702
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 11TH SEPTEMBER, 1880.
แ
(6
with the Royal instructions, but I am a German." And perhaps another gentleman, Mr. FoRRES, may say, "What do I care about this? I think it well to impose invidious restrictions on the Chinese "I am not bound by the spirit of Her Majesty's instructions. They are not the instructions of the "President of the United States." Well, my honourable friend was the Chairman of the City Hall Committee. He cannot say that. But it is not merely the question of the Governor acting in accord ance with the law, with the conditions laid down by his predecessor and the spirit of the Royal instrue- tions. That is not the only question. What about a reference made to the Secretary of State? What about the suggestion of the Secretary of State, and the way in which it has been received by the City Hall Committee. I don't believe that in the history of Hongkong any body of gentlemen, whether ther were subjects of the Queen or not, whether they were Germans, Americans, or British subjects, hav taken the responsibility that the present committee have assumed in rejecting the suggestion of the Secretary of State. This is a question affecting the grant of public money, money of the ratepayers of this Colony. Perhaps the most illustrious man who preceded me in this Government, Sir HERCULES ROBINSON, he it is who has said:- "The Chinese pay 98 per cent. of the taxes in this Colony." I am quoting from a despatch laid before l'arliament and laid upon the table of this Council.
They are 98 per cent. of the population and they pay about the same proportion of the revenue.”
I know myself that they contribute considerably over 90 per cent. And the City Hall Committee come to these ratepayers and say to them, "Give us $1,200," knowing well that $1,100 of these dollars are Chinese dollars, and the Committee say, "We will endeavour in some little way to gibbet you on our notice “board and make a distinction of nationalities," though the Governor, when the grant was made, stipu- lated there should be no such distinction. But with respect to the Secretary of State, an appeal was made. I was requested by my honourable friend to submit the correspondence to Sir MICHAEL HICKS- BEACH. I did so- --what was the result? Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH wrote a despatch, and he re- ferred to the objection made by the City Hall Committee to the admission of Chinese on a par with Europeans the objection, that is, that Messrs. HOPPIUS, FORBES, and RUTTUNJEE made-that is, to use their words, "there was some likelihood of disturbances arising between the lower class of Chinese. "and the answering strata of Europeans." Well, I must say I thought that very unlikely: Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH thought it very unlikely. If the Chinese go to the City Hall to look at a dried snake in the Museum, why should they be prevented, when they can go to the Gardens to look at a live snake or go to the Library and call for a book with pictures of snakes? Where is the distinction? The Library is open to them, the Public Gardens are open to them, but, forsooth, Messrs. FORBES, HOPPICS and RUTTUNJEE are to prevent the Chinese subjects of the Queen from having free access to the City Hall Museum. One would have thought when the despatch came from Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH, in which he expressed grave doubt of these collisions occurring, and says he has never heard of such collisions occurring, that the Committee would have acted on his suggestion that for six months the entire free opening of the Museum should be tried, and then, if collisions occurred, some modifications could be considered. When that despatch came, what was done with it? It was referred with the trust deed, with Sir RICHARD MACDONNELL'S minutes and all the correspondence to the new Attorney General, who expressed a very clear opinion-an opinion coincident with that of all his predecessors that the legal estate vested in Mr. RYRIE, that the money, if any were to be paid, should be paid to Mr. RYRIE. A letter was written by the Acting Colonial Secretary to the City Hall Committee, in which he said:-
:--“The Governor desires me to say he is authorised by the Secretary of State to suggest "the free opening of the Museum for a period of six months. In doing so I am to express the hope of "His Excellency that the Committee will see its way to the adoption of the suggestion, and so remove 'all cause of difference between themselves and the Trustee." The answer is: "The new regulations
"
were so fully considered, and the majority were so clearly in favour of them, that the Committee are "unable to see that any useful end could be served by trying the experiment suggested." So it comes to this, that these gentlemen, the majority of whom are not British subjects, are, forsooth, to exclude the Queen's Chinese subjects from the City Hall, for which land worth $70,000, or more, was granted by the Crown to all the inhabitants-that these gentlemen are to set aside the trusts of that deed, the conditions of Sir RICHARD MACDONNELL, the resolution that was passed by the present Governor in Council, and the suggestion of the Secretary of State. Of course, they can't do so. However powerful these gentlemen may be, they are not strong enough to do that. The spirit of the Queen's instruction will be carried out. The conditions imposed by Sir RICHARD MACDONNELL in respect of this ground will be fulfilled, and the law will be strictly enforced with respect to the payment of any money, if any money again has to be paid to the Trustee. Gentlemen, I observe it was said also. at a place where I was not present, at a meeting at the City Hall, that there was some agreement com* to by the Governor with regard to these new rules, and that from that agreement the Governor hal deviated. I don't know that it was said very distinctly, but whether said distinctly or not, it was & mistake. In 1879, my attention was called to the matter, and a letter was written to the City Hall Committee. When they refused to accede to the wish of the Governor of the Colony, I received 3 letter. It is not marked private, and I will quote a passage from it. It is from a member of this Council, His Honour the Chief Justice. He says:-- "Could you not let the vote for the year be passef conditionally that the rules meet your approval, and thus give time for arrangement?" That let of Sir JOHN SMALE's was written to me on 27th October, 1879. that the vote, which had been struck out of the Estimates for 1880, should be put back again un
To that I at once agreed, namely, the condition that the Committee proceed to revise their notice and that the rules were to meet my
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.