CO129-298 - Governor Sir Blake Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne - 1900 [3-4] — Page 151

Enclosure 2

3.0.

13316 150

RECO

✪

Der 30 APR 00

PROTEST BY THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

OF HONGKONG MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 32 OF THE

STANDING RULES AND ORDERS OF THE COUNCIL.

1. WHEREAS at the meeting of the Council held on March 15th, 1900, the Attorney General moved that the Council go into Committee to consider clause by clause a Bill entitled--

K

"An Ordinance to facilitate the hearing, determination and settle- ment of land claims in the New Territories, to establish a Land Court "and for other purposes."

2. AND WHEREAS I opposed the said motion on the grounds that the said Bill was a totally different Bill from that read a second time on the 30th November last, and I submitted that it should be treated as a new Bill, re-introduced, read a first time and published in the Gazette, AND WHEREAS the majority of the Council was of another opinion, and the Council went into Committee, AND WHEREAS in Committee I moved that the consideration of the Bill in Committee be adjourned to allow the important alterations in the Bill to be considered by Honourable Members, AND WHEREAS the majority of the Council was of another opinion, AND WHEREAS I thereupon desired to have my dissent recorded, and gave notice that I would at the then next meeting of Council lay upon the table the reasons for my dissent, under Rule 32 of the Standing Rules and Orders of the Council: Now, therefore, I lay upon the Council table a statement of said reasons.

my

3. On the 23rd November last a Bill entitled "The New Territories Land Court Ordinance, 1899 was introduced and read a first time and was, on the 25th The same Bill was read November last, published in English only in the Gazette.

a second time on the 30th November last, and was referred to the Law Committee.

4. The Bill considered in Committee on the 15th March instant is in substance

a totally different Bill from that read a first and a second time and referred to the Law Committee, and the Law Committee had no instructions or authority from this Council so to alter the said Bill,

5. The essential differences are as follows:-

(a.) The original Bill proposed the constitution of a Court to consist of three Members designated in the Bill by their offices, one of whom was the Puiste Judge of the Supreme Court, and another of them an experienced Solicitor. The amended Bill proposes to constitute a Court of two members only, to be appointed by the Governor without any restriction or provision to secure the appointinent of any person as a member thereof possessed of legal knowledge or training.

(b.) The original Bill gave the proposed Court power to determine solely as to the right of existing owners and occupiers of land in the New Territories to obtain certificates or recognition of their titles from the Crown. The amended Bill gives the proposed Court power to hear and determine ALL claims to land of any kind whatsoever in the New Territory notwithstanding any previous registration and whether arising between the Crown and the occu- piers or between owners, occupiers, or others.