248
had been heard saying as he left: “Anything more idiotic than a public meeting in Hongkong I never saw." The editor felt the whole affair had been a ridiculous farce reflecting little credit on the common sense of the community.
It was also reported that the published account of the meeting upon which I have based my account gave but "a faint idea of the vast amount of meaningless talk and the playing at cross purposes which took place."
The paper was particularly critical of Mr. Ryrie's refusal to have a recount on a disputed vote. It pointed out that he himself had spoken in support of the motion, then when the vote on the motion he had supported was challenged, he paid no heed to a request for a recount or a statement regarding the number of votes cast.
The editor graciously excused Mr. Ryrie from "a desire to catch a vote by a trick, rather than to hold the scales fairly and impartially." He believed that “in the case of Mr. Ryrie, whose love of fair play is proverbial, it is impossible to draw such an inference, and we are driven back on the supposition that the extraordinary course he adopted was due simply to testiness of temper."
The news writer regretted that Bishop Burdon's suggestion of a committee to consider plans was not adopted. He viewed as remote the possibility that the next meeting would arrive at a definite opinion regarding a memorial. A committee would have been able to give considered deliberation to each scheme, as it was, he said that "a scheme would likely be adopted by a 'flukey' vote."
Not only Mr. Ryrie but also Mr. Crow came in for criticism. In the 1880s there were strict social divisions in Hongkong. Stepping out of one's place upset the social order. One newspaper correspondent intimated that Mr. Crow had been presumptuous in speaking out at the meeting to propose his suggestion for a memorial.
At public meetings it was customary that resolutions and remarks were made only by well-established community leaders.