3
the findings of that Commission. As your Excellency is aware, in June. 1911, a motion was brought forward that the military contribution from this Colony should not exceed more than one million dollars in one year. Most of us
were
ili favour of limiting it to eight lakhs, but the point was split and we recommended that we should pay a round sum of one million dollars. We thought that should be the very outside. With these remarks I beg to move the resolution standing in my name, which is as follows:-
It is hereby resolved that in the opinion of this Council it is expedient that the "Defence Contribution Ordin- ance, 1901, be so ammended as to provide that the contribution in respect of any Une year shall not exceed the sum of one million dollars local currency ($1,000,000)."
Hon. Mr. Wat Yux seconded the re- solution.
Hon. Mr. LANDALE--1 should like to say a few words in support of this motion. The amount of one million dollars in connection with the contribution makes it quite clear that it is not to contri. buting towards the defence forces that we object, but to the system under which the amount of the contribution is assessed. So much has been said on this subject that it is hardly necessary for me to repeat that when the Government of this Celony decides to undertake any large public work the cost of that public work has to be paid for out of revenue, and in order to raise that revenue taxation has to be imposed, not only to the full. cost of that public work, but to a large extent twenty per cent. in addition. think, sir, that such a system cannot be defended upon any reasonable grounds. And there is another view of this matter. which, I think, one is rather apt to "overlook, and that is. that although the i military contribution is the only direct! contribution made in Hongkong, there is pretty large sum of money which reaches the Chancellor of the Exchequor in London, indirectly from Hongkong If you take, for instance, in the first place. the steamers British steamers that use this port-and we should remember that the mainstay of this place is ship ping-the great majority of them belong to companies registered in London. And the profits which these companies make upon the steamers coming bere the have to pay taxes. Take another instance. The manufacturer makes a profit on any goods which he produces and selle in Hongkong and he has to pay on that profit an income tax. Theru E another as everybody knows-very Large sum of money sent annually from Hongkong, which when it reaches England is liable to income tax. It would be a very difficult matter to compute the aggregate of all these suN6, but it must reach
K very consider- able sum of money And this revenue would not exist if Hongkong did not exist. if may be said that this is an inopportune moment to raise this ques- tion of military contriburion in view of the recent disturbances in China, but I do not think so. The recent additions to the garrison here were not altogether for the defence of Hongkong. They were for the protection of British trade in China. And I you apply my argument to the much larger question of the cost of !
69
protecting British trade in China, there! can be no doubt whatever that the British nation and the British Government derive a very large revenue from that trade. I think that, taking this matter fully into consideration, the direct con tribution from Hongkong is only justifiable on the grounds that the amount should be subscribed proportionately, and the amount from Hongkong should e be very large amount. The only return which the British Government can make to those who work to produce the revenue which they collect from the trade with China is to grant them a certain measure of protection by the forces of the Crown, and surely it cannot be argued that we are not entitled to that protection.
say
no
HIS EXCELLENCY THE OFFICER ADMINISTER- ING THE GOVERNMENT — I may that it was with no sort of surprise that I understood that the hon. member who represents the Chamber of Commerce was to put this mocion_down for discussion to-day, because we know that year after year he has addressed this Council on the sane subject. And it was with surprise that I found that he had put dwn this motion this year when We realise the amount which has to be allocated for the defence contribution is so much greater than it has been before. The hon. member again referred to the fact that the hon. members of this Council are debarred from discussing the subject of the defence contribution when the Supply Bill comes before the Council. That, of course, follows naturally from the fact that this contribution from the revenue is provided for by Ordinance, and therefore it would be quite out of order in the ordinary debate on the Supply Bill to discuss it. We have all listened with great interest to the argu-. ments of the hon. member, and also to the arguments of the hon. member on my left (Hon. Mr. Landale), which, in some measure, were al ones. The discussion on this motion. will, in the ordinary course, go Home to the Secretary of State, who will have the opportunity of reading it. But, on behalf of the Government, I may say we are unable to accept this motion, fur, as the Council have already been informed, this subject has been considered by the Committee appointed by His Majesty's Government; and further, it is not a matter in which we are able to make any recommendation. Hon. Mr. LANDALE-I presume, there- fore, sir, you have no information of the result of that Committee?
His EXCELLENCY-I have no informa tion.
Hon. Mr. HEWETT-I ask for a poll. sir.
A poll was then taken, and resulted as follows:-
Ares-Hon. Mr. Lau Chu Pak. Hon. Mr. D. Landale, Hon. Mr. E. Shellim, Hon. Mr. E. A. Hewett, Hon. Mr. Wei Yuk.
NOES:-The Captain Superintendent of Police. the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, the Director of Public Works, the Colonial Treasurer, the Attorney- General, the Colonial Secretary and H. E. the Officer Administering the Government.
His EXCELLENCY-For, 5; Against, 7 The motion is lost.
10
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.