Comparison with the Straits Sett., we answered that in desp. on 765306 different by pointing out that the question was originally raised in a manner at variance, viz. by the Roman Catholics demanding that Concurrent Endowment... I think that fact cannot be overlooked in connection with the circumstance that the R. C. Bishop has signed the present Memorial.
are from 6 to 10 times Aj Nuank koy an the Argh granted he and the would doubtless renew his request.
for Protestan Dissenter are about concurrent Endowment hereafter, numerem
As to par. 2 I do not admit that clergyman paid out of public funds is required necessarily for any of purposes specified, except for attendance on the Sick at in Hospital, & that has already been conceded (see below) par. 3. It has been decided to pay for English Church Clergyman's ministrations in the Gaol paid I Hospital at some rate as is now to a Similar R. C. Priest [16936/04] $720/2.0.
par. 4. I think we may take M. Ho Kai, as a truer representative of Chinese feeling on this subject than the unknown Chinese who sign This Memorial; and M. Ho Kai spoke against the Endowment of one religious denomination at the expense of the general taxpayer in Dec. last [see red marked speech in the Daily Press of 2nd Dec.].
In Chinese only Enjoy the advantages referred to in comm with other inhabitants of the colony.
parr. 6-8. The Congregation at the Presbyterian Church are of the same class, & they are able to support a Minister.
par. 9 This par. (which the "China Mail" calls "screechings, funny,") sounds to me like rather a confession of weakness; it can hardly be treated as a serious argument.
parr. 10-12 The cost and expense involved I said above be $78720 for services at Gaol & Hospital. The Govt need not provide for burials, of paupers. will as I except in case
parr. 13, 14 There is no evidence whatever that the community is almost unanimous in favour of the continuance of the Endowment.
On the contrary, the representative in the Council of the Chinese community has opposed it and two of the three English newspapers are opposed to it.