Page:Europe in China.djvu/391

Rh five years as a reasonable and just return for the protection of life and property afforded by the military garrison, the amount charged being one-fifth of the Imperial military expenditure incurred in the Colony. It appeared that Mr. Mercer, as Administrator, as well as Sir Hercules had strenuously objected to this demand when it was first mooted. Their arguments were virtually those that thenceforth were repeated at every successive period of Hongkong's history: that Hongkong is not a producing Colony but a mere intermediate station of the China trade; that this station, being anyhow very profitable to India and to the Imperial Exchequer, ought not to bear the burden of military expenditure incurred for the benefit of British trade in China and Japan; that the settlement is a struggling one and needs no garrison for its local protection; that the Colony has, to the great detriment of local revenue and commerce, been deprived of so much building ground, appropriated for Imperial military uses, that it ought to be considered to have paid, in land, its quota towards a military contribution. But in this case, as on all subsequent occasions, the Home Government confined itself to the simple assertion that, as the Colony can afford to pay, it must pay what is demanded. A public meeting, the largest, it was said, that had been held yet, assembled in the Court House (August 23, 1864) and unanimously resolved to memorialize H.M. Government to protest against the measure. The senior unofficial Member of Legislative Council (C. W. Murray) acted as chairman and the proposers and seconders of the several resolutions to be embodied in the Memorial were—E. H. Pollard, Th. Sutherland, A. Turing, J. Whittall, U. Brand, H. B. Lemann, T. G. Linstead, G. J. Helland, R. S. Walker, H. Noble, C. H. Storey and W. Schmidt. The Chamber of Commerce and the Chinese community followed the example and likewise presented protests in form of Memorials. When the estimates for 1865, including the sum of $92,000 as military contribution were laid before the Legislative Council, this item was passed only by the Governor's casting vote, as even the Colonial Treasurer (who was afterwards severely censured by the Secretary of State) joined