over speculation, but to a considerable extent from three cases which hit us extremely hard. One is the restrictive legislation against Chinese in Australia and America; the second is the increased cultivation of the poppy in China, which diminishes our opium imports, and the third is the decline in the export of Chinese tea owing to the competition of India and Ceylon. There can be no question but that these three circumstances have hit us very hard. At the same time I am glad to see from the returns of tonnage last year that apparently an increase of trade in other directions has afforded very considerable compensation. So far, the tonnage has not fallen off, it has even increased. Nevertheless, we do not yet know the full effects of these three circumstances. We still have, for instance, considerable trade with America and Australia. There are a number of Chinese in those countries who cannot be driven out, so that at present we do not know quite the full effect of this restrictive legislation. Nor do we know the full effect that may be caused by this question of tea and opium. Therefore, it is quite possible—though for the reasons indicated also, where I do not think it probable—that our present capacity to pay this amount may be very much affected in the course of a few years, and what we are able to pay now easily may in the course of a few years become an intolerable hardship. Unless circumstances alter, such as an increase in manufactures, which I have always hoped and believe will take place, I may conclude that there might be a very great difficulty in the Colony paying this amount. I have mentioned this rather as a question for the future. I do not believe, nor do I think members of Council believe, that at the present moment we have anything but the fullest capacity to pay this amount, supposing it to be just and fair, nor do I believe that hon. members, if they consider it calmly, will look upon the amount as otherwise than just and fair. Had there been none of these complications, had the demand been made upon us on this ground, that it was only a fair amount to pay for benefits received, I doubt very much whether there would have been any opposition on the part of this Council, or, at all events, any opposition on the part of the majority even of the unofficial members. I gather, however, that the objections to this vote depend almost entirely on the unfortunate representations made when this vote was first urged upon our attention. There can be no doubt whatever, looking at the despatch, that an increase in the number of troops was put in the foreground of the reasons for asking for this increased contribution. There can be no doubt whatever that that promise has not been fulfilled, but I feel that the demand made is a just one, apart altogether from this promise, and I trust I have given reasons such as on consideration you will think valid for believing it to be a just one. It appears to me that the failure in the fulfilment of this apparent promise has nothing to do with the question as to whether this sum should be voted or not. There appears a very good reason for complaint, if you desire it, for strong complaint, for failure to fulfil a promise, but not for refusing a vote which is, in itself, just, and which you would have unquestionably voted but for this unfortunate mistake. To put the matter in an abstract form, apart altogether from the parties concerned: if A is receiving a benefit from B, for which a certain sum is fairly due to B, is he less morally bound to pay that debt to B because of a supererogatory promise made by C which has not been fulfilled? I say he is equally bound in spite of that promise, and he would be so bound even if that promise were made by B, but still more is he bound when that promise was not made by B, but by his agent for whom B was in no way responsible. In this case, the beneficiary is not the British Government, but the British taxpayer, and because a promise was held out to us, or rather not exactly a promise, but an inducement was held out to us by the British Government, and that inducement proves to be fallacious, we are none the less morally bound to pay the British taxpayers what is justly their due. That is the view I take very strongly, and these being my reasons, I can conscientiously say that I recommend this vote without reluctance. I have sketched as fairly as I possibly can my reasons for believing that additional demands in the future may be very dangerous, and my reasons also for believing that the demand for this amount, which can be borne now, may possibly become injurious in the future, but considering the matter at the present time, I cannot help thinking we not only have to pay but we ought to pay this amount now. I have nothing further to say, but I shall be glad to hear what course hon. members have decided upon.
Hon. P. RYKI N—Your Excellency, the official members have fully considered what fell from your Excellency at the last meeting, and also the other questions connected with this demand, and they cannot satisfy their minds that the demand, unaccompanied by the fulfilment of the promise made, is a just one. It is very well to say that this colony can pay the amount, but we know that all public works have been stopped, and if we are to be hampered by this demand, I do not see how it can be said that we are able to pay it. We would have to pay it by cutting off something else. If the Home Government had kept faith with the colony, we should probably have screwed it out, but we should have had a certain quid pro quo. We should have had an increased garrison and an increased feeling of security. Now we have not got that. We have got a comparatively weak garrison for the forts they have to man, and unless the Navy assists us in the event of this colony being attacked, we should be in a very bad way. My own idea is that we should have their assistance, that they would feel bound to come here, whatever they may say outside, if there was any fear of an attack on the colony; of course, we should probably not have the whole squadron in the Harbour, but they would give us as many ships as would assist the forts. I may mention that since the last meeting, the unofficial members have had in their hands correspondence, despatches, and minutes from the members of Council at Singapore, and it is with great pleasure that we see that the official members there have taken the part of the ratepayers against the Colonial Office. Who pays them their salary? The ratepayers of the colony, and they should be their primary consideration. The view of the unofficial members here is that they should not pass this vote, and in that I am happy to say they are backed up by Singapore and Ceylon. Unfortunately, we are not in the position of Mauritius, where the unofficial members have a majority in the Council. They used their power and reduced the vote forthwith. Unfortunately, we are not in that position, and the only thing we do is to use what arguments we have against the vote. If this vote is passed to-day by means of the official vote, it is proposed to call a public meeting and petition Her Majesty the Queen. I think from that public meeting it will appear what the feeling of the public is in connection with this matter. I think there will be no uncertain sound from that meeting; it will clearly and distinctly state that there has been a breach of faith committed with this colony, and we have had no explanation of it. I do not know what the despatch laid on the table this afternoon contains; I have not read it. I do not know whether it contains any explanation.
His EXCELLENCY—It does not.
$30
Hon. F. RYKI N—I think, with your Excellency, that this question should be dealt with with great care. The unofficial members have devoted great care to it, and they can arrive at but one opinion, that if they vote this £40,000 to the Imperial Government, the Imperial Government should do its share.
Hon. H. WHITEMAN—Sir, we have endeavoured to give due consideration to the remarks and the appeal made at the last meeting of Council to hon. members not to place your Excellency in the painful position of being obliged to do your duty in face of their views, and I have also listened with great attention to what your Excellency has said to-day, but I feel compelled to emphatically oppose this hurrying money vote on its merits. Whether £10,000 would be a fair, reasonable, and just military contribution from the colony is not the question before the Council. The question before the Council is the increased military contribution demanded in March, 1890, and still demanded, on the ground that in the opinion of the Imperial Government circumstances render it necessary to increase the garrison in Hongkong. Lord Knutsford's despatch of the 19th July, 1890, bears me out in that statement. Paragraph 3 says:
"The garrison in 1863-4 was estimated at 1,000 of all ranks, and its annual cost at £100,000. In 1888, the garrison numbered 1,445 of all ranks (exclusive of volunteers), and its cost has risen to about £160,000 a year, while the Colonial contribution has remained at £20,000."
Paragraph 6 reads:
"The future Garrison, including local regulars, but excluding militia and volunteers, will be approximately as follows:—Imperial troops, 2,525 of all ranks; local regulars, 493 of all ranks. The details are given in the table annexed to this despatch."
And paragraph 7 is as follows:
"The cost of the Garrison will be about £280,000 a year, and will consequently be nearly three times as great as was the expense of the garrison then when the Colonial contribution..."
Page 357
over speculation, but to a cɔ näidecablo' extent from three cases which hit us extremely hard. One is the restrictive legislation against Chi- nese in Australia and America; the second is the increased cultivation of the poppy in China. which diminishes our opium imports, and the third is the dooline in the export of Cuinesa tea owing to the competition of India and Caylna. There can be no question but that these three circumstances have hit us very hard. At the same time I am glad to see from the rotaras of tonnaga last year that apparently an increase of trade in other directions has afforded very con. iderable compensation. So far, the toan ge has not fallen off, it has even increased Navrtheless we do not yet know the full effects of these three circumstances. We still have. for instance, considerable trade with America and Australia. There are a number of Chinese in thoss countries who cannot be driven oux, so that it present we do not know quite the full effigi of this restrictiva logislation. Nor do we kunw the full effect that may be caused by ibis ques tion of tea and opiam. Taer fora it is qu tes possible-though for the reasons indicated also- where I do not think it probable that our pre- sent capacity to pay this amount may be very mach affected in the course of a few years, and what we are a pay now easily may in the course of a few years become an intolerable hardship. Unless oironmstances alter, such as increase in manufactures, which I have always hoped and believe will take place, I may conclude that there might be a very great difficulty in the Colony paying this amount I have mentioned his rather as a question for the futare. I do not believe, nor do I think members of Council beliovo, that at the present moment we have i anything but the fullest capacit. to pay this: amount, supposing it to be just und fair, var do I believe that hon. members if they consider it calmly will look upon the amount as otherwise than just and fair. flad thore beoa none of these complications, had the domand been made upon us on this ground, that it was only a fair amount to pay for benefits received, I doubt vorg much whether there would have been any op position on the part of this Council, oe, it all avente, any opposition on the part of the majority aren of the unofficial members. I gather, how. over, that the objectious to this vote depe id almost entirely on the unfortunate represanta- tions made when this vote was first urged nyou our attention. There can be no doubt whaterer, looking at the despatch, that an increase in the number of troops was put in the foreground of the reasons for asking for this increased contri- bation. There can be no doubt whatever f that, and therefore it is all the more Infortunate that that promiso has nos beou faladed, but I feel that the demand made in a just one apart altogether from this promise, and I trnat I have given reasons such as ou consideration you will think valid for believ ing it to be a just one. It appears to rue that the failure in the fulfilment of this apparent pro- mige has nothing to do with the question as to whether this sun should be voted or not. There appears a very good reason for complaint, if you desire it, for strong complaint, for fulare to tulfil a promise, but not for refusing a vote which is, in itself, just, and which you would have un- questionably voted but for this unfortunate mis- fake. To put the matter in an abstract form apart altogether from the parties concernua: if A is receiving a benefit from B, for which a certain sum is fairly due to B. is he loss morally bound to pay that debt to B because of a supererogatory promise made by C which has not been faidlled? I say he is equally bound in spite of that proj mise, and be would be so bound even if that: promise were made by B, but still more is hel bad when that proinise was not made by B, but by his agent for whom B was in no way re- sponsible. In this case the boneticiary is not the British Go.srumeut, but the British box. paper, and because a promise was held ont to us, or rather not exactly a promise, but an induce- ment was held out to us by the British Govern- montand that inducement proves to be fallacious, e we are none the less morally bound to pay the British taxpayers what is justly their due. That is the view I tako very strongly, and these baing my reasons I cau couscent.ously say that I recommend this vote without relno:ance, bare sketched as fairly as I possibly can wy reasons for believing that additional domanda iu the future may be very dangerous, a d my rea sons also for bieving that the demand for this amount which can be borne now may possibly become injarious in the future, but considering the matter at the present tim I cannot help thinking we not only have to pay but we ought to pay this acount now. I have nothing further to say, but I shall be glad to hear what coarse bon. members have decided Tyon.
I
Hon. P. RYKIN-Your Excellency, the official members have fully considered what fell from your Excellency at the last meeting an also the other questions connected with this demand and they cannot satisfy their minds that the demand unaccompanied by the fulfilment of the promise made is a just one. It is very well to say that this colony can pay the amount, but! we know that all public works buve bann stopped, i aud if we are to be hamper: by this demand I do not see how it can be said tha wo are able pay it. We would have to pay it by catting off something else. If the home Govern- ment had kept faith with the colony we should! probably hava screwed it out, but we should have ad a certain quid pro quo. We should have had an ineronsed farrison and an increased feel- ing of security. Now we have not got that. We have got a comparatively weak garrison for the forts they have to man, and nnless the Navy assist us in the event of this colony being ai tacked we should be in a very bad way. My own idea is that we should have tar s sistance, that they would feel bound to wowo here, whatever they may say, outside, if there was any foar of an attack on the colony, of course we should probably not have the wholo aquadron in the Harbour, but they would give
us as many ships as would assist the "forts. I may meation that since the last meeting the unofficial members have had in their band correspondance, despatches, and minutos from the members of Council at Singapore, and it is with great pleasure that we see that the ofisial members there have taken the part of the ratepayers against the Colonial office. Who pays them their salary? The ratepayers of the colony, and they should be their primary con- sideration. The view of the unofficial members here is that they should not pass this vote, and in that I am happy to say they are backed up by Singapore and Ceylon. Unfortunately we are nat, in the position of Mauritius, where the unofficial metabora here a majority in the Council. They used their power and reduced the vote forthwith. Unfortunately we are not in that position and the only thing we do is to uss what arguments we have against the vote. If this vote is passed to-day by means of the official voto it is proposed to call a public maoting and petition Her Majesty the Queen. I think from that public mesting it will appear, what the feeling of the public is in connection with this .tter. I think there will be no uncertain sound from that meeting; it will clearly and distinctly state that there has been a breach of faith committed with this colony and we have had no explanation of it. I do not know what the despatch laid on the table this after- noon contains; I have not read it. I do not know whether it contains any explanation.
His EXCELLENCY-It does not.
$30
Hon. F. RYRI-I think, with your Excel. Teney, that this question should be dealt with with great care. The unofficial members have devoted great care to it and they cau arrive at but one opinion, that if they vole this £40,000 Lite Imperial Government should do its share.
lon H. WHITEMAN-Siv havo en deavoured to give due consideration to the re- marks and the appeal made at the last meeting of Council to bou. members not to place your Excellency in the painful position of being obliged to do your daty in fics of their views, and I have also listened with great attention to what your Excellency has said to-day. hut I feel compelled to emphatically oppose this haury money vote on its merits. Whether €10,000 would be a fair. reasonable, and just military contribution from tho colony is not the question before the Council. The question before the Council is the increased military contribution dem udled in March, 1990, and still demanded, on the ground that in the opinion of the Imperial Government oiream- stances renderit necessary to increase the garrison in Hongkong. Lord Knutsford's despatch of the 19th Jury, 1890, bears me out in that state- mont. Paragraph 3 says.
"The garrison in 1863-4 was estimated at "1,00 of all ranks, and its annual cost at
•£100.000. In 1888 the garrisou numbered "1445 of all ranks (exclusive of volauteers), and its cost has risen to about £160,000 a year, while the Colonial contribution has remained *st £20,000.”
Paragraph 6 reads →→→
The fature Garrison, including local ro- galars, but excluding militis qui volunteers, "will be approximately as fallimi-Imperial troops. 2,525 of ali ranks; local repaburs, 493 of all ranks. The details are given in the table Anexed to this despatch."
Ana paragraph 7 is as follows: --
The cost of the Garr son will be about **£280,000 a year and will cousequently be nearly "three times as great as was the expense of the arrison the when the Colonial antib
357
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.