388
(14)
approval. Well, the Committee met. The gentlemen who were not British subjects managed—as by a small majority—to exclude a number of British subjects from the Museum. I intimated at once that the rules did not meet my approval; nevertheless I kept the vote on the Estimates for 1880, and directions were given to the Colonial Treasurer to pay the money in accordance with Sir Richard MACDONNELL'S minutes and in accordance with the counsel of my law adviser, that is, to the trustees. Therefore I did my duty. The question now arises, whether we are to pay the ratepayers' money to these gentlemen who have no legal position whatever as far as the City Hall is concerned, who are violating every engagement they have made to the Government, but above all, who are endeavouring at this time, in the nineteenth century, to retain in Hongkong the last little remnant of intolerance in the shape of their notice. There is no other notice in this Colony in which a distinction is made between Chinese and Europeans except that notice in the City Hall Museum; and, forsooth, it is to be kept up there, and the public money to be paid to gentlemen who, by a narrow majority, still retain that foolish and intolerant notice. I need not say it cannot be done. I am not surprised that my honourable friend, when he made his interesting statement as to what was omitted in the Estimates for 1881, avoided all reference to this subject in my presence. I have now given all the facts of the case. The papers from which I quoted are upon the table. My honourable friend had an opportunity since of perusing them. He knew the case thoroughly. But for the first time, now, the essential facts for the right understanding of the question have been laid before the public.
Honourable W. KESWICK—Your Excellency, I am not prepared, not having expected this attack, nor would I think it desirable, to occupy the time of the Council, to go through in detail all that you have said, but as you have declared that that report does not contain all the facts, so do I, as emphatically as words can express it, declare my conviction that the statements you have made are not borne out by facts, that these papers that are put on the table as representing what was the understanding between Governor Sir RICHARD MCDONNELL and the trustees or those who got up the City Hall, do not bear out the construction you put upon them, and that the conditions have not been violated. There is no distinction in the way of the exclusion of Chinese from the City Hall; they are as free to visit the Museum within certain hours as any other nationality. The English are excluded during a certain time, and for reasons clear and well defined, and the rules are supported by those whose opinion we have good reason to respect, and these rules are said to be in accordance with the requirements of the community, both Chinese and Europeans. As regards the title-deed of the property, it is a pure and simple ordinary title-deed such as is granted in similar ordinary cases. It contains no more conditions necessary for the opening of the Museum and the terms on which it should be kept open than does any book of ancient Sanscrit. And I would state with regard to these papers, when before the Associated Committee—they were before that Committee—that the Committee duly considered and attached to them such weight as they thought the minutes referred to by Your Excellency deserved. They gave them due weight, and the result was an alteration in the rules such as no sensible practical man can for a moment doubt is in accordance with the best means of making that institution useful. There is no exclusion of the Chinese in the sense of exclusion. There is a regulation for making the institution useful. As to the Library, there is no inducement for the Chinese to flock to it as they do to the Museum, and regulations were necessary in the case of the latter, but those regulations do not exclude anyone. I deny in toto the charge that there has been any suppression of facts; none whatever has taken place. The truth as regards the City Hall is stated in correspondence, and Your Excellency's views are printed, as given by Your Excellency, and very little comment is made. It is for this community to judge between Your Excellency and the City Hall Committee, and the community does. I can conceive of nothing more likely to stir up a feeling of strife between races than the course Your Excellency has pursued. Previously to Your Excellency's arrival no such feeling existed, and I doubt now if these efforts to stir up such a feeling will be successful.
(15)
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 Excellency was the 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.
Honourable Ng Choy stated that as the subject under discussion concerned the Chinese community, he thought it was incumbent 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 correspondence 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 distinction 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 many public institutions, but he had never seen such a notice as this. The reason the City Hall Committee 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 Europeans. 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 there was no objection from the Chinese regarding 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 themselves 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 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 taken 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. RYBIE and Mr. Ng Choy 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 ministration 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...
Honourable P. RYBIE said his convictions had all along been that Chinese should be freely admitted and that there should be no distinction, no restriction. When His Excellency's letter was first placed before the Committee he urged them to get every statistic and every document that could be had concerning the City Hall, from its commencement, and before any discussion took place or any letter was written, to have all these papers before them. He also strongly urged on them that they should secure statistics of the number of visitors to the Museum for the first few years of its opening, say, up to 1870 or 1871. That had not been done, so far as he knew. He might detail at the present point his recollection of what was done when the Museum was set on foot, so far as he knew the facts. He could only, as he was absent for a time, detail what took place before 1868 and after 1869. His recollection was distinctly to the effect that the Museum was principally for the Chinese, that it was to enlarge the minds of the Chinese on natural, scientific and various other matters. As years pass by one's memory becomes weakened for details, but that was his general recollection of what occurred; when the Library and Museum were opened, that was the general impression left on his mind. There was one statement in the Committee's letter which he took objection to, at the time. The Committee said that these rooms would, in all probability, in the event of the grant being withdrawn, revert to their original use as part of the entertaining rooms of the building. If the Committee referred to the document, they would find that these rooms in which the Museum was were never intended for entertaining rooms.