The Daily Press.
HONGKONG, SEPTEMBER 4th, 1894.
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
A meeting of the Legislative Council was held yesterday. There were present:--
His Excellency the Governor, Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON, K.C.M.G.
Hon. J. H. STEWART LOCKHART, Acting Colonial Secretary.
Hon. A. J. LEACH, Q.C., Acting Attorney-General.
Hon. N. G. MICHELL-INNES, Treasurer.
Hon. R. M. RUMLEY, R.N., Harbour Master.
Hon. E. BOWDLER.
Hon. C. P. CHATER.
Hon. HO KAI.
Hon. E. R. BELILIOS, C.M.G.
Hon. A. McROBERT.
Mr. J. G. T. BUCKLE, Acting Clerk of Councils.
THE TAIPINGSHAN RESUMPTION ORDINANCE.
HIS EXCELLENCY-The next order of the day is the second reading of the Bill entitled An Ordinance for the Summary Resumption of certain Crown Lands situate in the Taipingshan District of the City of Victoria and for other purposes.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Sir, in moving the second reading of this Bill, so far as it is possible, I will not detain the Council at any great length. The Bill has been published for some time, it has been republished in its amended form, and its provisions have been so much discussed in the papers and are so familiar to all the members of the Council that an elaborate speech on an occasion of this sort would only weary you. But what I do propose to deal with is to briefly touch upon the different clauses of the Bill and answer some of the objections which have not yet been answered.
I may say that with regard to this measure there have been two objections taken. The first objection is that power should be reserved to the Crown lessees to elect to have their property resumed under the powers contained in the Crown leases.
Now, the answer to that is that that could not possibly, or practically, be worked into a Bill of this sort. The object of this Bill is to resume a whole area, and it would lead probably to a very protracted delay if the owner of any of these properties had the right to say to the Government "Don't resume under this Ordinance; resume under the clause in the Crown lease." As you are all aware, the clause in the Crown lease places the amount of compensation absolutely in the discretion of the Director of Public Works. And it requires also that three months' notice should be given to the owners.
Now, of course, there has been a good deal said about this power-as to whether it was subject to appeal or not. I believe it is the opinion of others, and it certainly is my own, that in the strict sense there is no appeal from the decision of the Director of Public Works-of appeal, that is, to any Court. On the other hand, we may say that there is an appeal in the more common sense because, assuming that the Director of Public Works had fixed an amount of compensation which was unsatisfactory to the tenant, he might refuse to go out of possession, and on the other hand, the Crown in such an instance would have to bring an action at common law for ejectment.
If the tenant thought that his compensation was insufficient, he might possibly have some right by petition to the Crown, which would take the form of an action to restrain the Crown from entering into possession until a proper estimate had been arrived at as to the amount of the claim.
I think it is perfectly obvious that such a clause, if the tenants had the right to elect to be resumed under that clause, there might be a very protracted law suit, there would be no finality to the question, or, I may put it, the time would be indefinitely delayed when the Government could resume the land.
On the other hand, it is said, "You have the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, 1889, which is sufficient for all the purposes you require now." But the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance was not framed with the object of any emergency or urgency in view, and the object of that Ordinance, as stated in the preamble, was to give power to the Government, after negotiations and after four months' notice, to resume individual houses chiefly on the ground of insanitary condition as regards ventilation, light, and air, and the Board constituted by that Ordinance was not a permanent Board, but was a Board constituted from time to time as claims arose, and it gave power to the owners on each occasion to nominate their representative on that Board.
Therefore, that Ordinance would not be adapted to the present occasion where one whole area, or block, or a number of blocks, a conglomeration of blocks, have to be regarded.
A common mistake has been made-common to a good number of people, I should say,-that this Ordinance does not provide, as the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance does, for amicable arrangements, but I think if you will refer to sections 25 and 26 of the Ordinance-I will mention them later-you will find that power is retained, perhaps not in the same language but to substantially the same effect as in the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, for the Governor to enter into private agreements as to the resumption of any land under this Ordinance, and if the Governor elects to enter into an arrangement of exchange-instead of compensation-of further lands for the lands resumed under this Ordinance, he can do so.
Now, let me come to the specific clauses of the Bill itself. The first clause I would draw attention to is clause 3. That provides for the resumption of all lands from June 1st this year, and some question has been raised as to what the object is in resuming from June 1st.
If you will recollect, most of these houses were practically shut up on or about June 1st, 1894; they were not all shut up on that day, but that is the approximate date on which all those houses were closed, and as the Government is going eventually to resume them, it fixes that date as the date from which any compensation is given, and that compensation usually carries interest in lieu of the three months' notice given under the Crown lease or four months' notice under Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance, and I think in most cases where lands are compulsorily resumed, a certain percentage is given for compulsory resumption.
The interest is intended to cover the want of notice and the compulsory resumption percentage. Some people have thought that it is intended to cover compensation for closing the houses during the period between the closing and the resumption, but that is not the object in view.
Let me now pass on to section 5. That deals generally with the question of compensation for resumption, but excludes from the claim all persons who are tenants at will, monthly tenants, or weekly tenants.
Now, it is objected to this clause that it is distinctly unfair, and the reasons given are these. The first is that under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, an Act which enabled public companies to acquire land for the purposes of their undertaking, all interests are recognised, and that that Ordinance has been re-enacted in the Tramways Ordinance in this colony.
It is perfectly true that in the Lands Clauses Act, tenants, or persons, having interests for less than a year, are recognised, but on the one hand, you must recollect that the persons who resume under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act are public bodies working for their own advantage and for their shareholders, while on the other hand, the body resuming here is the Crown, who is not working for its own advantage but for the general advantage of the community at large.
That is one distinction between the different Acts. There is another distinction.
In England, where there are small tenants, monthly tenants, and so forth, they are of a class of people who are easily ascertainable, easily identified, and no trouble whatever would be experienced in ascertaining the particular persons who comprised that class.
Here, the class of people is entirely different. We do not know who they are, and it would be impossible, or almost impossible, to obtain evidence of identification of the persons who have been turned out, who have been re-housed, and to whom, in many instances, pecuniary assistance...
132
• The Daily Press.
HONGKONG, SEPTEMBER 4ra. 1804.
HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,
A weeting of the Legislative Conseil was held yesterday. There wore present:--
His Excelleucy the Governor, Sir WILLIAM ROBINSON, KCM G.
Hon. J. H. STEWART LOCKHART, Acting Colonial Secretary.
Bon. A. J. LEACH, Q.C., Acting Attorney- General.
Hou. N. G. MICHELL-INNES, Treasurer.
Colonial
Hou. ft. M. RUSHY, R.N,, Harbour Master. Hon. E. BowDLER.
Hou, C. P. CHATER.
Hon. Ho K&L.
Hon. E. R. BELILTOS, C.M.G.
Hoa. A. HotONAHI.
Mr. J. G. T. BUCKLE, Aoting Clerk of Councils.
X
X
X
THE TAIPINGSHAN RESUMPTION ORDINANCE. HIS EXCELLENCY-The next order of the day is the second reading of the Bill entitled An Ordinance for the Summary Resumption of oer- taiu Crown Lands aituate in the Taipingshan District of the City of Victoria aud for other purposes.
The ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL-Sir, in moving the second reading of this Bill, so far as it possible. I will not detain the Council at any great length. The Bill has been published for some time, it has been republished in its amended form, and its provisions have been so mach discussed in the papers and are so familiar to all boo, members of the Council that su elaborate speech on an occasion of this sort. would only weary you. But what I do propose to deal with is to briefly touch upon the different e cious of the Bill and answer some of the objectious which have not yet been an- wered. 1 may say that with regard to this measna there have been two objections taken. The first objection is that power should be reserved to the Crown lasseas to elect to: have their property resumed under the powers contained in the Crown leases.
Now, the answer to that is that that could not pos sibly, or practica ly, be worked into a Bili ot. this sort. The object of this Bill is to resume a whole area, and it would lead probably to a very protracted delay if the owner of any of these properties had the right tasty to the Government Don't resume under this Ordinance; resume under the plane in the Crown loase." As you are all aware the cinuse in the Crown lease places the amount of composition absolutely in the discre- tion of the Director of Public Works. And it requires also that three mouths' notice should be given to the owners. Now of course there has been a good deal said about this power-as to whether it was subject to appeal or not. 1 balieva it is the opinion of others, and it certainly is my owa, that in the strict sense there is no appeal from the decision of the Director of Publi· Worke- of appeal, that is, to any Court. On the ot) -z hand we may say that there is an appeal in the more common sense b cause assuming that the Director of Public Works had fixed an amount of compensation which was unsatisfactory to the tenant be might refuse to go out of possession, and on the other hand the Crown in such an instance would have to bring an action at common law for ejectment. If the tenant thought that bis compensation was in- sufficient he might possibly have some right by petition to the Crown, which would take the form of an action to restruin the Crown from entering into possessio, until a proper estimate had been arrived at as to the amount of the elatin. I think it is perfectly obvious that sach a clause, if the tenants had the right to sleet to be resumed nuder that cluase, there might be a very protracted law suit, there would be no finality to the question, ór, I may put it, the
time
time would be indefinitely delayed when the to- : vernment conld resume the land. On the other} hand it is said. "You have the Crown Lands Re sumption Ordinancs, 1889, which is sufficient for all the purposes you require anw." But the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance was not framed with the object of any emergency or urganer in view, and the obj ot of that Ordinance as stated! in the preamble was to g`re power to tùs davera- ment, after negociations and af or four months" notice, to resnina individual houses chiefly on the ground of insanitary condition as regards ventilation, light, aol air, and the Board consti- tated by that Ordinanca was not a permanent Board, but was a Board constituted from time to tíma as claims arose, and it gave power to the owners on each occasion to nominate their repre- sentitive on that Board. Therefore that Ordi- nance would not be adapted to the present oc- casion where one whole area, or block. or a number of blacks, a conglomeration of blocks, have to be regamid A common mistako bas been made-common to a good number of people, I should say,-that this Ordinance does not provide as the Crown Lads Resumption Ordinance does, for amicable arrangements, but I think if you will refer to sectious 25 and 26 of the Ordinance-I will mention them later you will find that power is re- tained, perhaps not in the same language but to substantially the same effect as in the Crow Lands Resumption Ordinance for the Governor to enter into private agreements as to the re- sumption of any land under this Ordinance, and if the Governor elects to enter into an arrange. ment of exchange-instead of compensation- of further lands for the lands resumed under this Ordinance he can do so. Now let me come to the specific clanges of the Bill itself The first clause I wald draw attention to is clause S. That provides for the resumption of all lands from Jane 1st this year, and some question has been raised as to what the ob ject is in rosaming from June 1st. If you will recollect, most of these houses were practi cally shut up on or aboat June 1st, 1994 they were not all shut up on that day but that is the approximate date on which ali those houses were closed and as the government is going eventually to resums them it fixes that! date as the date from which any compensation is given, and that compensation usually car ries interest in lien of the three months' notice given nader the crown lease or four month notine under Crown Lan-is Rašumption Odiuance, and I think in most cases where lauds ara compulsorily resumed a corfaîo per- ontage is givea for compulsory resumption. The interest is intended to cover the want of notice and the compulsory resumption porcent- ag. Some people are thought that it is in- tended to cover compensation for closing the houses during the period between the closing and the resumption, but that is not the object in view. Let me now pass on to seotion 5 That
| deals generally with the question of compensa. tion for resumption but exelads from the clas-ali persons who are tenants at will, monthly tenants or weekly tenants Now, it is objefed to this clauss thatitisdistinctly unfair, and the rossons given ars those. The first is that under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Aot 1845. an Aot which enabled public companies to acquire land for the pur- pases of their undertaking, all intorests are re- cognised, and that that Ordinanes has boon re- nacted in the Tramways Ordinance in this colony. It is perfectly true that in the Lands! Clauses Act tenants, or persons, having interests for less than a your, are recognised, but on the one hand you must recollect that the parsons who resume under the Lands Clauses Con- solidation Act are public bodies working for, their own advantage and for their shareholders. while on the other band the body resuming here is the Crown, who is not working for its own advantage bat for the general advantage of the community at large. That is one dis iaction batween the different Acts. There is another
In England where there are small tenints monthly tenants and so forth, they are of a class of people who are easily ascertainable, easily identified, and no trouble whatever would be ex- perienced in ascortaining the particular persons who comprised that class. Here the class of people i is entirely different. We do not know who they are and it would be impossible, or almost impos- sible, to obtain evidence of identification of the per sons who have been turned out, who have been re- housed, and to whom in many instances pecuniary
ONA.
assistance
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.