THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 11TH SEPTEMBER, 1880. 705
that have been quoted, whether they establish a precise contract or no, I think the Council will agree with me there is a question of good faith, and that whatever may be the legal interpretation to be jut upon
the negotiations between the Government and the responsible persons acting on behalf of the City Hall at the time the grant was made, there was an understanding at least that the principle of having the City Hall free, open, and without distinction to all Her Majesty's subjects in this Colony, was accepted. I say the question is one primarily of good faith. Farther, it is a question of principle apart from good faith, a question it may be called of policy, that of admitting Chinese subjects of Her Majesty to equal rights in this part of Her Majesty's dominions with those of Her European subjects. Then there is a third question, the question of expediency. Now, I observe that in this report some account is given of a meeting which was held by the Committee of the City Hall, in which they associated with themselves, for the purpose of discussing the question here raised, the Chief Justice and Bishop Burden, and the description which is here given of the course of that meeting, having regard to the three aspects of the question I have referred to, is somewhat curious. The meeting is said to have discussed the question in all its bearings. The public, apparently, have not seen all the bearings of the question yet, and I should certainly say it is a fair inference from the report of this meeting that the most important of the bearings of the question were not before the meeting; otherwise, the course of the discussion to any mind was a most extraordinary one. Now here is the report. We have the 'Pishop introduced with this flourish,-"The Bishop, who has resided for many years amongst the -Chinese and has a thorough knowledge of their language." I don't see how that hears precisely- "customs and feeling"--that is more pertinent, "being one of those who supported the new regulations. After deciding upon these new rules it was unanimously decided by those present at the meeting that it was unnecessary to consider the second article of the basis of settlement." What was the second article? The second article was the article which proposed to consider these regulations on the ground of good faith. Therefore, it appears that the Committee considered this question, leaving out the con- ideration whether they were keeping good faith with those who advanced the funds. Well, the public, if they were to be content with the materials furnished by this document, would be in much the same position as the Committee. The question of good faith would not be before them as it really arises, and upon the question of expediency they would have no materials for a judgement unless they like to take the opinion of Bishop BURDON. In that report the question of good faith, the question that arises out of the minutes of the Governor and the correspondence is left out altogether, and, as His Excellency has pointed out, the full merits of his question from the three-fold view-good faith as well as ex- pediency and principle---will now be before the Colony for the first time. Now, with regard to this as a question of expediency and principle, it appears to me that practically my honourable friend who has spoken on this subject has abandoned any ground the Committee might have had for defending these rules, because I think it stands upon his admission that these rules go for very little. Whether le has abandoned such ground or not, it is a serious matter to put such a document as this report before the Colony in which the Governor is put forward as one who does not keep his word and breaks faith with those with whom he makes arrangements. When I look at this document I find it stated that Bishop BURDON, who knows the customs of the people, is put forward as in support of the onclusions arrived at, and, I apprehend, not on the question of principle but on the question of *xpediency, or at all events, as much the latter as the former. I think the Colony would be interested to know what materials, what surmises, what facts there were before the Committee which induced them to come to the decision that it was desirable to have such a rule as this to prevent a conflict etween the lower strata of Chinese and Europeans. When those grounds bring them into collision with the Governor, and certainly with the clearly enunciated opinion of the Secretary of State, they »re bound, I don't say according to law, but as men of common sense appealing to men of common ase, they are bound to put forward some substantial materials which warrant them in coming to their conclusion, and which render it necessary to insist on it, in spite of considerations which were put to them, as in the nature of good faith, and notwithstanding that it is represented to them that brings them into conflict with the principle that all Her Majesty's subjects should be treated on equal footing, and that it brings them clearly into conflict with the very modest proposal made the Secretary of State, a proposal which says, if it be proved expedient let it go, but give it a trial Well, it must have been a strong necessity, of which we are entitled to ask some sidence, which would bring the Committee into conflict with all these considerations, and lead thera refuse, as they have done positively, to reopen the question at all, as suggested by the Secretary of State. It is patent, under these circumstances, they have put themselves in one respect in the wrong. For that letter some more respectful attention than they seem to have bestowed upon it would have n becoming in any body of citizens in the Colony. But be that as it may, I merely wish to add few humble suggestions to those of my honourable friend Mr. RyRIE as to the course that appears be clearly open to the Committee with regard to the position they should take up. Unless they some substantial reason for insisting on these rules because expediency requires it. I should ggest, on principle alone, and having regard to the suggestion of the Secretary of State, that they re-open the question and deal with the subject again. I only wish to add with regard to the inions I have expressed about this matter, that it does appear to me that the principle that the *inèse and European subjects of the Queen should be treated without distinction is one which it would become this Government to abandon by associating itself, as it would by continuing the grant, with only body administering publie monies in the Colony which continues this distinction.
or six months.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.