Sessional_Paper_1900 — Page 122

118

( 12 )

expressed their thanks for the information given them, which they declared would calm the fears of the people. They also confessed that they had not responded to the invitation, because, had they done so with alacrity, their action would have been misjudged by the people.

2. The object of the Ordinance is to secure the attendance of the people so that, on the one hand, full explanations of Government measures may be given to them, and so that, on the other hand, the Government may learn from the people what their views may be regarding any proposed measure and what objections they may have to urge when matters do not appear to be working smoothly. It is true that hitherto the attendance of the people has been invited chiefly in connection with the registration of land, because that question is one of great importance to the people and has proved to be one full of intricacies and difficulties. The object in inviting their attendance has not been to extract from them information regard- ing their titles, but to explain to them the law dealing with land, regarding which much misapprehension exists. That such explanations have proved of great value is shown from the fact that when the work of registration of land commenced, very few claims were lodged notwithstanding the issue of many notices and leaflets, but that after the attendance of landholders was secured and their doubts removed claims came in more rapidly and have now reached a total 25,540. From what I have stated above, I think it will be recognised that the powers conferred by the Ordinance are both desirable and necessary, at any rate for the present. I am inclined to believe that, when the Chinese inhabitants of the New Territory know that the power to compel them to attend exists, they will not show them- selves so disinclined as heretofore to appear when invited and that it will be seldom, if ever, necessary to enforce the Ordinance.

3. Having dealt with the general question, I now proceed to deal with the details of the protest, which are in many respects erroneous and misleading.

4. Paragraph 1.—Mr. WHITEHEAD states that had he been present when the Bill was before the Legislative Council, he would have voted against it, though he probably would have been over-ruled. I presume he means out-voted.

He is, I think, correct in his surmise, as the Ordinance was passed unanimously. I attach a copy of the proceedings in the Legislative Council.*

It is true that the Honourable Ho KAI, supported by the Honourable WEI A YUK, suggested that the Ordinance should only continue in operation for a period of two years. The suggestion was at once adopted by Government and clause 5 of the Ordinance reads as follows :-

"This Ordinance shall only continue in operation for a period of "two years from the coming into operation of this Ordinance, and for "such further period or periods as may from time to time be determined "by resolution of the Legislative Council."

As I have already indicated, I trust, at the expiry of two years, the inhabitants of the New Territory may have become so accustomed to British rule that it may not be necessary to continue the Ordinance for any further period.

5. Paragraph 2.-Mr. WHITEHEAD encloses copies of his notes to the Governor dated 28th and 29th December regarding the Ordinance, and in the latter states that he intends to ask the Chinese Members of Council to join in his protest against the Ordinance. As the protest is not signed by the Chinese Members and as no reference is made in it to them, it may be presumed that Mr. WHITEHEAD has not been able to induce them to join him.

6. Paragraphs 3 4 8.—These paragraphs give a précis of the Ordinance and call for no remark, except that it should be pointed out that the Government has

* Enclosure No. 2.