RAS-1982 — Page 62

RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 All AI Reviewed

J. H. HAAN

It was one of the first manifestations of the fact that after all the land-renters were not sovereign in taking their own decisions and that for important measures the consent of one or more consuls was necessary.

For the time being the matter was allowed to rest, but the fact of tenants not having the franchise was again broached in the mid-1860s. Amidst numerous other signs of civic disobedience, a number of tenants refused to pay taxes which they themselves had not voted. Some of them were prosecuted before their respective Consular Courts with the result that in some cases the Municipal Council was proved right and sometimes wrong.23

There was a widespread feeling that tenants could no longer be barred from attending Public Meetings; this feeling was expressed at the meeting of April 15, 1865, by the chairman of the Municipal Council, Henry Dent: "Hitherto the practice has been of only land-renters voting. That this system is wrong in principle can hardly admit of doubt. Ratepayers contribute largely to the taxes and ought certainly to have a voice in matters of taxation. (...)"24

Apart from the principle involved, it was doubtless also an effort to muster support for the Municipal Council from the tenant-ratepayers.

The way seemed open for a wider franchise and indeed the new Land Regulations provided for the vote by some tenants (article XIX). The basis was rather restricted, however, and during the deliberations about the Land Regulations on March 12 and 13, 1866, it became clear that many land-renters who until then had exercised sole power—wished to limit the franchise even more than had been foreseen by the Commission which had drawn up the new Constitution.

The minimum rent which gave a tenant the right to vote was, therefore, eventually put at 700 taels. The only person who pleaded the cause of the tenants was the British consul, Charles Winchester, whose opinion was "that the article just read (XIX) did not by any means come up to his idea what the franchise should be. One description of right should not alone

Edit History

2026-05-13 00:40:13 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

40 J. H. HAAN It was one of the first manifestations of the fact that after all the land-renters were not sovereign in taking their own decisions and that for important measures the consent of one or more consuls was necessary. For the time being the matter was allowed to rest, but the fact of tenants not having the franchise was again broached in the mid-1860s. Amidst numerous other signs of civic disobedience, a number of tenants refused to pay taxes which they themselves had not voted. Some of them were prosecuted before their respective Consular Courts with the result that in some cases the Municipal Council was proved right and sometimes wrong.23 There was a widespread feeling that tenants could no longer be barred from attending Public Meetings; this feeling was expressed at the meeting of April 15, 1865, by the chairman of the Municipal Council, Henry Dent: "Hitherto the practice has been of only land-renters voting. That this system is wrong in principle can hardly admit of doubt. Ratepayers contribute largely to the taxes and ought certainly to have a voice in matters of taxation. (...)"24 Apart from the principle involved, it was doubtless also an effort to muster support for the Municipal Council from the tenant-ratepayers. The way seemed open for a wider franchise and indeed the new Land Regulations provided for the vote by some tenants (article XIX). The basis was rather restricted, however, and during the deliberations about the Land Regulations on March 12 and 13, 1866, it became clear that many land-renters who until then had exercised sole power—wished to limit the franchise even more than had been foreseen by the Commission which had drawn up the new Constitution. The minimum rent which gave a tenant the right to vote was, therefore, eventually put at 700 taels. The only person who pleaded the cause of the tenants was the British consul, Charles Winchester, whose opinion was "that the article just read (XIX) did not by any means come up to his idea what the franchise should be. One description of right should not alone

Baseline (Original)

40 J. H. HAAN It was one of first manifestations of the fact that after all the landrenters were not sovereign in taking their own decisions and that for important measures the consent of one or more consuls was necessary. For the time being the matter was allowed to rest, but the fact of tenants not having the franchise was again broached in the mid 1860s. Amidst numerous other signs of civic disobe- dience, a number of tenants refused to pay taxes which they themselves had not voted. Some of them were prosecuted before their respective Consular Courts with the result that in some cases the Municipal Council was proved right and sometimes wrong. 23 There was a widespread feeling that tenants could no longer be barred from attending Public Meetings; this feeling was expressed at the meeting of April 15 1865 by the chairman of the Municipal Council, Henry Dent: "Hitherto the practice has been of only landrenters voting. That this system is wrong in principle can hardly admit of doubt. Ratepayers contribute largely to the taxes and ought certainly to have a voice in matters of taxation. (..)24 Apart from the principle involved, it was doubtless also an effort to muster support for the Municipal Council from the tenant-ratepayers. The way seemed open for a wider franchise and indeed the new Land Regulations provided for the vote by some tenants (article XIX). The basis was rather restricted, however, and during the deliberations about the Land Regulations on March 12 and 13 1866 it become clear that many land-renters who until then had exercised sole power -wished to limit the franchise even more than had been foreseen by the Commission which had drawn up the new Constitution. The minimum rent which gave a tenant the right to vote was, therefore, eventually, put at 700 taels. The only person who pleaded the cause of the tenants was the British consul, Charles Winchester, whose opinion was "that the article just read (XIX) did not by any means come up to his idea what the franchise should be. One description of right should not alone !

2026-05-13 00:40:13 · Baseline

View content

J. H. HAAN

It was one of first manifestations of the fact that after all the landrenters were not sovereign in taking their own decisions and that for important measures the consent of one or more consuls was necessary.

For the time being the matter was allowed to rest, but the fact of tenants not having the franchise was again broached in the mid 1860s. Amidst numerous other signs of civic disobe- dience, a number of tenants refused to pay taxes which they themselves had not voted. Some of them were prosecuted before their respective Consular Courts with the result that in some cases the Municipal Council was proved right and sometimes wrong. 23

There was a widespread feeling that tenants could no longer be barred from attending Public Meetings; this feeling was expressed at the meeting of April 15 1865 by the chairman of the Municipal Council, Henry Dent: "Hitherto the practice has been of only landrenters voting. That this system is wrong in principle can hardly admit of doubt. Ratepayers contribute largely to the taxes and ought certainly to have a voice in matters of taxation. (..)24

Apart from the principle involved, it was doubtless also an effort to muster support for the Municipal Council from the tenant-ratepayers.

The way seemed open for a wider franchise and indeed the new Land Regulations provided for the vote by some tenants (article XIX). The basis was rather restricted, however, and during the deliberations about the Land Regulations on March 12 and 13 1866 it become clear that many land-renters who until then had exercised sole power -wished to limit the franchise even more than had been foreseen by the Commission which had drawn up the new Constitution.

The minimum rent which gave a tenant the right to vote was, therefore, eventually, put at 700 taels. The only person who pleaded the cause of the tenants was the British consul, Charles Winchester, whose opinion was "that the article just read (XIX) did not by any means come up to his idea what the franchise should be. One description of right should not alone

RAS-1982 — Page 62

Edit History

Comments

Private Research Note