16
C.S.O.
C.S.O.
635 of 1891.
A sum of One hundred and Eighty-eight Dollars, ($188), being undrawn salary of the 3rd Bailiff of the Supreme Court from 1st May to 22nd September, 1890, at $40 per month, lapsed into the Treasury,
A sum of Three thousand Seven hundred and Forty Dollars, ($3,740), to cover payment of balance due for the construction of Pokfoolum Filter Beds and Reservoir, which was not completed before the 31st December last,
EXTRAORDINARY PUBLIC WORKS.
Filter Bed, Pokfoolum Reservoir.
Unexpended balance in 1890,
Excess over estimated cost,
.$
188.00
.$ 3,254.41 485.59
$ 3,740.00
C. S. O.
377 of 1893.
A sum of Eight hundred and Eighty-eight Dollars, ($888), as a compassionate allowance to the widow and children of the late H. L. MATHER, Second Light- house Keeper,
The Colonial Treasurer seconded.
$ 888.00
The Council divided on the vote of $1,830 the increment to the salaries of the Masters of Victoria College, with the result that it was carried by a majority of six votes to four.
The other votes were agreed to without a division.
PAPER LAID ON THE TABLE.-The Honourable P. RYRIE laid on the table the following protest against the vote of $123,870.96 the moiety of the Military Contribution for 1890 :-
We, the undersigned, the Un-official Members of the Legislative Council of Hongkong, desire to place on record our emphatic protest against the Re-vote of the sum of $123,870.96 originally voted by this Council on the 26th day of March, 1890, as an addition to the Mili- tary Contribution payable by the Colony for the year 1890, and which, not having been disbursed within the financial year, has necessarily been again submitted to the Council before payment can be constitutionally authorized or made.
We protest against this Re-vote on the following among other grounds :-
1. That this addition to the Military Contribution was originally demanded on the sole ground that the garrison of the Colony was about to be largely increased. No other grounds for the increase were even hinted at in the Secretary of State's despatch and be goes so far as to explain how the additional amount demanded had been arrived at, solely by a comparison of the numbers of the then existing and of the intended future garrison.
2. That the additional Military Contribution was proposed in this Council, discussed and voted solely on the ground that an increased military force was required for the efficient defence of the Colony, and that the amount asked for was reasonable in view of the proposed increase.
3. That, however deferentially the Resolutions were worded, the additional military contribution was granted by this Council upon the faith of an express promise that the garrison should be increased and upon the condition that the money should not be demanded or paid unless there was an increase in the strength of the Military forces stationed here, and in proportion to that increase. 4. That, as evidenced by the published despatches, the Officer Administering the Government and the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Colonies accepted the vote as conditional and as based on the promise of and dependent on the presence of a largely increased garrison.
of
5. That, during the year 1890, there was no addition made to the strength of the force stationed in Hongkong; no preparations for such increase; no evidence any real intention ever to grant the increase and no reason is now assigned for the failure of Her Majesty's Government to keep the promise made to the Colony.
6. That the promise not having been kept, the condition not having been observed, the vote fell to the ground and the non-payment of the money voted was just and proper and to be approved of by this Council.
7. That if Her Majesty's Government had frankly recognised the right of the Council to treat the vote of last year as inoperative for the reasons above stated and had applied to the Council for an additional Military Contribution for 1890, on general grounds and irrespective of any increase in the Garrison, the Un-official Members would have given every consideration to the appeal and would have impartially examined the question from the point of view presented by His Excellency the President in his address to the Council on the 19th March instant.