95
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
(b.)-Amend paragraph (ii) by adding
or their families.'
as to
(c)-Amend paragraph (iii) so
read :- (iii)-Any hotel or boarding house which does not fall within any one of the classes of boarding houses specified in Rule 1 of the rules made by the Governor in Council under the Asiatic Emi- gration Ordinance, 1915, and the Boarding House Ordinance, 1917 and published in the Gazette of the 19th day of October, 1917.
(d)-Insert the following paragraph:-
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR- I do not think it will be necessary.
MR. ALABASTER-On this clause, as pointed out in the petition, it is not clear whether shops are intended to be included or not. We know offices are not included and I think the clause should be made perfectly clear.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if a shop were let separately and no part of it were used for human habition, it would nt come under the Bill, but in the case of Chinese shops they were so used.
THE SECRETARY FOR CHINESE AFFAIRS The petitioners are quite satisfi- (iv)—Any part of any hotel or board-ed and they do not doubt that a shop is
ing house whatsoever.
included, having no doubt whatever that a shop is a domestic tenement. (e.)-Renumber the present paragraph could always prove, in case of need,
(iv) as paragraph (v).
that they do occupy their shops.
(f.) Add the following paragraph:—
(vi)-Any building for the time being vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property, or any part of any such building.
H.E. THE GENERAL-Perhaps this may be a good opportunity to make it quite clear that property belonging to the Secretary of State for War cannot be subject to the operation of this Bill. The War Department have allowed some portion of the married quarters to be leased and 80 helped to relieve the pressure on the housing accommodation. Now, however, these quarters are quired for the married families of troops, and, therefore, present tenants have received notice to quit. I should. like to make it quite clear that this Bill does not limit the powers of the Secre- tary of State for War in that respect. I do not know whether this would be the place to propose an amendment to make that clear.
The
re-
ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I think that the Ordinance will not bind the Crown. If the amendment were inserted, it might give ground for arguing that other Crown property would be effected. Obviously if the military require this property they must obtain possession of it. If the Ordinance prevents them, special legislation can be introduced.
HON. MR. LAU CHU-PAK agreed.
They
MR. ALABASTER said that as the cause was worded now
"shop a
was ap- parently governed by whether there were people upstairs or not.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that if a house were let as a whole and if any part of it were used for human habitation the Ordinance would apply to the whole house.
*
HIS EXCELLENCY asked if Mr. Alabaster desired to omit shops.
MR. ALABASTER said he did, and to put them in the same category as offices and godowns.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL- Even if they are used for habitation ?
Several members remarked that all Chinese shops were used as human habit- ations.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL The pro- posal would defeat the object of the Bill with regard to a very large number of dwel- ling-places.
HON. MR. LAU CHU PAK- Shop-keepers have suffered more than anybody else.
HIS EXCEL ENCY-If no member de- sires to move an amendment, the clause, as amended, stands part of the Bill.
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
On sub-clause (f), of clause 2, MR. ALABASTER said the petitioners he repre
sented desired that the standard rent should be the rent which obtained on the 30th of June.
HIS EXCELLENCY-That matter has been very fully considered. I feel that the Council is unanimously of opinion that the date should not be altered.
THE SECRETARY FOR CHINESE AF FAIRS-There are 200,000 petitioners who beg to put June 1st, 1914.
HIS EXCELLENCY-My own inclina- tion was to go back to 1914, but the difficulties were too great and December, 1920, though not the best possible date, is the most convenient one.
Clause 2, as amended, was then ap- proved.
Clause 3 was adopted with verbal amendments.
moved
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL several verbal amendments to Clause 4, and referring to para (c) he said the effect of the clause as it stood would be to make a man living on the ground floor liable for the conduct of tenants above. He could not turn them out, and it would be an unfair obligation to place upon him. If they misconducted themselves he might be turned out by the land- lord, or it might be a collusive affair.
HIS EXCELLENCY-On the other hand, ought not a tenant to be responsible for any person he puts in his house?
HON. MR. POLLOCK-They may be sub-tenants of his sub-tenants.
The sub-clause was allowed to remain as drafted.
On sub-clause (d) of Clause 4, HIS EXCELLENCY recalled Mr. JENKIN's point as to the position of a man who had agreed to quit but who found that alter- native accommodation had been with drawn. He said it would be rather dif ficult to frame a clause so that inconven-
470
96
HON. MR. P. H. HOLYOAK-I think the matter will adjust itself: such cases will be very few.
悔
HON. MR. ROSS mentioned that man subject to a fine of $100 a day for every day he remained on certain pre- mises after July 1st, had decided, when he heard of this Bill to remain on aud he (Mr. Ross) told him he thought he would be justified, and would be upheld by the Courts. The petitioners seemed to think the Courts would give the land- lord damages but he did not think so, because the man was intimidated into giving that agreement, by which he was being charged $100 a day, instead of $200 a month before. Mr. Ross did not think the landlord would wish to get the tenant out, knowing that he would not get any more from a new tenant.
HON. ME LAU CHU PAK thought the clause, as amended, was the most satisfactory compromise that could be arranged.
It was agreed that the sub-clause should stand part of the Bill,
On paragraph (e) of sub-clause 1 of Clause 4,
4
"}
MR. ALABASTER said the petitioners would like the word lessors to be extended to include his families and rela- tives who should have the same considera- tion as was shown to his employés.
HIS EXCELLENCY-Are they not in- cluded!
MR. ALABASTER-Not necessarily, under the Chinese system of family life.
HON. MR. ROSS thought the Courts would hold that anyone of the same sur- name was a member of the family; it is the clan.
MR. ALABASTER Should it not be limited to families?
Mr.
HON. MR. POLLOCK-Perhaps Alabaster means his wives and children 1 The Council adopted a suggestion of HIS EXCELLENCY that the words should be for his family." His EXCELLENCY thought "relatives" too wide a
hrase.
ience would fall impartially on the right person. The landlord would not be able to get an increased rent from anybody else and would probably agree to a for himself compromise and prefer that the tenant he knew should remain.
Or