appear to forget that there are wide constitutional differences between a native of China and one who hails from Europe. They do not allow for the differences of habits, usage, mode of living and a host of other things between the two. They insist upon the theory of treating all nationalities alike however much they may differ from one another physically, mentally, and constitutionally. Hence arise the several provisions in this Ordinance and Bye-laws in question which I have no hesitation in characterising as wholly unnecessary. One might as well insist that all Chinese should eat bread and beefsteak instead of rice and pork, just because the two former articles agree better than the latter with an English stomach. One argument must here be stated and refuted. It has been stated by some advocates of this Bill that the Government is always adverse to anything like class legislation and that any recommendation of the Sanitary Board to that effect would not likely be entertained. This I must confess does remind one of old times when all class legislation was earnestly sought for to be abolished, but with what results I need not mention. Look over our local Ordinances, how many there are still in force which make clear distinctions between Chinese and Europeans. It would only be a waste of time to quote instances. As long as we govern the Chinese according to our promise given while this Colony was yet in its infancy, viz., to govern them as much as possible in accordance with their manners and customs, and to respect their religion and prejudices, we must of necessity modify our laws in order to meet their peculiar requirements. Besides, does not common sense alone indicate to us the advisability of legislating especially in many cases to suit circumstances and surroundings?
From an economical point of view, the idea of sacrificing the millions of square feet at an average price of $6 to $7, per square foot is even more ridiculous. What is this enforced sacrifice for? Simply for the sake of a theory that the Chinese public require all such Sanitary improvements to promote their health and welfare. But I challenge the soundness of that theory. I say the Chinese in general do not require this sacrifice or even desire it. Let the Government ascertain the views of the Chinese public in this matter. I have often been told that I was almost always in a minority in the discussion of the various sections of this Bill, but I was and am confident that the public at large, without distinction of races, will support me in most of my contentions. I was often charged also with looking too exclusively after the interest of landlords, but I always denied that charge. I do not only represent the interest of landlords, and personally I am not a landlord, I care for the tenants as much as the landlords, and the poor as well as the rich. It is not for the welfare of the poor to have the valuable space occupied by their small rooms narrowed, in order to provide for a model of a privy, a superb kitchen and a sumptuous backyard of 10 feet wide, while at the same time the wicked landlords continue to charge the same rent or even a higher one for improvements and increased capital necessary to effect such improvements. I am not aware of any law, except in Ireland perhaps, which will compel landlords to lower their rent to an equitably low amount. Perhaps such law will be enacted here, but for the present at all events, all landlords, like everybody else, will want to get from 7 to 8 per cent net interest on their capital. What is the price of land now per square foot? In the central and most populous parts of Chinatown, like Queen's Road Central, and Bonham Strand, it is something like $9, or $10 or more, and even in the more distant and less valuable quarters, it is something like $3 or $4. Just fancy the position of the poor tenant if this Bill becomes law. He would be forced to pay an enormous rent for less space than before, plus all sorts of Sanitary improvements which, however good in themselves from a European standpoint, they do not care for, and which they think at least their constitutions do not require. They may say that they are habituated to such cities like Canton, Kowloon city, &c., compared to which Hongkong as it now stands is a paradise, a model of cleanliness, a perfect Sanitarium, and that if any more improvements are required, let those who advocate it pay for them and not they.
Here two adverse arguments must be noticed. The first is that the Chinese are so ignorant of what is good for themselves that they must be taught, and forcibly too, by means of severe legislative measures. I hardly expected to hear of such an argument, if such it may be termed, at the end of the nineteenth century. It reminds one of the Star Chamber and the Inquisition. Those who advance this argument had better take care, lest some wiser heads might act upon the same principle and enforce something unpleasant upon themselves. Let me give a few illustrations of this dangerous but with some persons most plausible argument. (1.) The established religion of England is Protestant Christianity, the Chinese are mostly heathens, but as they are ignorant and should be taught, let us legislate for enforced Christianity. (2.) The Chinese doctors do not know anything about the European practice of medicine and the Chinese public constantly go to them for advice; but then they are so ignorant—let us legislate for the total expulsion of Chinese trained practitioners and forbid all Chinese under heavy penalties from consulting any one but European doctors. (3.) Many Chinese are inveterate opium smokers, that if long continued, must be injurious to their health as well as a waste of their money; but they are so dreadfully ignorant—let us legislate and force every one to abstain from opium smoking. I may multiply examples, but these will show what I mean. No European will deny that the Chinese urgently need reform in their religion, their system of medicine and their opium smoking habits, but who will advocate that such reform should be wrought by means of harsh and sweeping legislation? Their ignorance should be enlightened no doubt, but not by penal law.
The second argument is more reasonable and it is this, that as habitable rooms get smaller and rents go higher in directly opposite proportion, wages will get higher too and that will compensate the poor tenants. This would be perfectly true, I admit, if Hongkong were hundreds of miles away from China. But fortunately or unfortunately, we are close to the mainland, where thousands of poor Chinese are struggling for a bare subsistence. The labour market is always in excess of the demand, and there are many able bodies who are willing and even anxious to get their 10 or 20 cents a day. Those who stick out for higher wages on account of increased rent and less house accommodation will be supplanted by those who will be content with less. For example, if a man gets say $15 a month and has to pay $5 per month for two small rooms for his wife and children and $10 for food and clothing &c., but on account of higher rent he has to pay $6 for the same two rooms smaller than before on account of the sacrifice of building for backyard and other spaces, he would, according to the law laid down above demand $16 per month for his services. He would certainly succeed in this if there were no one to take his place for less, but let us say there are plenty who will take it for less, then what must the poor man do but to pay the $6, or resort to overcrowding or to stinting himself and his family of food and clothing. Now allow me to ask whether building four feet away from retaining walls, the leaving of a ten feet wide backyard and the establishing of a 3/6 feet brick privy and spacious kitchen, more necessary than food and clothing, or more desirable than overcrowding?
I shall speak briefly of the unconstitutional and arbitrary way in which this Bill seeks to enforce its various provisions and Bye-laws. It does not provide for adequate compensation in every case. Surely if the public is to be benefited by a large sacrifice of property, the sacrifice should not fall on the shoulders of particular individuals but on all alike. It is always easy to make free with other people's property, but when the thing touches our own pockets we may not be quite so ready to carry out our best intentions and scientific views. I do not think it is a wise policy of any Government, especially when it is not of a representative character, to legislate arbitrarily concerning the property of its subjects, and particularly when such measures involve so large a sacrifice of property. It shakes public confidence and drives away capital, a state of thing which may not affect those who have no permanent interest in the Colony, but is sufficient to excite alarm in the minds of those who are permanent residents and have the future welfare of the Colony at heart. In connection with the question of compensation one curious argument was not infrequently advanced, viz., that since land has lately risen greatly in value, it is but just that the landlords who get the benefit of the rise should sacrifice something for the public good. On the face of it, this seems reasonable enough, but is it so? Are there no landlords who paid the present price for their land with hard cash? How many landlords are there now in existence who have held land for twenty years on the stretch? Even with these, are the risks they have run and the services they have rendered as pioneers of this settlement to go for nothing? Why should their profits be lessened more than any others? These are questions one has to answer before one can recommend this Bill for the consideration of the Legislative Council.
I come now to the strongest argument in favor of this Bill, with its numerous Bye-laws. It has been repeated over and over again that in some large English towns similar Bills have been passed, and that this is an almost exact copy of them, most provisions having been copied word for word, and therefore it must be just and proper—going upon the principle that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. In effect whatever laws they may pass at home we must also pass here. I protest loudly against this kind of indiscriminate and servile legislation. If we are to adopt all English local Acts of Parliament as our law, why need we a separate Legislative Council? There is no doubt some English Acts which we shall all be glad to have introduced here, such as the Press law for example, still every new law should be modified and adapted to suit local surroundings and requirements. To my mind the very fact of the present Bill being copied from the local law of England is the strongest argument against its being passed here without a great many important modifications and alterations. Just compare this...