59
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 the 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.
Honourable P. RYRIE 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 The Committee said that these rooms would, in all probability, in the event of the grant being withdrawn, revert to their original use as part of the entertaining rooms of the building.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. 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 be 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 opinion was that the Committee should give way. His Excellency was the head of this Colony and 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 that the Chinese had never objected to 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 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 an opportunity, as I have here to-day, to take a part, or at all events not to shrink from taking a 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. RYRIE 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 administration 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 that have been quoted, whether they establish a precise contract or no, I think the Council will agree with me there is a question of good faith, and that whatever may be the legal interpretation to be put upon the negotiations between the Government and the responsible persons acting on behalf of the City Hall at the time the grant was made, there was an understanding at least that the principle of having the City Hall free, open, and without distinction to all Her Majesty's subjects in this Colony, was accepted. I say the question is one primarily of good faith. Farther, it is a question of principle apart from good faith, a question it may be called of policy, that of admitting Chinese subjects of Her Majesty to equal rights in this part of Her Majesty's dominions with those of Her European subjects. Then there is a third question, the question of expediency. Now, I observe that in this report some account is given of a meeting which was held by the Committee of the City Hall, in which they associated with themselves, for the purpose of discussing the question here raised, the Chief Justice and Bishop Burdon, and the description which is here given of the course of that meeting, having regard to the three aspects of the question I have referred to, is somewhat curious. The meeting is said to have discussed the question in all its bearings. The public, apparently, have not seen all the bearings of the question yet, and I should certainly say it is a fair inference from the report of this meeting that the most important of the bearings of the question were not before the meeting; otherwise, the course of the discussion to any mind was a most extraordinary one. Now here is the report. We have the Bishop introduced with this flourish, The Bishop, who has resided for many years amongst the "Chinese and has a thorough knowledge of their language." I don't see how that bears precisely—"customs and feeling"—that is more pertinent, "being one of those who supported the new regulations. After deciding upon these new rules it was unanimously decided by those present at the meeting that "it was unnecessary to consider the second article of the basis of settlement." What was the second article? The second article was the article which proposed to consider these regulations on the ground of good faith. Therefore, it appears that the Committee considered this question, leaving out the consideration whether they were keeping good faith with those who advanced the funds. Well, the public, if they were to be content with the materials furnished by this document, would be in much the same position as the Committee. The question of good faith would not be before them as it really arises, and upon the question of expediency they would have no materials for a judgement unless they like to take the opinion of Bishop BURDON. In that report the question of good faith, the question that arises out of the minutes of the Governor and the correspondence is left out altogether, and, as His Excellency has pointed out, the full merits of this question from the three-fold view—good faith as well as expediency and principle—will now be before the Colony for the first time. Now, with regard to this as a question of expediency and principle, it appears to me that practically my honourable friend who has spoken on this subject has abandoned any ground the Committee might have had for defending these rules, because I think it stands upon his admission that these rules go for very little. Whether he has abandoned such ground or not, it is a serious matter to put such a document as this report before the Colony in which the Governor is put forward as one who does not keep his word and breaks faith with those with whom he makes arrangements. When I look at this document I find it stated that Bishop BURDON, who knows the customs of the people, is put forward as in support of the conclusions arrived at, and, I apprehend, not on the question of principle but on the question of expediency, or at all events, as much the latter as the former. I think the Colony would be interested
14