest standing had the unparalleled audacity to object to being imprisoned and treated with all the indignities a clumsy policeman, dressed in a little brief authority, delighted to inflict on him for just taking a stroll in the cool of the evening, and because the above mentioned wicked and seditious Chinese arrogated to himself the right of thinking for himself like a man which the Government could not do if it tried — and because this celestial reprobate was so hardened in crime as to actually say what he thought with due moderation, for which under the circumstances, he should have had the highest credit as becomes a man who strives for the right and fights the cause of his unfortunate countrymen, and seeks to protect even the humble coolie from the tyrannical minions of the 'law!'”
Having defended the right of the Chinese to speak out on public questions, and particularly praising the forthrightness and courage of Ho Tung, the editor poured his sarcasm on Hongkong officialdom. He called it “a self-satisfied Government of imported incubuses from the Downing Street Museum of Fossils and Antiquities,” that is, the Colonial Office.
The editor had suggested that the Governor dared only to use threats against Chinese, not against Europeans. He further claimed that it would only be the Chinese who would be punished for their criticism of Government policies.