October 25, 1909.]
•
to
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT. they enjoy. I have listened with much interest, to the speech of the hon. member on my left (Hon. Mr. Osborne) on that most difficult sub- ject, subsidiary coinage. I hesitate at any time to speak on any subject without most careful preparation. I hesitate in particular to speak off-hand pn a subject of such extreme difficulty and delicacy, and I do not propose to say more than this-Without committing myself to the hon. Mr. Osborne's scheme I may say he has put the argument for the necessity of redemption in a new light. The view that if we issued new coin we should be called upon by a strong moral claim to redeem the old has always checked my ardour in the direction of advocating any such step, but after having heard what the hon. member has said I am not prepared to say that we are morally compelled to redeem. I would prefer to recon- sider the matter. As one of those who have consistently advocated inaction, I am opposed to the critics who freely blame the Government for their Fabian policy. I consider it particularly unfair that the Government should be thus blamed. I cannot conceive how they could have done anything. The Government cannot conceivably regard the information received from the British Minister at Peking except as authoritative. If the British Minister at Peking encourages your Excellency in the hope that China is really about to reform, is really sincere in her desire to fall into line with modern methods, and in those promises of reform of which we hear so much, then I don't see how you can take a line of your own. It is only on the assumption that the Chinese Government will really do nothing that this Colony would be justified in taking a line of its own. I am one of those who consider that we
in this Council in the debate on the Estimates over the fate of the Clock Tower. One speaker was very anxious that it should be taken down and thrown into the sea. Another suggested that | it should be removed from its present position and set up at Blake Pier. Whereupon a certain man wrote
the papers
and urged that it was a great pity to remove the Clock Tower, as it served as an ancient landmark, A newspaper controversy then set up, and the Government were afforded an opportunity of having the question tested by public opinion as expressed in the local papers. The main contention of those who advocat- ed its demolition was that it constituted an obstruction to traffic. Some said it was ugly and on that account ought to go. Your predecessor was not satisfied that the Clock Tower constituted an obstruction to traffic, and I have been told that he went down to an
office near
to the place and watched the traffic, so that he could form his own judgment as to whether the allegation was true or not. The result, I have always understood, was that he considered that no such serious obstruction was caused as to justify the demolition of the old Tower. At any rate, the Governor, then, was satisfied that the upholders of the old landmark had the best of the argument, and he said that as long as he remained here the Clock Tower would stand. Consequently I was much surprised to see early this year a letter in the newspapers written by the Colonial Secretary in forming the editors of the local papers that the Government had decided to remove the Clock Tower as soon as the new Post Office was ready to receive the clock. That did not seem to me at all a proper thing to do. There had been no new public discussion. The matter had been pre-should be extremely careful not to erect any viously decided by public discussion and there was no ostensible reason for re-opening the question at all. Since then I have been told that the reason which chiefly guided the Government in this case was economy-that the Colony having spent nearly seven lakhs on the Post Office could not possibly find the money to put a new clock there. The reason why those who helped to save the Clock Tower five years ago did not come, forward and object probably was that at present, while the hotel is being rebuilt and the hoarding round it crosses the road halfway, the Clock Tower does constitute an obstruction to traffic. now ask that the question be allowed to stand in abeyance until the hotel is finished and until the Post Office is removed to its new dwelling. It will then be possible to see whether there really is any obstruction to traffic or not. I deny for my own part that the old tower is ugly. That of course is only my opinion, and possibly it does not impress you very much, but I derive support from the fact that in the opinion of the architect who design- ed the building referred to this afternoon, that of Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co., admittedly a beautiful building, a credit to him and to the Colony, the Clock Tower in not ugly and does not deserve on that account to be destroyed. As regards the remarks made by
the hon. member who represents the Chamber of Commerce on the subject of the military contribution, the nn- official members do not see eye to eye in this matter. The hon. member has renewed his pro- test against the idea of this Colony being called upon to pay a fifth of our revenue. He said that we pay too much. I don't agree with him. I will not say that we might not ray too much some day if our revenue were to in- crease fourfold. I understand that at present we only pay about one-fourth of the cost of the garrison-
HIS EXCELLENCY-Slightly over that. Hon. Mr. STEWART-If our revenue were to increase four-fold we would pay the whole of the cost of the garrison, and that manifestly is unjust. Therefore, I renew the suggestion which was put forward last year that some new method of reckoning is called for. Last year your Excellency told us that you had in con-. templation some such scheme and that you were about to refer it to the Secretary of State for his approval. I presume, as we have heard nothing more about it, that his approval was not forthcoming. The point I want to make is that I don't consider the taxpayers of this Colony pay too much at the moment for the security
|
barriers between this and Canton. Commercially speaking Hongkong is part of China, and to cut ourselves off by ever so little from the freest possible intercourse with Canton would be in my view of our special circumstances extremely risky, and it can only be justified by the very strongest need, so that as long as there was any hope that China was going to reform her currency our Government were wise to do nothing. Apparently that hope is still held out. Your Excellency said only fortnight ago that His Britannic Majesty's Minister had suggested to you that the financial embarrassments of the Chinese Empire were such that she was most anxious to induce Treaty Powers to allow her to raise her import duties. I understand that he told you that they would require her to reform her currency, and to abolish likin as a sine quo
non before granting her request. I turn from that very important and most interesting subject to a small matter which invites comment. Your Excellency referred to the fact that the wide field opened up by the discussion on the Estimates provides opportunity to explain and defend general lines of policy, and you took occasion to defend the Government's policy with regard to the subsidiary coinage question. I wondered that Your Excellency did not also take occasion to reprobate the unlicensed character of much of the anonymous criticism which appears in the local Press. Possibly you thought it beneath the dignity of your position. I am not restrained by any such consideration and I am not afraid to speak out. To reply in detail to the mass of criticism which arose over the proposed new liquor taxes is manifestly impossible, but I take this opportunity of pro- testing against the columns of any of our news- papers being thrown open to attacks upon the probity of those who are striving in any capaci- ty to serve the public. As an instance, I may refer to a letter which appeared in the South China Morning Post of August 19th, mendaci- ously signed "Fairplay," suggesting that it was doubtful if any member of this or the Executive Council could be found willing to decide à cer- tain public question without considering his own pocket when giving his vote. The insinua tion clearly was that the members of this Coun- cil and of the Executive Council could not be trusted to put the public interest before their private pecuniary interest. I resent such im- putations being put upon the members of this Council, and as long as I sit on it I shall not sit silent and allow any local editor, un rebuked, to give prominence to such a sugges- tion. Such a suggestion is no doubt estimated
363
locally at its proper value as a mere reckless libel. But for the credit of the Colony outside of the Colony, the publication of such unfound- ed insinuations is much to bo regretted. It is at least conceivable that by the unchecked mul- tiplication of them our interests might adversely be affected. I take it that the prestige of the Colony is one of the interests of the Colony. I take it that the prestige of the Colony suffers if this Council is brought into contempt. It is particularly unfortunate at the present time when opinion in England is apt to misjudge Hongkong's attitude towards the opium policy of His Majesty's Government, in its ap plication to our finances. I have read a good deal, one way and another, which indicates how ready is " the man in the street "" at home to assume that we have been guided in our at- titude solely by selfish and interested motives. An illuminating, though unimportant, instance of this tendency forced itself unpleasantly upon my notice not long ago, when I received a letter, from Manchester, addressed to me as the unofficial spokesman in a recent debate. The writer accused me of being suborned to defend the opium vice. He did not sign his name; he did not give his address. I could not therefore reply. I take this opportunity of doing so. I take this opportunity of telling him that the unofficial members of this Council are not the kind of men he takes them for; and of assuring him that I myself have no personal interest in, or connection with, opium. It so happens that I neither smoke it nor eat it. I neither buy it nor sell it. Neither has my voice and vote in this Council been inspired by those who do. I take the trouble to deal with this remote critic, not because I consider him, or any anony mous letter writer, worthy of direct notice, but because I take his malignant accusation to be significant of the uncharitable state of mind into which ignorant people are liable to be brought by the exaggerations and misrepresen- tations of the leaders of the extreme section of the anti-opium agitators. They are to blame for Home-grown misapprehensions such as that Hongkong is "a Hades for immorality," one of the assertions made by my Manchester corres- spondent. But how much more difficult must it become to remove such misapprehensions if insinuations, originating in our midst, such as those made by Fairplay, are allowed to pass without contradiction or comment ?
I protest against any newspaper supported by the Colony being used to supply fabricated material for the manufacture of false impressions calcu lated to damage the Colony's good name. So-* licitude for the Colony's good name is not altogether unconnected with the solitary com- ment which I have to make on the Estimates. Before resuming my seat I desire to make at least a passing reference to the subject properly under discussion, This time last year I described the Budget for 1909 as a makeshift Budget," in allusion to the fact that it was balanced by a windfall. That was its outstanding feature. The out- standing feature of the present Budget is that it is balanced by a guess. All estimating is guesswork, but usually there is past experience to go by. There was nothing to go by in estimating the yield of the new import duty, and so, apparently, the extent of our needs decided the matter. Broadly speaking, our need was for six lakhs, not counting the shortage in the opium revenue. In passing, I would just touch gently on the fact already referred to by the hon. member for the Chamber of Commerce, that we are still without any information as to the precise meaning of the word “substantial," as used by the Secretary of State. When the Bill closing the divans was brought in we were urged not to delay its passage because, until the law on that subject had been made known, you couldn't advertise for tenders and couldn't find out your loss. That was why you couldn't ask the Secretary of State what his promise meant, and until you found that out from him, you could not get on with.... the Estimates. These I understood were your Excellency's reasons for urgency. What has become of them now? The farm has been ten- dered for; the loss due to closing the divans ascertained; you have no doubt communicated it to the Secretary of State. Does he make no reply? Or have you sought the required in- formation by letter ? If 80, it would seem then that there was really no urgency at all. But I
35
SO