39
As in Europe in the first half of the 19th century, it was not deemed advisable to grant the vote to all and sundry. The fear of democratic tyrannic majority rule, after the experience of the French Revolution, still worked its influence on political thinking about the franchise. If only voters had some "respectable" background in most cases to be measured by their payment of taxes or rates they could be expected to vote in the "right" way. Moreover it was argued that the government of the land should be left to those who had a real stake in it, again measured financially. In view of this train of thought it is not surprising to find that in Shanghai similar opinions prevailed.
10
According to the 1845 and 1854 Land Regulations only landowners (incidentally: legally the ground could be rented only, but to all practical purposes it was owned) could take part in the decision making process at the Public Meeting. Originally this was a very natural development because most foreign residents owned land in the new settlement. Gradually this changed and more and more foreigners rented houses on which they had to pay a housetax which did not carry with it a right to vote. Soon after the approval of the 1854 Land Regulations in July, however, there was a short upheaval at a Public Meeting held on November 10, 1854. At that meeting a resolution was moved and passed which read: "That in addition to the qualifications for Votes now in use the payment by any Foreign resident of fifty dollars annually, or upwards, towards the Dues or assessments levied by the Municipal Council, shall entitle the individual or firm so contributing to one vote at any General Meeting (...)".20 This motion was probably induced not so much by the house renters, but by the payers of wharfage dues, the revenues of which in the budget of 1854-55 were estimated at $14,000 out of a total of $25,000 (against $2,000 landtax, $3,000 European housetax and $5,400 Chinese housetax),21 Chinese housetax). Although the resolution was passed unanimously, it was not approved by consul Alcock, whose main argument, expressed at the Public Meeting of November 24 was that if the franchise was widened on this basis "its application in any impartial or equitable spirit would involve the introduction of several thousand Chinese voters, to the swamping of the present small fraction of Foreign renters, in whom all power was now without dispute vested".22
39
As in Europe in the first half of the 19th century, it was not deemed advisable to grant the vote to all and sundry. The fear of democratic tyrannic majority rule, after the experience of the French Revolution, still worked its influence on political thinking about the franchise. If only voters had some "respectable" background in most cases to be measured by their payment of taxes or rates they could be expected to vote in the "right" way. Moreover it was argued that the government of the land should be left to those who had a real stake in it, again measured financially. In view of this train of thought it is not surprising to find that in Shanghai similar opinions prevailed.
10
According to the 1845 and 1854 Land Regulations only landowners (incidentally: legally the ground could be rented only, but to all practical purposes it was owned) could take part in the decision making process at the Public Meeting. Originally this was a very natural development because most foreign residents owned land in the new settlement. Gradually this changed and more and more foreigners rented houses on which they had to pay a housetax which did not carry with it a right to vote. Soon after the approval of the 1854 Land Regulations in July, however, there was a short upheaval at a Public Meeting held on November 10 1854. At that meeting a resolution was moved and passed which read: "That in addition to the qualifications for Votes now in use the payment by any Foreign resident of fifty dollars annually, or upwards, towards the Dues or assessments levied by the Municipal Council, shall entitle the individual or firm so contributing to one vote at any General Meeting (..)".20 This motion was probably induced not so much by the house renters, but by the payers of wharfage dues, the revenues of which in the budget of 1854-55 were estimated at $14,000 out of a total of $25,000 (against $2,000 landtax, $3,000 European housetax and $5,400 Chinese housetax),21
Chinese housetax). Although the resolution was passed unanimously, it was not approved by consul Alcock, whose main argument, expressed at the Public Meeting of November 24 was that if the franchise was widened on this basis "its application in any impartial or equitable spirit would involve the introduction of several thousand Chinese voters, to the swamping of the present small fraction of Foreign renters, in whom all power was now without dispute vested".22
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.