official members of the Legislative Council, it
seems clear that this would be a subject in which
they had a direct personal pecuniary interest and
one which could hardly be said to be merely an
interest in common with the rest of His Majesty's
and if the mattu ruded there, I thin
subjects. If so, the official members could not properly vote on this question of the report.
There remains, however, the point as to
whether a vote given in the Legislative Council
on the Report of the Commission could be held to
be a vote given "on a matter of State policy" within the meaning (S& the last line of No.24 (i) Having regard to the Commission's terms
24
of reference and to the wide scope of their Report,
I think it might be possible to hold that the
adoption or rejection of that Report was a matter
of State policy.
On the whole, therefore, I am inclined to
agree with the opinion expressed on the subject by the Acting Attorney-General, namely, that the official memtus may properly be allowed to vote.
17. Duncan.
8/5/30.
I am inclined to think, on the whole,
for the officials
that the efficiency to vote upon this Report is o forove ut on
a subject in which there is a direct personal
pecuniary interest, and not an interest in common
with the rest of His Majesty's subjects. An
interest in common with the rest of His Majesty's
subjects cannot mean 'in common with all His Majesty's
subjects', even if you confine the phrase as meaning
His Majesty's subjects in Hong Kong. One can think
of several instances where such an interpretation
would be ridiculous. I think it must mean an
interest