145
The question arose again in 1897. At that time the pass requirement was abolished, except when invoked under special order by the Governor in Council, but the light requirement remained. This gave rise to confusion among the Chinese, for many thought both requirements had been abolished.
In commenting on the misunderstanding the Daily Press suggested that all regulations should be done away with. The abolition would be a gracious act in the year of Queen Victoria's Jubilee. The editor felt that ‘if this were done as a concession to the Chinese on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee, it would afford extreme pleasure to the native community, in fact it would not be easy to find any form of Jubilee Memorial that would afford the Chinese more genuine satisfaction than the repeal of a law which they regard as obnoxious.”
Immediately after, the requirements were repealed. This long delayed move could only serve to improve relations between the various sections of the Hongkong community.
WHY EARLY EXPATS FEARED CONSUL MOVE
Another issue on which Ho A-mei expressed his opinion publicly was the appointment of a Chinese consul for Hongkong.
In July 1891, when the matter was under discussion, he wrote a letter to a Chinese paper published in Hongkong advocating the appointment. A translation of his letter was published for English readers in the China Mail.
It was a long-standing issue, having first been raised by the Chinese in 1868. The request became involved in negotiations for the revision of the Tientsin Treaty between Britain and China. The treaty was signed in 1858, but it provided for a review after ten years.
At times the Chinese request for a consul in Hongkong was given favourable consideration by the British Foreign Office, but it was consistently opposed by the Hongkong Government and the foreign merchants trading with China.
145
The question arose again in 1897. At that time the pass require- ment was abolished, except when invoked under special order by the Governor in Council, but the light requirement remained. This gave rise to confusion among the Chinese, for many thought both requirements had been abolished.
In commenting on the misunderstanding the Daily Press sug- gested that all regulations should be done away with. The aboli- tion would be a gracious act in the year of Queen Victoria's Jubi- lee. The editor felt that ‘if this were done as a concession to the Chinese on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee, it would afford extreme pleasure to the native community, in fact it would not be easy to find any form of Jubilee Memorial that would afford the Chinese more genuine satisfaction than the repeal of a law which they regard as obnoxious.”
Immediately after, the requirements were repealed. This long delayed move could only serve to improve relations between the various sections of the Hongkong community.
WHY EARLY EXPATS FEARED CONSUL MOVE
Another issue on which Ho A-mei expressed his opinion pub- licly was the appointment of a Chinese consul for Hongkong.
In July 1891, when the matter was under discussion, he wrote a letter to a Chinese paper published in Hongkong advocating the appointment. A translation of his letter was published for English readers in the China Mail.
It was a long-standing issue, having first been raised by the Chinese in 1868. The request became involved in negotiations for the revision of the Tientsin Treaty between Britain and China. The treaty was signed in 1858, but it provided for a review after ten years.
At times the Chinese request for a consul in Hongkong was given favourable consideration by the British Foreign Office, but it was consistently opposed by the Hongkong Government and the foreign merchants trading with China.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.