C. C.
381
16201
REOP
MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
The following Report, extracted from the local papers, is published for general information.
A Meeting of the Legislative Council was held on Friday, the 10th September, 1880. There were present:
His Excellency, Governor Sir JOHN POPE HENNESSY, K.C.M.G.
The Acting Colonial Secretary,-Honourable F. STEWART.
The Attorney General,-Honourable E. L. O'MALLEY.
The Acting Colonial Treasurer,-Honourable M. S. TONNOCHY, Honourable P. RYRIE.
Honourable W. KESWICK.
Honourable J. M. PRICE.
Honourable NG CHOY.
MINUTES.
The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed.
THE ESTIMATES.
His EXCELLENCY-Gentlemen, the Finance Committee, in accordance with the arrangement we made at our last meeting, met more than once, and carefully considered the Estimates of 1881. They are now in your hands in the form in which they came from the Finance Committee, and I therefore move that we go into public committee on the Appropriation Bill of 1881.
Honourable W. KESWICK--Before going into Committee, your Excellency, I should like to make a few remarks. They will be very few, and in beginning I should say I think the Colony is to be congratulated on the very satisfactory state of its finances and upon the extensive and growing character of its revenue. On two occasions your Excellency has alluded to the deficits, on your arrival or shortly afterwards, pointed out to you by Mr. GARDINER AUSTIN, I think it is to be regretted the figures placed before your Excellency have not been put before the Council, as I was under the impression that up to that period the revenue had been adequate to the expenses of the Colony, and on looking into the returns I find there was $902,000 expended and $885,308 of revenue, which certainly leaves a deficit of about $17,000, but I find also in that year, 1876, there were $52,000 odd outlay for the Central School site and $10,000 spent in the conversion of Stonecutters' Island gaol into a powder magazine. I look upon these two items of expenditure as but money sunk; there is a good asset in them and they are worth the money paid. Allowing these two amounts and deducting from them the deficiency of $17,000, there would be an apparent surplus of $45,000, as I make out the figures. I mention it, as it appears to have engaged your Excellency's attention, and I think the figures I have written out are correct. There is another matter which has been referred to by your Excellency also on two occasions. On the last occasion when you made your statement on the position of the revenue of the Colony you alluded to the sale of Crown lands: The sale of Crown land, especially in a small Colony like this, is actually selling a portion of our capital. What we should consider as land revenue is the increment of increase in the value of land with the progressive increase of the prosperity of the Colony, I may be wrong in the view I take, but it is a view different from that expressed by your Excellency. I think that land unproductive is lost capital. Land sold as land is sold in Hongkong, which bears a fixed rental, is made productive and brings into the Colony something towards the revenue. Furthermore, that land is built upon and the buildings will be subject to taxes apart from the land tax, and also swell the revenue of the Colony. Consequently, as I view it, it is not diminishing the capital but profitably utilising it. Not that I would have land locked up by any means. Premium can be obtained for it, well and good, but there is also the consideration are not house rents in this Colony reaching rather too high a figure? Is it not our duty to consider the poorer classes? And is it not desirable that building should be made as cheap as possible? Instead of having the native portions of the town overcrowded, as so many are, it would be well were land more cheaply obtainable. These are the remarks it occurred to me to make. There was a further matter. In coming to the points of expenditure, I think it is to be regretted that any sum-for instance, take the case of the Time Ball-should be stated on the principle of estimating the expenditure simply as a lump sum, which is not sufficient. It is not the first time we have had this matter before us, and I allude also to the proposed harbour of refuge at Causeway Bay. I think I said that it would be desirable to see stated in full the estimated amounts required to complete the works, and then if, during the one year for which we make the vote, the sum is not all expended, such an amount as is estimated to be expended should be stated. With regard to the harbour of refuge, than which I know nothing more deserving of support, I think there should
Page 382
...
Page 382