TOJU.
MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
The following Report, extracted from the local papers, is published for general information.
A Meeting of the Legislative Council was held on Friday, the 10th September, 1880. were present:---
His Excellency, Governor Sir JoHN POPE HENNESSY, K.C.M.G.
The Acting Colonial Secretary,--Honourable F. STEWART.
The Attorney General,---Honourable E. L. O'MALLEY.
The Acting Colonial Treasurer,-Honourable M. S. TONNOCHY. Honourable P. RYRIE.
Honourable W. KESWICK.
Honourable J. M. PRICE.
Honourable NG CHOY.
MINUTES.
The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed.
THE ESTIMATES.
There
His EXCELLENCY-Gentlemen, the Finance Coramittee, in accordance with the arrangement we made at our last meeting, met more than once, and carefully considered the Estimates of 1881. are now in
They hands in the form in which they came from the Finance Committee, and I therefore your move that we go into public committee on the Appropriation Bill of 1881.
Honourable W. KESWICK-Before going into Committee, your Excellency, I should like to make a few remarks. They will be very few, and in beginning I should say I think the Colony is to be congratulated on the very satisfactory state of its finances and upon the extensive and growing character of its revenue. On two occasions your Excellency has alluded to the deficits, on your arrival or shortly afterwards, pointed out to you by Mr. GARDINER AUSTIN. I think it is to be regretted the figures placed before your Excellency have not been put before the Council, as I was under the impression that up to that period the revenue had been adequate to the expenses of the Colony, and on looking into the returns I find there were $902,000 expended and $885,308 of revenue, which certainly leaves a deficit of about $17,000, but I find also in that year, 1876, there were $52,000 odd outlay for the Central School site and $10,000 spent in the conversion of Stonecutters' Island gaol into a powder magazine. I look upon these two items of expenditure not as money sunk, for there is a good asset in them and they are permanently worth the money paid. Allowing these two amounts and deducting from them the deficiency of $17,000, there would be an apparent surplus of $45,000, as I make out the figures. I mention it, as it appears to have engaged your Excellency's attention on two occasions. and I think the figures I have written out are correct. There is another matter which has also twice been referred to by your Excellency. On the last occasion when you made your statement on the position of the revenue of the Colony you alluded to the sale of Crown lands:- "The sale of Crown land, especially in a small Colony like this, is actually selling a portion of our capital. What we "should consider as land revenue is the increment of increase in the value of land with the progressive "increase of the prosperity of the Colony." I may be wrong in the view I take, but it is a view different from that expressed by your Excellency. I think that land unproductive is lost capital. Land sold as land is sold in Hongkong, bearing a fixed rental, is made productive and brings into the Colony something towards the revenue. Furthermore, that land is built upon and the buildings will be subject to taxes apart from the land tax, and also swell the revenue of the Colony. Consequently, selling land. as I view it, is not diminishing capital but profitably utilising it. Not that I would have land given away or forced off by any means. If a premium can be obtained for it, well and good, but there is also the consideration-are not house rents in this Colony reaching rather too high a figure? Is it not our duty to consider the poorer classes? And is it not desirable that building should be made as cheap as possible? Instead of having the native portions of the town overcrowded, as so many are, it would be well were houses more cheaply obtainable. There was a further matter.
In coming to the points of expenditure, I think it is to be regretted that any sum-for instance, take the case n the Time Ball-shonld be stated without giving a full estimate of the cost of completing the work. It is not the first time we have had this matter before us, and I include also the proposed harbour of refuge at Causeway Bay, and I think I formerly said that it would be desirable to see, on such occasion. stated in full the estimated amounts required to complete the works, and then if, during the one year for which we make the vote, the whole cost is not all expended, such an amount as is estimated to 1× expended should be stated. With regard to the harbour of refuge, than which I know nothing deserving of support, I think there should be more stated than simply "$10,000 from the Special
more
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.