The Oligarchies are under guise of popular representation. But in most cases of this kind there has been either the tradition of an old constitution dating back into the days of slavery - this was the case with Jamaica - or there has at least been an old and considerable body of descendants of settlers who have some claim to call the soil their own - this was the case with Mauritius.
But is it conceivable that Hongkong, with its handful of English visitors - for they are no more than visitors - should be given an elective system from which the Chinese population will be excluded?
It seems to me the case has been put, to show that this kind of representation system is not suitable. Yes: the Nations or a portion of them are not so in Hongkong, and then petitions follow logically.
First, if there is to be an elective Assembly, it should predominate. Precedents could be shown where elected members are in a majority in the constitutions which prevail in the colonies. I think I am right in saying that it usually comes to them having their way, and from not being in a majority and not being responsible, they are probably the more violent and the more obstructive.
The claim is that it gives freedom to the official members to vote and speak as they like. You have a Crown Colony only to be the contrary, if you have any supposition of a grotesque absurdity.
The second claim is that there should be a stable majority in the Council of elected representatives. If you and I have an election, it follows that three members would be fractious and pointless to give them the power to vote on questions.
This cannot be clearly laid down. Indeed, whatever the Constitution is, if the government is composed against one another on questions of government, it is not good.
The fourth and fifth claims are control of "local expenditure" and management of local affairs. This looks like a vague assertion of Home Rule, but there is a certain amount of point in it from the fact...