In this connection he invites your attention to the following extract from a letter which he received yesterday from the Chief Justice, in which he again objects to serve on a Committee containing a majority of unofficial members of Council :-
"At the same time may I, through this letter, urge upon Messrs. Whitehead and Chater a reconsideration of their objections to a Committee of four, viz., two unofficial members and one official member and a Chairman. It seems to me that a Committee so constituted would give the unofficial members all the advantages which the origin of the Committee could fairly be held to entitle them to, and would be within both the letter and spirit of the Secretary of State's instructions, while at the same time it would sufficiently meet my personal objections. In such a Committee no recommendation could be carried in the teeth of unofficial opposition, and every recommendation which a majority could agree to would be free from the possible reproach of being a mere party conclusion. It might of course happen that on some points there would be an equal division, but the only result would be that no recommendation could in that case be formulated.
"As Mr. Whitehead is good enough to impute to me perfect impartiality, I fail to see why he should object to a Committee composed (excluding the Chairman) of two members on his side (for it is impossible to escape the conclusion that there are sides) and one on the other.
4.-In regard to your application for permission to publish the correspondence on the subject of the constitution of the Committee, H.E. hopes that you will by consenting to serve obviate any necessity for such publication, but should you finally decline to serve, he will be obliged by your renewing your application, as in that event he would wish to add certain observations (which otherwise he would not consider necessary) to form part of the matter to be published.
I remain,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. T. STERLING, A.D.C.
The Honourable T. H. WHITEHEAD,
&c., &c., &c.
HON. T. H. WHITEHEAD TO THE A.D.C.
Captain J. T. STERLING, A.D.C.,
SIR,
Government House,
Hongkong, 8th August, 1893,
I have received your letter of the 5th instant and have endeavoured to give it due consideration.
I am very sorry that you should have had the trouble of again writing. I thought I had made it quite clear in my letter of the 2nd inst., that I could not consent to serve on the Commission as at present constituted. I said, or intended to say, in the second last para. of that note, that if His Excellency could not see his way to the appointment of such a Commission as was unanimously asked for by the unofficial members, I felt prevented from taking part in the proceedings of a Committee so composed that, while barring the way to a more effective enquiry in the future, it could not hope to accomplish much in the present.
It is with very great regret that I find myself compelled to adhere to the decision embodied in these few words, and I can only apologise to His Excellency for the trouble I have given, and thank him for his considerate kindness in permitting me to consider the matter a second time, and for his courtesy in communicating Mr. Justice Clarke's views on the subject.
There are two points in His Honour's letter with reference to which I cannot quite agree with him, and in which I am afraid I differ from His Excellency also. I do not think that the Committee as now constituted is within the spirit, although within the letter, of the Secretary of State's instructions. The unofficial members of Council in their petition asked for an enquiry by a "body to be composed of members of the community unconnected with the Government, or at least a majority of such persons." They asked for an "independent" enquiry. His Excellency in his despatch of the 17th January last, para. 17, emphasises this by quoting between inverted commas the words cited above. When the matter was referred to in the House of Commons by Mr. Beith, he asked for the appointment of an "independent" Commission. Neither in the House of Commons, nor in His Lordship's despatch of the 21st April, does the Secretary of State indicate any reluctance to the appointment of such a Commission. Nothing could have been easier than for His Lordship to have said in express terms that while prepared to grant an enquiry it could not be granted in the form asked for, and to have directed in so many words that there should not be an independent majority. The matter was expressly before him, and while limiting the number of officials to be placed upon the Committee he has put no limit on the number of unofficials. A Committee of two official members and three unofficial would have been as completely within the words of Lord Ripon's despatch as they certainly would have been, in my humble opinion, within the spirit of his communications in reply to the petition addressed to him.
Neither can I agree with His Honour the Chief Justice that the unofficial element would have all the advantages the origin of the Committee could fairly be held to entitle them to as that Committee is at present composed. The Committee is the outcome of a long-continued struggle between the unofficial members of the Legislative Council and of the Government of the Colony on the subject, first of retrenchment, and secondly of enquiry with a view to retrenchment. Until His Excellency arrived in the Colony there was no admission on the part of any member of the Government that retrenchment was either necessary or possible. His Excellency, it is true, fully admits the need for retrenchment, and that there is room for it, and he advocated many valuable reforms; but His Excellency and the Hon. the Colonial Secretary have always opposed a public and independent enquiry. On appeal to the Secretary of State the views of the unofficial members of Council have prevailed over the views of the officials, and if either side is entitled to have a majority on the Committee of Enquiry and to make their views prevail, it is surely that which thinks an enquiry necessary, and desires to push it to the fullest extent, and not that side that has always opposed public and independent enquiry as unnecessary and inopportune.
The
May I further point out that in my humble opinion it can be no possible advantage on an enquiry of this nature that the Commission is so constituted that there is a probability of equal division of opinion on many points, and consequent inability to take action. The object of the Committee is enquiry, "comprehensive enquiry," to use the words of the Right Hon. the Secretary of State, "affecting all departments in the service." The party favouring enquiry ought to have, if this is to be the prime object of the Committee, the power to direct and push this enquiry to its utmost limits, instead of there being a majority who have always opposed enquiry and deem it inopportune and unnecessary, or an equality of votes tending to neutralize and stop all effective action. It is with very deep regret that I find myself compelled to agree with His Honour the Chief Justice that there are and will be sides. It is the essential condition of all free government that there should be
Page 543
Page 543
Page 543