Sessional_Paper_1886-1887 — Page 408

405

He would be forced to pay an enormous rent for less space than before, plus all sorts of Sanitary improvements which, however good in themselves from a European stand point, they do not care for, and which they think at least their constitutions do not require. They may say that they are habituated to such cities like Canton, Kowloong city, &c., compared to which Hongkong as it now stands is a paradise, a model of cleanliness, a perfect Sanitarium, and that if any more improvements are required, let those who advocate it pay for them and not they. Here two adverse arguments must be noticed.. The first is that the Chinese are so ignorant of what is good for themselves that they must be taught, and forcibly too, by means of severe legislative measures. I hardly expected to hear of such an argu- ment, if such it may be termed, at the end of the nineteenth century. It reminds one of the Star Chamber and the Inquisition. Those who advance this argument had better take care, lest some wiser heads might act upon the same principle and enforce something unpleasant upon themselves. Let me give a few illustrations of this dangerous but with some persons most plausible argument. (1.) The estab- lished religion of England is Protestant Christianity, the Chinese are mostly heathens, but as they are ignorant and should be taught, let us legislate for enforced Christianity. (2.) The Chinese doctors do not know anything about the European practice of medicine and the Chinese public constantly go to them for advice; but then they are so ignorant-let us legislate for the total expulsion of Chinese trained practitioners and forbid all Chinese under heavy penalties from consulting any one but European doctors. (3.) Many Chinese are inveterate opium smokers, that if long continued, must be injurious to their health as well as a waste of their money; but they are so dreadfully ignorant-let us legislate and force every one to abstain from opium smoking. I may multiply examples, but these will show what I mean. No European will deny that the Chinese urgently need reform in their religion, their system of medicine and their opium smoking habits, but who will advocate that such reform should be wrought by means of harsh and sweeping legislation? Their ignorance should be enlightened no doubt, but not by penal law. The second argument is more reasonable and it is this, that as habitable rooms get smaller and rents go higher in directly opposite proportion, wages will get higher too and that will compensate the poor tenants. This would be perfectly true, I admit, if Hongkong were hundreds of miles away from China. But fortunately or unfortunately, we are close to the mainland, where thousands of poor Chinese are struggling for a bare subsistence. The labour market is always in excess of the demand, and there are many able bodies who are willing and even anxious to get their 10 or 20, cents a day. Those who stick out for higher wages on account of increased rent and less house accommodation will be supplanted by those who will be content with less. For example, if a man gets say $15, a month and has to pay $5, per month for two small rooms for his wife. and children and $10 for food and clothing &c., but on account of higher rent he has to pay $6, for the same two rooms smaller than before on account of the sacrifice of building for backyard and other spaces, he would, according to the law laid down above demand $16 per month for his services. He would certainly succeed in this if there were no one to take his place for less, but let us say there are plenty who will take it for less, then what must the poor man do but to pay the $6, or resort to overcrowding or to stinting himself and his family of food and clothing. Now allow me to ask whether building four feet away from retaining walls, the leaving of a ten feet wide backyard and the establishing of a 3/6 feet brick privy and spacious kitchen, more necessary than food and clothing, or more desirable than overcrowding?

I shall speak briefly of the unconstitutional and arbitrary way in which this Bill seeks to enforce its various provisions and Bye-laws. It does not provide for adequate compensation in every case. Surely if the public is to be benefitted by a large sacrifice of property, the sacrifice should not fall on the shoulders of particular individuals but on all alike. It is always easy to make free with other people's property, but when the thing touches our own pockets we may not be quite so- ready to carry out our best intentions and scientific views. I do not think it is a wise policy of any Government, especially when it is not of a representative character, to legislate arbitrarily concerning the property of its subjects, and particularly when such measures involve so large a sacrifice of property. It shakes public confidence and drives away capital, a state of thing which may not affect those who have no permanent interest in the Colony, but is sufficient to excite alarm in the minds of those who are permanent residents and have the future welfare of the Colony at heart. In connection with the question of compensation one curious argument was not infrequently advanced, viz., that since land has lately risen greatly in value, it is but just that the landlords who get the benefit of the rise