(2)
(3)
358
considerable loss. I should say here that when the Legislative Council voted for our entry into the Postal Union in 1876 the prospect was then clearly laid before it that the Post Office would probably cease to be a source of Revenue.
8. That, however, was inevitable, whether we entered the Union or not, nor would retirement from it now do anything for us. Such a course would simply aggravate our financial relations with other countries, without improving our position vis-à-vis with London.
9. There would seem then to be four courses open to the Colony, as follows: - (a) To ask for a re-consideration of the question by the Imperial Government.
(b) To pay the £6,000 asked for by the Secretary of State and accept the loss on the Postal Service.
(c) To pay the £6,000 and revert to the old 1/3d. (30 cents) rate of Postage to the United Kingdom only by both British and French packets in order to raise the sum required.
(d) To decline either to despatch or to receive mails by the P. & O. packets.
10. I venture to offer a few remarks on these alternatives. And first as to a plea for re-consideration, I have to follow Lord Kimberley in pointing out that the Colony was not consulted before these heavy responsibilities were incurred, if indeed they can be said to have been incurred at all. For the Mail Service is costing at this moment not more but less than it did under the old contract, and the loss to which we contribute is less, as will appear from the following figures:
Payment to P. & O. Co. £430,000 Estimated Imperial Loss. 1876-77 £211,000 1877-78 £232,500 (Old Contract. £282,500 1878-79 £417,825 1879-80 £258,000 Both Contracts. 1880-81 £356,600 1881-82 £358,000 £208,000 New Contract. £207,00011. Then again as to the principle of paying according to distance, which brings about the formidable total of £12,000 claimed by the London Post Office, it would seem that whilst the P. & O. Contract extends to Shanghai, how far along the line Hongkong may happen to be, so long as a stoppage there is inevitable, ought not to make very much difference. If the voyage ceased at Hongkong, or the packets went out of their way to come here, it would be very different. But evidently the Imperial Government wishes to maintain communication with Shanghai, and the packets must come into Hongkong whether we avail ourselves of them for Postal purposes or not. When a person must needs go from Edinburgh to London, and is asked to deliver a parcel on the way, it surely does not matter much to him whether it is addressed to Carlisle or to Newark so long as both are in his road. Our mails do not eat anything on the way, their presence on board does not lead to the consumption of an ounce more coal, nor to an hour's delay.
12. Payment according to distance is moreover opposed to the general practice of the Postal Service. A letter from London to Cornwall costs no more than one delivered at Kensington, the postage to China is the same as that to India. And the same rule obtains with regard to payments for territorial and sea-conveyance. We pay the French Post Office the same rates for carrying a letter to Saigon as for carrying it to Marseilles, and if the transit were extended to Brazil we should pay no more. Switzerland obtains the same remuneration on correspondence which crosses a corner of its territory as Russia does for transporting it from St. Petersburg to Manchuria.
13. If we pay even the £6,000 to which the Secretary of State has modified this heavy demand, the result will be that we shall be taking a great deal of trouble and going to a good deal of expense to conduct Postal business on the coast of China simply for the pleasure of doing it. These Postal duties in China were unwillingly undertaken by the Colony entirely in deference to the views of the Home Government, and I will venture to say that they have been carried out as well as, in the face of local difficulties, they possibly could be. It may be questioned whether the Colony should be rewarded by a demand for three per cent. of its entire revenue (for that is what £6,000 a year amounts to) entailing complete extinction of the modest revenue on its local Postal business. The London Post Office, which is making an increasing profit of over £3,000,000 annually (after defraying the losses to which we are asked to contribute) can afford to be more generous to us than that. I cannot but think that, were these details fully explained, a contribution of £3,000, or £3,500 a year, fixed, and irrespective of accounts, would be accepted as a discharge of all claims.
14. In any case, if (b) we pay the £6,000 a year assessed by the Secretary of State, I scarcely see how we can be called upon to pay arrears since February 1st, 1880. To have a debt of £10,000 suddenly sprung on us, of which we knew nothing, and as to the running up of which our consent was not asked, is, to say the least of it, very discouraging. According to the claim of the London Post Office these arrears would amount to about £30,000.
15. Lord Kimberley points out that a considerable portion of the £6,000 which his Lordship considers the Colony might reasonably be asked to pay will be contributed by a native population that makes comparatively little use of Mail communication. With great deference, I do not think this is an argument which in this particular case ought to be used either for or against the proposed payment. It cannot be too often insisted on that the circumstances of Hongkong are radically different from those of India, Ceylon, or even the Straits Settlements. We have here no native population subsisting on a soil which has been taken away from its original lords. Such a population may doubtless ask to have life made at least as pleasant as it would have been under the old régime. But the Chinese population of Hongkong has come to us, we have not gone to it. A Chinese lives in Hongkong because it suits him to do so, and if he finds life there intolerable because mail steamers either are or are not subsidised out of the taxes, the Empire of China, from which he or his father came, lies open to him within a few miles.
We have only to imagine the Chinese community of Hongkong announcing that they would prefer to live under a Republic, or that they object to parliamentary government, to see
Page 360
Page 361
(2)
(3)
358
considerable loss. I should say here that when the Legislative Council voted for our entry into the l'ostal Union in 1876 the prospect was then clearly laid before it that the Post Office would probably cease to be a source of Revenue.
8.-That, however, was inevitable, whether we entered the Union or not, nor would retirement from it now do anything for us. Such a course would simply aggravate our financial relations with other countries, without improving our position vis-à-vis with London.
9.--There would seem then to be four courses open to the Colony, as follows:-- (d.) To ask for a re-consideration of the question by the Imperial Government.
(4) To pay the £6,000 asked for by the Secretary of State and
accept the loss on the Postal Service.
(c) To pay the £6,000 and revert to the old 1/3d. (30 cents) rate of Postage to the United Kingdom only by both British and French packets in order to raise the sun required.
(d.) To decline either to despatch or to receive mails by the P. & 0. packets.
10.-1 venture to offer a few remarks on these alternatives. And first (77) us to a plea for re-consideration, I have to follow Lord KIMBERLEY in pointing out that the Colony was not consulted before these heavy responsibilities were incurred, if indeed they can be said to have been incurred at all. For the Mail Service is costing at this moment not more but less than it did under the old contract, and the loss to which we contribute is less, as will appear from the following figures :-
Payment
to P. & 0. Co.
£430.000
.£430,000 £130,000
Estimated Imperial Loss.
£211,000
£232,500 (Old Contract. £282,500
1876-77,
1877-78,.
1878-79.
1879-80,
£417825
£258,000 Both Contracts.
་
1880-81..
£356.600
1881-82,..
£358,000
£208,000
New Contract. £207,000 f
11.-Then again as to the principle of paying according to distance, which brings about the formidable total of £12,000 claimed by the London Post Office, it would seem that whilst the P. & O. Contract extends to Shanghai, how far along the line Hongkong may happen to be, so long as a stoppage there is inevitable, ought not to make very much difference. If the voyage ceased at Hongkong, or the packets went out of their way to come here, it would be very different. But evidently the Imperial Government wishes to maintain communication with Shanghai, and the packets must come into Hongkong whether we avail ourselves of them for Postal purposes or not. When a person must needs go from Edinburgh to London, and is asked to deliver a parcel on the way, it surely does not matter much to him whether it is addressed to Carlisle or to Newark so long as both are in his road. Our mails do not eat anything on the way, their presence on board does not lead to the consumption of an ounce more coal, nor to an hour's delay.
12.-Payment according to distance is moreover opposed to the general practice
of the Postal Service. A letter from London to Cornwall costs no more than onc delivered at Kensington, the postage to China is the same us that to India. And the same rule obtains with regard to payments for territorial and sca-conveyance. We pay the French Post Office the same rates for carrying a letter to Saigon as for carrying it to Marseilles, and if the transit were extended to Brazil we should pay no more.
Switzerland obtains the same remuneration on correspondence which crosses a corner of its territory as Russia does for transporting it from St. Petersburg to Manchuria.
13.-If we pay even the £6,000 to which the Secretary of State has modified this heavy demand, the result will be that we shall be taking a great deal of trouble and going to a good deal of expense to conduct Postal business on the coast of China simply for the pleasure of doing it. These Postal duties in China were unwillingly undertaken by the Colony entirely in deference to the views of the Home Government, and I will venture to say that they have been carried out as well as, in the face of local difficulties, they possibly could be. It may be questioned whether the Colony should be rewarded by a demand for three per cent. of its entire revenue (for that is what £6,000 a year amounts to) entailing complete extinction of the modest revenue on its local Postal business. The London Post Office, which is making an increasing profit of over £3.000,000 annually (after defraying the losses to which we are asked to contribute) can afford to be more generous to us than that. I cannot but think that, were these details fully explained, a contribu- tion of £3,000, or £3,500 a year, fixed, and irrespective of accounts, would be accepted as a discharge of all claims.
14.-In any case, if (b) we pay the £6,000 a year assessed by the Secretary of State, I scarcely see how we can be called upon to pay arrears since February 1st, 1880. To have a debt of £10,000 suddenly sprung on us, of which we knew nothing, and as to the running up of which our consent was not asked, is, to say the least of it, very discouraging. According to the claim of the London Post Office these arrears would amount to about £30,000.
15.-Lord KIMBERLEY points out that a considerable portion of the £6,000 which his Lordship considers the Colony might reasonably be asked to pay will be contributed by a native population that makes comparatively little use of Mail communication. With great deference, I do not think this is an argument which in this particular case ought to be used either for or against the proposed payment. It cannot be too often insisted on that the circumstances of Hongkong are radically different from those of India, Ceylon, or even the Straits Settlements. We have here no native population subsisting on a soil which has been taken away from its original lords. Such a population may doubtless ask to have life made at least as pleasant as it would have been under the old régime. But the Chinese population of Hongkong has come to us, we have not gone to it. A. Chinese lives in Hongkong because it suits him to do so, and if he finds life there intolerable because mail steamers either are or are not subsidised out of the taxes, the Empire of China, from which he or his father came, lies open to him within a few miles.
We have only to imagine the Chinese community of Hongkong announcing that they would prefer to live under a Republic, or that they object to parliamentary government, to sce
Page 360Page 361
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.