[From the CHINA MAIL of 30th August, 1893.]
If any doubt lingered in the public mind as to the strong disfavour with which Governor Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON regarded the idea of appointing a Retrenchment Commission which could by any straining of language be called 'independent,' that doubt must have been effectually removed by a perusal of the voluminous correspondence on the subject which we published yesterday. We referred the other day to His Excellency's partiality for what may be called the policy of dawdle-and-shuffle. It would be almost impossible to conceive a more striking illustration of the methods and results of this policy than that which is given in the official contributions to this correspondence. The various incidents in the history of the Retrenchment Commission question are set out so fully by Mr. WHITEHEAD in his letters that we need not recapitulate them here. We may, however, refer briefly to the principal points.
That the cost of administration in this Colony is in excess of what it should be has been admitted even by the Government. How to reduce it is a question to which Mr. WHITEHEAD has devoted a considerable amount of attention, and for this he deserves the thanks of the community. His original proposal on the subject was that a thoroughly independent commission should be appointed to deal with it. The proposal was summarily 'squelched' by the Governor. Then the Unofficial Members of Council petitioned the Secretary of State for an enquiry by a body to be composed of members of the community unconnected with Government, or at least a majority of such persons. The Secretary of State in response to this petition sent instructions for the appointment of a commission to make a comprehensive enquiry, effecting all departments in the service. He also gave instructions that this should be a commission, 'over which the Colonial Secretary or the Chief Justice might preside, with one or two other Government Officers, and certain Unofficial Members as colleagues.' From these instructions it would appear to anyone not desirous of attributing a meaning to the terms different from what they actually convey that, inclusive of the Chairman, the number of Officials on this commission should not exceed three. It was, indeed, in the option of the Governor to appoint only two Officials, including the Chairman. In the exercise of a discretion which he evidently thinks enables him to play fast and loose with the direct and explicit instructions of the Secretary of State, His Excellency appointed four Officials, while he conveniently found that the expression 'a certain number,' when used in connection with Unofficial Members, simply meant neither more nor less than three. Thus was the 'independent' commission (consisting of a majority of Official Members) appointed.
Of course there cannot be the slightest doubt that Mr. WHITEHEAD was abundantly justified in declining to join in the farce which an enquiry by such a commission would inevitably have been. Indeed, considering the attitude which he had previously taken in regard to the subject of retrenchment, and the manner in which the investigation should be conducted, he could not consistently have done otherwise. We are aware that this view is in direct opposition to that of the Hon. Mr. O'BRIEN. His opinion is that the phrase 'one or two' may mean three, and that in this case it must not be so rigidly interpreted as to exclude that meaning. 'Two' may sometimes mean 'three' in official language, but we should hardly think that even the Secretary of State for the Colonies would take such a liberty with figures as is implied by the Colonial Secretary when he says that 'one,' in the despatch in question, if not rigidly interpreted, may mean 'three.'
Mr. O'BRIEN expresses the opinion that the real intention (of the Secretary of State) was probably carried out by the appointments actually made. That is to say, that although the Secretary of State definitely and expressly limited the number of Official Members of the commission to three,—at the same time leaving it in the option of the Governor to reduce the number to two—he probably meant that there should be four Officials appointed. If the Colonial Secretary knows it as a fact that Lord Ripon habitually conceals his intentions in this way, and leaves them to be discovered through a process of thought reading by other eminent Officials, it is just possible that Mr. O'BRIEN may be right; but at present we have no evidence of this. An eminent diplomatist said that the use of language was to conceal thought, but it has been left for Mr. O'BRIEN to give to the world the somewhat startling information that, in official language, 'one' or 'two' probably means 'three.'
However, Mr. WHITEHEAD having declined to accept this fantastic interpretation of the Secretary of State's despatch, and being, naturally, extremely sceptical as to the efficacy of any retrenchment investigation conducted by a commission with a majority of Official Members, very properly refused to have anything to do with the business. Then a doubt seems to have arisen in the mind of the Governor as to whether there was any justification for the assumption that when Lord Ripon said 'one' or 'two' he really meant exactly 'three,' and it was deemed advisable to proceed on a literal interpretation of these terms. In his letter of August 12 to Mr. WHITEHEAD the Colonial Secretary says: 'But, desiring to obviate all possible objection on your part, His Excellency consented to reduce the number of the Committee by the withdrawal of one Official and one Unofficial Member.' This sentence makes a nearer approach to a genuine joke than anything in the whole of the long-drawn-out correspondence, and we hope that the Colonial Secretary thoroughly enjoyed it. The proposal to remove the objection against an Official majority by withdrawing one Official and one Unofficial is so humorous that even a hard-headed Scotsman like Mr. WHITEHEAD must have derived some amusement from it.
This would not do, however, and Mr. WHITEHEAD adhered to the proviso which he had insisted on all along—that there should be an Unofficial majority in the Commission. He maintained that the Commission would be of no practical value otherwise, and was informed by the Colonial Secretary that the Governor was at a loss to imagine by what process of reasoning he arrived at this "astonishing conclusion." As both the Governor and the Colonial Secretary had previously been perfectly well aware of Mr. WHITEHEAD's views as to the constitution of the Commission, we can hardly see how they could have found anything astonishing in this conclusion. It is difficult to conceive any reason for astonishment on their part when Mr. WHITEHEAD subsequently refused to act on a still further reduced commission, consisting of two official and two unofficial members. If the Official majority might be expected to block any attempts at substantial reduction in expenditure the Commission composed of equal numbers of both classes could with equal reason be expected to accomplish nothing worth attempting. Chief Justice Fielding Clarke says that in such a committee no recommendations could be carried in the teeth of Unofficial opposition, which is quite true; but we should expect the recommendations as to reduction of expenditure to come chiefly from the Unofficial side, and then, of course, as the Chief Justice admits, no recommendations could be carried in the teeth of Official opposition. Mr. WHITEHEAD was therefore perfectly consistent and perfectly justified in his refusal to act. Why the idea of appointing a commission should be entirely abandoned in consequence of this refusal is quite another question. The fact is that His Excellency has made a sad muddle of this business, from first to last.
SIR,
To the Editor of the CHINA MAIL.
August 30th, 1893.
The correspondence published by you last night with regard to the Retrenchment Commission brings to light the hard fight the Governor is making to stifle the comprehensive and 'independent' enquiry demanded by the Unofficial Members of Council and sanctioned by the Secretary of State in spite of the Governor's urgent recommendations not to grant it. It is gratifying from a public point of view to see the firm stand made by the Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD. He is in every sense justified in his attitude by refusing to sit on a Commission with an official majority, as an enquiry by such a Commission would end in a farce. With the exception of the Bench, officials dare not act as they feel, and, therefore, the public could have no confidence in a Commission in which the officials were in a majority.
Some years ago, it was ruled by the Secretary of State that when officials could not vote with the Government in Council they were to resign; and it is because of a difficulty arising from Sir JOHN SMALE refusing to support the Government that the Chief Justice does not now have a seat in the Council in Hongkong. Is it likely, in the face of such a ruling from the Colonial Office, that the heads of departments would dare to vote contrary to the Governor's view?
The public will not be satisfied until a Commission is constituted with an unofficial majority, and the sooner the Governor realizes this the better will it be for his own reputation, which, unfortunately, has fallen away sadly since his arrival in Hongkong.
In the defunct China Punch there is a sketch of the predecessors of the Governor and the Colonial Secretary 'swallowing a bitter draught from Downing Street,' which I commend to their observation.
Yours, etc.,
OBSERVER.
[From the HONGKONG TELEGRAPH of 30th August, 1893.]
The most noteworthy feature in the voluminous correspondence published in yesterday's Telegraph and dealing with the proposed Retrenchment Commission is the spiteful animus and quite unjustified insinuations indulged in by Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON and his advisers against the Hon. Mr. WHITEHEAD. Such gross and purposely objectionable personalities as those contained in Mr. O'BRIEN's letter dated August 12th cannot be too severely reprobated; and His Excellency the Governor cannot certainly be held blameless for his supineness, not to use a harsher term, in permitting the Government of this Colony to be placed in such a false and undignified position. And this is not the first time the same gratuitously offensive and scandalously unfair methods have been adopted by the paid servants of the Hongkong community in what ought to have been the calm, dispassionate and friendly arrangement of matters which are essentially of general public interest. His Excellency and his belligerent Fidus Achates may find sooner than they imagine that the important business of the Hongkong Government and the rights of the people who support that Government are not to be subordinated to petty squabbles.
539
[From the CHINA MAIL of 30th August, 1893.]
Ir any doubt lingered in the public mind as to the strong disfavour with which Governor Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON regarded the idea of appointing a Retrenchment Commission which could by any straining of language he called 'independent,' that doubt must have been effectually removed by a perusal of the voluminous correspondence on the subject which we published yesterday. We referred the other day to His Excellency's partiality for what may be called the policy of dawdle-and-shuffle. It would be almost impossible to conceive a more striking illustration of the methods and results of this policy than that which is given in the official contributious to this correspondence. The various incidents in the history of the Retrenchment Commission question are set out so fully by Mr. WHITEHEAD in his letters that we need not recapitulate them here. We may, however, refer briefly to the principal points. 'That the cost of administration in this Colony is in excess of what it should be has been admitted even by the Government. How to reduce it is a question to which Mr. WAITEREAD has devoted a considerable amount of attention, and for this he deserves the thanks of the community. His original proposal on the subject was that a thoroughly independent commission should be appointed to deal with it. The proposal was summarily 'squelched' by the Governor. Then the Unofficial Members of Council petitioned the Secretary of State for an enquiry by a body to be composed of members of the community unconnected wirh Government, or at least a majority of such persous.' The Secretary of State in response to this petition sent instructions for the appointment of a commission to make a comprehensive enquiry, effecting all departments in the service. He also gave instructions that this should be a commission, 'over which the Colonial Secretary or the Chief Justice might preside, with one or two other Government Officers, and certain Unofficial Members as colleagues. From these instructions it would appear to anyone not desirous of attributing a meaning to the terms different from what they actually convey that, inclusive of the Chairman, the number of Officials on this commission should not exceed three. It was, indeed, in the option of the Governor to appoint only two Officials, including the Chairman. In the exercise of a discretion which he evidently thinks enables him to play fast and loose with the direct and explicit instructions of the Secretary of State, His Excellency appointed four Officials, while he conveniently found that the expression ‘a certain number,' when used in connection with Unofficial Members, simply meant neither more nor less than three. Thus was the independent' commission (consisting of a majority of Official Members) appointed. Of course there cannot be the slightest doubt that Mr. WHITEHEAD was abundantly justified in declining to join in the farce which an enquiry by such a commission would inevitably have been. Indeed, considering the attitude which he had previously taken in regard to the subject of retrenchment, and the manner in which the investigation should be conducted, he could not consistently have done otherwise. We are aware that this view is in direct opposition to that of the Hon. Mr. O'BRIEN. His opinion is that the phrase 'one or two' may mean three, and that in this case it must not be so rigidly interpreted' as to exclude that meaning. Two' may sometimes mean three' in official language, but we should hardly think that even the Secretary of State for the Colonies would take such a liberty with figures as is implied by the Colonial Secretary when he says that one,' in the despatch in question, if not rigidly interpreted,' may mean 'three.'
Mr. O'BRIEN expresses the opinion that the real intention (of the Secretary of State) was probably carried out by the appointments actually made.' That is to say, that although the Secretary of State definitely and expressly limited the number of Official Members of the commission to three,--at the same time leaving it in the option of the Governor to reduce the anumber to two-he probably meant that there should be four Officials appointed. If the Colonial Secretary knows it as a fact that Lord Ripon habitually conceals his intentions in this way, and leaves them to be discovered through a process of thought reading by other eminent Officials, it is just possible that Mr. O'BRIEN may be right; but at present we have no evidence of this. An eminent diplomatist said that the use of language was to ronceal thought, but it has been left for Mr. O'BRIEN to give to the world the somewhat startling information that, in official language, 'one' or 'two' probably means three.'
However, Mr. WHITEHEAD having declined to accept this fantastic interpretation of the Secretary of State's despatch, and being, naturally, extremely sceptical as to the efficacy of any retrenchment investigation conducted by a commission with a majority of Official Members, very properly refused to have anything to do with the business. Then a doubt seems to have arisen in the wind of the Governor as to whether there was any justification for the assumption that when Lord Ripon said 'one' or 'two' he really meant exactly three,' and it was deemed advisable to proceed on a literal interpretation of these terms. In his letter of August 12 to Mr. WHITEHEAD the Colonial Secretary says: But, desiring to obviate all possible objection on your part, His Excellency consented to reduce the number of the Committee by the withdrawal of one Official and one Unofficial Member.' This sentence makes a nearer approach to a genuine joke than anything in the whole of the long-drawn-out correspondence, and we hope that the Colonial Secretary thoroughly enjoyed it. The proposal to remove the objection against an Official majority by withdrawing oue Official and one Unofficial is so humorous that even a hard- headed Scotsman like Mr. WHITEHEAD must have derived some amusement from it.
This would not do, however, and Mr. WRITEHEAD adhered to the proviso which he had insisted on all along-that there should be an Unofficial majority in the Commission. He maintained that the Commission would be of no practical value otherwise, and was informed by the Colonial Secretary that the Governor was at a loss to imagine by what process of reasoning he arrived at this "astonishing conclusion." As both the Governor and the Colonial Secretary had previously been perfectly well aware of Mr. WHITEHEAD's views as to the constitution of the Commission, we can hardly see how they could have found anything astonishing in this conclusion. It is difficult to conceive any reasou for astonishment ou their part when Mr. WHITEHEAD subsequently refused to act on a still further reduced commission, consisting of two official and two unofficial members. If the Official majority might be expected to block any attempts at substantial reduction in expenditure the Commission composed of equal numbers of both classes could with equal reason be expected to accomplish nothing worth attempting. Chief Justice Field- ing Clarke says that in such a committee no recommendations could be carried in the teeth of Unofficial opposition, which is quite true; but we should expect the recommendations as to reduction of expenditure to come chiefly from the Unofficial side, and then, of course, as the Chief Justice admits, no recommenda- tions could be carried in the teeth of Official opposition. Mr. WaITEHEAD was therefore prefectly consistent and perfectly justified in his refusal to act. Why the idea of appointing a commission should be entirely abandoned in consequence of this refusal is quite another question. The fact is that His Excellency has male a sad muddle of this business, from first to last.
SIR,
To the Editor of the CHINA MAIT.'
August 30th, 1893.
The correspondence published by you last night with regard to the Retrenchment Commission brings to light the hard tight the Governor is making to stifle the comprehensive and independent' enquiry demanded by the Unofficial Members of Council and sanctioned by the Secretary of State in spite of the Governor's urgent recommendations not to grant it. It is gratifying from a public pomt of view to see the firm stand made by the Hon. T. H. WHITEHEAD. He is in every sense justified in bis attitude by refusing to sit on a Commission with an official majority, as an enquiry by such a Commission would end in a farve. With the exception of the Bench, officials dare not act as they feel, and, therefore, the public could have no confidence in a Comunission in which the officials were in a majority.
Some years ago, it was ruled by the Secretary of State that when officials could not vote with the Government in Council they were to resigu; and it is because of a difficulty arising from Sir Joux SMALE refusing to support the Government that the Chief Justice does not now have a seat in the Council in Hongkong. Is it likely, in the face of such a ruling from the Colonial Office, that the heads of departments would dare to vote contrary to the Governor's view ?
The public will not be satisfied until a Commission is constituted with an unofficial majority, and the sooner the Governor realizes this the better will it be for his own reputation, which, unfor tunately, has fallen away sadly since his arrival in Hongkong.
In the defunct China Punch there is a sketch of the predecessors of the Governor and the I commend it to their Colonial Secretary swallowing a bitter draught from Downing Street.' observation.
THE
Yours, etc.,
OBSERVER.
[From the HONGKONG TELEGRAPH of 30th August, 1893.]
most noteworthy feature in the voluminous correspondence published in yesterday's Telegraph and dealing with the proposed Retrenchment Commission is the spiteful animus and quite uujustified insinuations indulged in by Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON and his advisers against the Hon. Mr. WHITEHEAD. Such gross and purposely objectionable personalities as those contained in Mr. O'BRIEN'S letter dated August 12th cannot be too severely reprobated; and His Excellency the Governor cannot certainly be held blameless for his supineness, not to use a harsher term, in permitting the Government of this Colony to be placed in such a false and undignified position. And this is not the first time the same gratuitously offensive and scandalously unfair methods have been adopted by the paid servants of the Hongkong community in what ought to have been the calm, dispassionate and friendly arrangement of matters which are essentially of general public interest. His Excellency and his belligerent Fidus Achates may find sooner than they imagine that the important business of the Hongkong Government and the rights of the people who support that Government are not to be subordinated to petty squabbles
539
:
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.