Angliang
7630
76.
179
The Chin & Refint from the
Daily Profe
Traders Insurance Co.
THE CHINA MAIL.
HONGKONG, MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1876,
It is satisfactory to find that the Legislative Council has, at last, got clear of the China Traders' Insurance Company. The Bill introduced into the Council to enable the Company to sub-divide its shares was passed on Saturday, and, notwithstanding the protest which two or three of the honourable members gave notice of their intention to lodge against it, there is little doubt that we shall hear no more of the measure. It is somewhat difficult to see the force of the objections urged against the Bill.
To say that the legislation is "novel" is certainly not saying much against it. It is novel simply because the Council has not been called upon for such a measure before, and has not, therefore, passed one. Besides, it has yet to be learned that novelty is, in itself, an objection of any moment to a measure. If so, half the legislation in the House of Commons is objectionable on the same ground. There seemed to be an impression among the opponents of the Bill that it was the duty of the Council to consider whether the Bill would be a benefit or an injury to the Company, and to base their assent or dissent to it upon the conclusion they arrived at in regard to these two points. This is assuredly a mistaken idea of legislative functions. It is not too much to presume, in dealing with private bills of this nature, that the parties seeking legislation know their own business best, and that the members of the Council should rather consider whether the measure is advisable from a public point of view, than whether it will be detrimental or otherwise to the interests of the Company.
Mr Ryrie's main objection to the Bill seemed to be that the Company had come to the Council to make them more successful. We believe that private Bills are generally applied for by parties with a view to benefitting themselves and, indeed, the very essence of legislation is to confer benefit upon the community. By general acts, it is conferred wholesale, and by private acts, piecemeal.
One of the strongest reasons why the Bill should not be thrown out was that the Company could bring about the desired change without the aid of the measure at all by simply winding up, and re-constituting itself. The opponents of the Bill urged this as a reason for its rejection. But it seems to us that if the Company had really no more power conferred upon them by the Bill than they already possessed, it would have been absurd to withhold the measure, considering it would enable them to make the change they contemplated more easily, less expensively, and probably with less risk than they could without it.
Under any circumstances the Bill did not call for a protest. It was not an important measure by any means, seeing that it only affected one Company, and its opponents on finding themselves beaten would have done better in letting the matter drop. Protests should only be resorted to under special circumstances, and when general and important interests are at stake. If they become too common they lose a deal of their influence, and there is a danger of their not receiving due attention when they represent matters of great and general moment.
Exdenne M. 7 in Governor Sir Abermedi's Derpalet N. 88 of 14 May 1876
Page 180
Page 181
Angliang
7630
76.
179
The Chin & Refint from the
Daily Profe
Traders Insurance Co.
THE CHINA MAIL.
HONGKONG, MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1876,
Ir is satisfactory to find that the Legis- lative Council has, at last, got clear of the China Traders' Insurance Company. The Bill introduced into the Council to enable the Company to sub-divide its shares was passed on Saturday, and, notwithstanding the protest which two or three of the lionourable members gave notice of their intention to lodge against it, there is little doubt that we shall hear no more of the measure. It is somewhat difficult to see the force of the objections urged against the Bill
To say that the legislation is "novel " is certainly not saying much against it. It is novel simply because the Council has not been called upon for such a mea sure before, and has not, therefore, passed one. Besides, it has yet to be learned that novelty is, in itself, an ob- jection of any moment to a measure. If so, half the legislation in the House of Commons is objectionable on the same ground. There seemed to be an impres sion among the opponents of the Bill that it was the duty of the Council to consider whether the Bill would be a benefit or an injury to the Company, and to base their assent or dissent to it upon the conclusion they arrived at in regard to these two points. This is assuredly a mistaken idea of legislative functions. It is not too much to pre- sume, in dealing with private bills of this nature, that the parties seeking legisla- tion know their own business best, and t the members of the Council should ra ther consider whether the measure is
advisable from a public point of view, than whether it will be detrimental or otherwise to the interests of the Company. Mr Ryrie's main objection to the Bill seemed to be that the Company had come to the Council to make them more suc- cessful. We believe that private Bills are generally applied for by parties with a view to benefitting themselves and, in- deed, the very essence of legislation is to confer benefit upon the community. By general acts, it is conferred wholesale, and by private acts, piecemeal.
One of the strongest reasons why the Bill should not be thrown out was that the Company could bring about the de- sired change without the aid of the mea- sure at all by simply winding up, and re-constituting itself. The opponents of the Bill urged this as a reason for its rejection. But it seems to us that if the Company had really no more power con- ferred upon them by the Bill than they already possessed, it would have been absurd to withhold the measure, consi- dering it would enable them to make the change they contemplated more easi- ly, less expensively, and probably with less risk than they could without it.
Under any circumstances the Bill did not call for a protest. It was not an important measure by any means, seeing that it only affected one Company, and its opponents on finding themselves beaten would have doue better in letting the matter drop. Protests should only be resorted to ander special circum- stances, and when general and important interests are at stake. If they become too common they lose a deal of their in- fluence, and there is a danger of their not receiving due attention when they represent matters of great and general
moment.
Exdenne M. 7 in Governor Sir AbBermedi's Derpalet N. 88 of 14 May 1876
Page 180Page 181
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.