TNAG-0327-FCO40-363-History-of-constitution-of-Legislative-Council-of-Hong-Kong-1972 — Page 11

CONFIDENTIAL

looked at a large number of other Royal Instructions,

none of which includes any reference to this practice.

The general conclusion is thus that the

practice was never enshrined in the constitution

of Hong Kong and that there is no legal obligation

to maintain it. Research Department suspect that

the term "privilege" is being rather looselyemployed

by the interested parties, and that it has o

technical significance. The source of the

misunderstanding about the meaning of nomination

minati

and its misleading description as a privilege seems,

indeed, to be the letters exchanged in Hong Kong

in December 1883. In his letter to the Colonial

Secretary of 28 December 1883 (exclosed in your

letter to me of 23 May), the Chairman of the Chamber

of Commerce states that he has been informed (by

the Colonial Secretary) that Her Majesty has conferred

"the privilege of nominating for His Excellency's

approval one member to a seat in the Legislative

Council". The letter of the Colonial Secretary

to the JPS, of which we have a copy (enclosed

with your letter to me/of 2 June) and which is

apparently identical to that sent on 20 December

to the Chamber of Commerce, states only that one

unofficial member will "as a general rule" be

appointed to the Legislative Council on the

nomination of the JPs. The terminology used by

the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce is thus

unjustified.

As I stated in paragraph 2 above, there is one

important reservation. Some volumes of the

Colonial Office List (eg that of 1885) state that

the Legislative Council included "five unofficial

/members

NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN