1914-06-25 — Page 1

66 HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 25TH JUNE, 1914.

PRESENT:―

HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR, SIR FRANCIS HENRY MAY, K.C.M.G.

HIS EXCELLENCY MAJOR-GENERAL F. H. KELLY, C.B. (General Officer Commanding Troops).

HON. MR. CLAUD SEVERN (Colonial Secretary).

HON. MR. J. H. KEMP (Attorney-General).

HON. MR. E. D. C. WOLFE (Colonial Treasurer).

HON. MR. A. F. CHURCHILL (Director of Public Works).

HON. MR. E. R. HALLIFAX (Secretary for Chinese Affairs).

HON. MR. C. MCI. MESSER (Captain Superintendent of Police).

HON. MR. WEI YUK, C.M.G.

HON. MR. H. E. POLLOCK, K.C.

HON. MR. E. A. HEWETT, C.M.G.

HON. MR. E. SHELLIM.

HON. MR. D. LANDALE.

HON. MR. LAU CHU PAK.

MR. M. J. BREEN (Clerk of Councils). Minutes

The minutes of the previous meeting were confirmed.

Papers

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY, by command of H.E. the Governor, laid on the table the following paper:―Report of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for the year 1913.

Supplementary Appropriation

THE COLONIAL TREASURER―Sir, with reference to the draft appropriation account, in

connection with which the hon. member who represents the Chamber of Commerce raised a question at the last meeting of Council, I should be glad if members would look at the account before them at page 48. I have had the figures amended, and they should read as follows:―The first figure, $130,909, was the amount estimated, and the amount actually spent was $121,928, not $322,688 as appeared in the original draft. The discrepancy was due to an error in the entering up of the Crown Agents' account. In the abstract a sum of $200,760, interest at 3 12 per cent. on the inscribed stock of 1893, was wrongly entered in the second column, which is sinking fund, instead of in the first column, which should have contained the interest on the 1893 inscribed stock. I think the present figures will leave no room for comment, but owing to the higher exchange they are somewhat lower than the sterling amounts. As regards 2 and 3, sinking fund, etc., these two items should be read together. I did not venture to make any alterations in the accounts, the manner of keeping which was cut and dried before I came to the Treasury, but I think in future it would make it more intelligible if the two figure were taken together. Only one sinking fund account is kept, and expenditure on the sinking fund should appear as only one item. Taking these two figures together, $37,297 and $124,800, the total is a little over $160,000, and the actual expenditure is $150,969. The figure $322,688 is purely a book error, and, as you will see by your present figures, the total amount remains the same and the saving of $79,361 stands.

Financial Minutes

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY, by command of H.E. the Governor, laid on the table Financial Minutes Nos. 33 to 35, and moved that they be referred to the Finance Committee.

THE COLONIAL TREASURER seconded, and the motion was agreed to.

Financial

HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 67 before any work can be undertaken by

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY, by command of H.E. the Governor, laid on the table the Report of the Finance Committee (No. 7), and moved its adoption.

THE COLONIAL TREASURER seconded, and the motion was agreed to.

The Bathing Beaches

HON. MR. POLLOCK, pursuant to notice, asked the following questions:―

(1.)― Will the Government state what are the duties of the Watchman employed by the Government at the Bathing Place, North Point?

(2.)― Will the Government supplement the facilities for public bathing which are afforded by the Hongkong Tramways Company at North Point in the following ways:―

(i.)―By erecting a bamboo-pier

there, with steps half-way along and at the end and with a depth of 6 feet of water at the end at low water, spring tides: and with two life-buoys attached to it;

(ii.)―By improving the sea-bed

there, by

(a.) ― Depositing on it sand,

protected by groins from being washed away;

(b.) ― Preventing junks, whether

under cover of a Public Works permit or otherwise, from depositing mud there;

(c.) ― Removing rocks covered

with barnacles, broken crockery and other obstacles to bathing?

(3.)― Will the Government also consider the feasibility of providing at a small charge a fresh-water shower for use after bathing at North Point and also at West Point?

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY replied:―

1. ― The watchman at North Point is employed to prevent persons digging for shells on the bathing beach

2.―(i.) The Government will erect such a pier as is described in the question.

(ii.) ― (a.) Further enquiry is necessary

the Government of the kind indicated. (b.)―No junks have deposited mud at North Point, but until recently junks have deposited sand there. The work has been suspended during the bathing season.

(c.)―The reply is the same as in the case of (a).

3.―The Government is not prepared to supply water from the mains for this purpose.

The Hongkong (South) Development Scheme

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY moved:―

"That this Council approves the draft agreement laid on the table on the 4th of June, between His Excellency Sir F. H. May, K.C.M.G., Governor of Hongkong, for and on behalf of the Government of the same (who and whose successors in office are hereinafter referred to as "the Governor"), of the one part, and Messrs. Dennys & Bowley, Solicitors (who and whose assigns are hereinafter called the Promoters), of the other part, with regard to a scheme for the development of a portion of the South of the Island of Hongkong, on condition that the promoters furnish to the Government satisfactory proof of their financial ability to carry out the scheme."

HON. MR. WEI YUK seconded.

HON. MR. LANDALE―Sir, I do not wish to oppose the granting of this concession, for I think if any capitalist can be found to spend the money it entails, it will certainly be to the benefit of the Colony. But there is one clause which directly interferes with the business of two companies already established in the Colony: that is, clause 24, which reads, "The promoters shall have the sole right during the said term of 25 years to supply electricity and gas in the areas over which they have an option." This would debar the Hongkong Electric Company and the Hongkong and China Gas Company from operating in the portion of the Colony to which this agreement refers. I do not think that that is a fair stipulation to make. These two companies have been the pioneers of lighting in the Colony,

68 HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

and should not be prohibited from working in any part of its territory. I think that the Government should not grant this concession at the expense of these two companies. It is not in the interest of consumers of light and power to do so, because it would probably mean that the existing companies would eventually supply light and power, but they would have to pay the promoters of the scheme to be allowed to do so. The more consumers of light and power there are, the cheaper it can be supplied, and I think it is a wrong principle to divide the Colony up into areas in a case of this kind. When the Gas Company originally made their agreement with the Government in 1861 they were given two years in which to begin supplying gas. Now, although the main agreement provides for a term in which this work is to be done, there is no stipulation as regards the lighting of this district. There is no obligation on the part of the promoters to supply light, and the existing companies are debarred from doing so. It is quite reasonable to allow the promoters the right to supply light and power, but I don't think it is reasonable to debar the existing companies from doing it. I beg to propose that the last paragraph of clause 23, viz: "provided that such cables or wires or gas mains and pipes are not to be used for the supply of electricity or gas within the areas in which the promoters have the sole right to supply electricity and gas," and also clause 24 be deleted from the agreement.

HON. MR. SHELLIM―I beg to second the hon. member's proposition.

HIS EXCELLENCY ― As regards the remarks which the hon. member has made, and his comments upon this agreement, I cannot agree with a good deal of what he says. The institution of a monopoly really on the part of the companies might be induced, and monopolies are abhorrent not only to the official but I believe to the unofficial mind. Still, there are some points which require a little further consideration, particularly with regard to the period within which the right referred to ought to be exercised, and as the point is not urgent I propose to hold over this agreement until the next meeting.

The Government Nursing Staff

HON. MR. POLLOCK―The next item on the

agenda, of which I have already given notice, is a resolution which I do not intend to proceed with at present. It was deferred from a previous meeting of the Council, and in order to get the motion off the agenda I will formally move that this present motion be discharged, and if I want to bring up the subject again I will send in a fresh notice of motion.

HON. MR. LANDALE seconded, and the motion was agreed to.

Estate Duty Ordinance

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the first reading of a Bill entitled, "An Ordinance to provide for the levy of Estate Duty payable in respect of the estates of deceased persons."

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and the Bill was read a first time.

The Objects and Reasons attached to the Bill are as follows:―

The object of this Bill is to endeavour to place upon a more regular and satisfactory footing than at present obtains the law and the administrative arrangements relative to the payment and collection of the Probate Duty leviable upon the estates of deceased persons.

The general idea underlying the levy of Probate Duty is that the State is entitled to participate to some small extent in the property which passes on the death of an individual to his legal personal representatives. The proportion of an estate which is in this way diverted to revenue varies as a rule directly with the value of the property of which the deceased person died possessed.

In order to arrive accurately at a determination of the value of a deceased person's property for the purpose of ascertaining the rate at which Probate Duty should be assessed and the total amount payable, it is necessary to provide administrative machinery adequate for this purpose.

The first step towards the attainment of this object is as a rule legislation prohibiting under penalty any person from administering or dealing with the estate of a deceased person until Probate of the deceased's will or Letters of Administration of the deceased's estate has been duly obtained.

HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 69

The second step generally consists similarly in legislation giving powers to some authority and providing that authority with machinery with which he is enabled to discover with some tolerable degree of certainty the value of estates upon which Probate Duty is leviable; whilst the third and last step is as a rule effected by legislation prescribing the methods by which the duty assessed may be paid and collected.

The existing law, contained in Ordinance No. 2 of 1897 and Ordinance No. 16 of 1901, Sections 22 to 27, is somewhat vague and unsatisfactory. At present the collection of Probate Duty, which is a purely revenual matter, is conjoined with the legal operations necessary for the appointment by the Court of an executor or administrator of the will or estate respectively of a deceased person. This procedure is not found to work well in practice and causes difficulty in cases where there are concerned certain classes of property which pass on death (such as a policy of insurance taken out for the benefit of a child) in which the deceased's executor or administrator has no interest and of which he cannot obtain possession.

This Bill, which is modelled on the Straits Settlements law governing the payment of Estate Duty, specifies the person liable to pay duty in each case and makes the assessment of estate duty a separate matter to be undertaken on oath and to be completed together with its payment before any steps can be taken to obtain the necessary Probate or Letters of Administration.

The Bill introduces the system in force in the United Kingdom of aggregating the value of all the property of a deceased person wherever situate for the purposes of determining the rate at which estate duty shall be paid.

Subject to some important exceptions, it also follows the English law in making the duty payable on all property of a deceased person situate outside as well as within the Colony; the exceptions relating to property, in respect of which duty is paid in the place in which it is situate or which is of such a nature that it would be inequitable to make it subject locally to the payment of estate duty.

The Bill further introduces a new scale of rates of Estate Duty modelled on the scale in force in the United Kingdom. The principal effects of the proposed new scale are that large estates pay at an increased and small estates at a reduced rate. The local limit of exemption is thus

raised from $250 to $500; estates between $1,000 and $5,000 in value pay only 1 per cent. instead of 2 per cent.; estates between $10,000 and $50,000 and between $100,000 and $200,000 remain at the same rate as at present; all other estates pay at an increased rate.

Another fault in the existing local law is that the definitions of "property" are not exhaustive, whilst there exists no effective machinery for enforcing a full disclosure of the property of a deceased person. The Bill therefore defines "property" in detail and provides the Commissioner with suitable means for obtaining all the necessary information.

The Bill further contains rigorous provisions imposing upon various classes of persons against whom under the present law it would be impossible to proceed the obligation of seeing, so far as they are concerned, that the law shall be carried out; the principle involved being that it is the duty of persons cognizant of property, a portion of which belongs to the revenue of the Colony, to assist Government in ensuring that its revenue shall not be defrauded. In this connection the Bill also provides that a Schedule of property shall be attached to every Probate or Letters of Administration and throws an obligation on any person who deals with the property of a deceased person after the grant of Probate or Letters of Administration of making certain that all the property with which such person in fact deals is actually included in the Schedule attached to the Grant.

Section 1.― Is formal.

Section 2.― Repeals the existing law relating to Probate Duty.

Section 3.― Defines the meaning of certain terms used in the Bill.

Section 4.― Provides for the levy of estate duty substituting this term for the

existing "Probate Duty."

Section 5.― Sets out the property which is deemed to pass on death.

Section 6.― Exempts from the payment of estate duty transactions for

money consideration and also 4

classes of property estate duty

upon which should not equitably

be claimed as accruing to the

revenue of the Colony.

Section 7.― Introduces a new scale of rates of estate duty and provides for the

aggregation of the value of all a

deceased person's property

70 HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

wherever situate for the purpose of

determining the rate at which

estate duty shall be charged.

Section 8.― Sets out the manner in which estate duty is to be paid and

contains the new provision that

interest at 4 per cent. per annum

shall be payable upon estate duty

from the date of death to the date

of payment, if such is made within

6 months. A similar provision

exists in England.

Section 9.― Introduces the new allowance of an exemption for funeral expenses,

which have not up to the present

time been allowed to be deducted.

This provision is taken from the

Straits Settlements law.

Section 10.― Prescribes the method of filing accounts and paying estate duty. It

gives the Commissioner special

powers to summon persons before

him, under penalty, in case of

default, in order to enable him to

obtain a full disclosure of the

property of a deceased person. It

also gives him power to inspect

properties and obtain valuations

thereof.

Section 11.―Provides that no Probate shall issue until after estate duty has

been paid. Similar provision to that

in the existing law is made for

cases in which the value of an

estate cannot be ascertained

immediately; and a new clause is

inserted giving power to the

Commissioner to allow the

postponement of payment of estate

duty in cases where the exaction of

immediate payment would be a

hardship. This clause is also taken

from the Straits Settlements law.

Sections 12 and 13. ― Re-enact in slightly altered form similar provisions in

the existing law with the addition

of clauses providing for the

calculation of estate duty on the

values of interests in expectancy

and interests ceasing on death.

Section 14.― Introduces the new principle that estate duty shall be a charge on the

property in respect of which it is

leviable. It also gives power to

raise, by means of sale, mortgage

or terminable charge, the amount

payable for estate duty. This

principle is again taken from the

Strait Settlements law.

Section 15.― Provides for the apportionment of the estate duty between the

parties liable; with liberty to apply

to the Court in case of dispute.

Section 16.― Gives power to the Governor-in Council to remit the payment of

estate duty on equitable grounds.

Section 17.― Contains new provisions giving any person aggrieved by the

decision of the Commissioner a

right of appeal to the Supreme

Court.

Section 18.― Introduces an important innovation calculated to prevent

the non-disclosure of property. A

Schedule of the property of a

deceased person must be annexed

to the Probate and it is the duty of

any person before dealing with the

property of a deceased person to

satisfy himself that the property

with which he proposes to deal is

included in this Schedule: A

penalty of $500 is prescribed for

non-compliance with the

provisions of this section.

Section 19.― Sub-section (1) re-enacts the existing law. Sub-section (2) is

new and is inserted with a view to

prevent the concealment of the

property of a deceased person by

making it obligatory for persons

concerned to inform the

Commissioner of the existence of

such property at the earliest

possible moment after such

deceased person's death.

Section 20.― Throws the onus of disclosing the property of a deceased person,

in certain cases, on the person

having knowledge of such

property. The cases are those in

which deceased persons have had

interest in any private shop, bank

or business undertaking. The

Commissioner has little

opportunity of discovering such an

interest unless it is disclosed;

evasion

HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 71

has been, it is thought, very

prevalent in the past. It is hoped to

minimise this evasion by imposing

upon the manager of such shop,

bank or business the duty of

making a disclosure.

Section 21.― Is an innovation and provides for the filing of adequate accounts by

an Executor should he be called

upon so to do by the

Commissioner. In the past the only

manner in which an executor could

be compelled to file any accounts

was by means of an application

made to the Court by a party

interested. This procedure was

cumbrous and very rarely used.

Section 22.― Gives the Commissioner power to reduce any penalty incurred

under the Bill.

The First Schedule sets out the rates at which Estate Duty shall be charged. These rates are modelled on those in force in England.

The Second Schedule repeals certain portions of the existing law which, with one exception, are dealt with by this Bill. This exception is the amendment of section 19 of the Probate Ordinance, 1897. At present the Official Administrator can only deal summarily with estates not exceeding $50 in value. This limit has been found in practice to be too low and by this amendment it is raised to $250.

The third Schedule contains tables of the values of annuities for use in the calculation of estate duty on life interests. The tables are taken from the law in force in Fiji.

Wild Birds and Game Preservation Ordinance

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the second reading of the Bill entitled, "An Ordinance to make provision for the protection of certain Wild Birds and Game." In doing so he said―The object of this Bill, Sir, so far as it will make new law in the Colony, is the protection of non-edible wild birds. It has been felt for some time in the Colony that some restriction should be placed on the indiscriminate slaughter of inoffensive wild birds which are of no use for purposes of food. There is also a movement throughout the Empire for the protection of such birds against wanton destruction either for the sake of their plumage or for any other reason, and by passing this Bill the Colony will be

joining in that movement. The scheme of the Bill is to divide wild birds into three classes. Some wild birds may be taken and shot at any time by any person who holds a licence under the Ordinance; these birds are defined in the Bill as snipe, woodcock, geese and swan, and it is proposed, Sir, to add magpies to that list. The second class consists of birds which may be shot under licence, but only in the non-breeding season; these are such birds as pheasants, partridges and so on. The third-class consists of all other wild birds, and they are protected throughout the year and may not be taken or shot at any time. The Bill also protects the nests and eggs of such wild birds throughout the year, and of edible birds during the breeding season. It incorporates most of the provisions of the present Wild Birds and Game Preservation Ordinance, and the only important change made in those provisions is the alteration of the close season which is now fixed by the Bill to extend from the 1st February to the 15th October. This change is made because according to the information at the disposal of the Government, it is found that the present close season is not sufficiently long to cover the breeding season for all the birds which it is desired to protect.

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and the Bill was read a second time.

Council then went into Committee to consider the Bill clause by clause.

On Clause 4,

HON. MR. LANDALE asked―Under Section 3 of Clause 4, what is the position of the owner of a cold storage?

THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL―This only makes it an offence to possess birds taken in the Colony, and not imported birds.

HON. MR. HEWETT―You might shoot some wild duck in Hongkong, put them in cold storage, and sell them out of season.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ― The section applies to any birds taken in the Colony after the commencement of the Ordinance, and not to birds imported from outside.

72 HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

HON. MR. LANDALE―In Clause 13, where some exemptions are made, reference to cold storage is omitted. I think it is a pity this Ordinance should have no reference to cold storage. It might be very difficult for a cold storage company to prove where its birds came from.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ―Section 4 applies to birds which it is not permissible to kill at all, therefore there would not be any in cold storage. Section 6 refer to birds which may be shot, except in the close season.

HIS EXCELLENCY―That seems all right. The birds alluded to in Section 4 are the birds in schedule A; every description of wild bird except snipe, woodcock, geese and swans, and the wild birds specified in schedule B. Are you satisfied with that?

HON. MR. LANDALE―Yes, but I think that some exemption should be granted to cold storage companies which would enable them to have game birds in their possession through the close season.

THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL ― This clause deals with non-game birds, and the question does not arise.

The clause was approved.

On Clause 6,

HON. MR. SHELLIM―With regard to this clause it has been pointed out to me by several prominent sportsmen that February 1st is rather an early date for the close season, and April 1st is suggested. This applies only to wild duck, teal and widgeon. I understand February is the best month for shooting wild duck and teal. I have been so informed by several very sound sportsmen in the Colony.

HIS EXCELLENCY―The answer to that is that those who shoot wild duck and teal generally go outside the limits of the Colony to shoot them. Very few are shot within the limits.

HON. MR. SHELLIM―That is so, but if a man goes outside the Colony and shoots them he cannot bring them into the Colony. If he shoots in Chinese territory he is not allowed to import them.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ― Yes. The prohibition only applies to birds in the Colony.

HON. MR. SHELLIM―So a man shooting birds in Chinese territory could import them into Hongkong with impunity?

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL―Yes.

HON. MR. HEWETT―The point we are aiming at is to preserve birds. These birds are said to breed in February, and if that is so they should not be shot in February either inside or outside of the Colony. If they do not breed during February my hon. friend's remarks may be accepted.

HON. MR. SHELLIM―I understand April is the breeding month, and that February and March are the important months for shooting.

HIS EXCELLENCY―There is only one species of wild duck I know of that breeds in China in the vicinity of this Colony, and they certainly should not be shot after February 1st. The generality of wild duck which people shoot here are migratory birds. They do not breed here, and it does not matter about shooting them; but we put in wild duck because―

HON. MR. HEWETT―You can see them on the Canton river.

HIS EXCELLENCY ― Some might conceivably come and breed in the Colony. They do breed round about Macao. This section will not interfere with the ordinary wild fowl, and it will not interfere with birds shot outside the Colony.

The clause was approved.

On Clause 9,

HON. MR. SHELLIM said―In this clause the words "any person" make it rather wide. I would suggest that they be altered to read, "a justice of the peace or a police officer."

HIS EXCELLENCY―I do not agree with that. I might catch a Chinaman or anybody. I might catch you―(laughter) ―while nesting on the hillside; bird-nesting and so on.

HON. MR. HEWETT―Might I venture to suggest that your Excellency is not "any person." You are some person in law I am as "any person."

HIS EXCELLENCY―In the eyes of the this Colony.

HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL 73

HON. MR. SHELLIM―It might lead to a breach of the peace.

The clause was approved.

On Clause 10,

HON. MR. HEWETT―With regard to the penalty, $50 is all right, but on a second or third offence the penalty might be raised. There are some so-called sportsmen who shoot anything they see, and those people, if they can dodge the police, will go on repeating the offence. I think $50 is insufficient. We might make it $50, and $100 for a second offence, or, in the discretion of the magistrate, a fortnight without the "op." I have had to deal with such people in Shanghai, and I know perfectly well they do the same here.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ― I do not think it is necessary to make it any more than $50. It is rather a high penalty for the pleasure which shooting a bird of that kind is likely to give to a sportsman.

HIS EXCELLENCY―I think $50 is really enough.

HON. MR. HEWETT―I would like to see such sportsmen sent to gaol.

The clause was approved.

On Clause 13,

HON. MR. LANDALE―Does this clause give power to licence cold storage people? I think some reference to that ought to be made in this Ordinance.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ― There appears to be no necessity. In no way can the business of a cold storage company be affected by this Bill.

HON. MR. LANDALE―The position is that a cold storage company cannot say where the game it is storing comes from. It might be accused of storing game killed in the Colony, and there are no means of disproving it.

HIS EXCELLENCY―As a matter of fact, that would never arise. There is no game here to store; no pheasants or partridges.

HON. MR. LANDALE―There are pheasants and partridges.

HIS EXCELLENCY―Not sufficient to store. In a day a sportsman will hardly shoot sufficient for one family to make a good

dinner of. I do not think it is necessary to load the Bill with things which are not likely to be required.

This clause was approved.

On Schedule A,

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL―Before the word "snipe," I move that the word "magpies" be inserted. They are not to be protected, and should therefore be included in the list of birds which can be shot at any time.

HON. MR. LANDALE―Should not hawks also be included?

HIS EXCELLENCY―Hawks kill vermin, and people at home do not allow them to be shot for that reason.

This schedule was approved.

On Schedule C,

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ― In the eleventh condition of the licence which appears in schedule C, I beg to move that the dates be altered to read from 1st September to 31st August. The present licences, I understand, expire on the 31st August. There is another amendment also in that schedule. The back of the licence will contain a copy of the first two schedules, and before the word "snipe" I move that the word "magpies" be inserted.

HON. MR. SHELLIM―With regard to clause 3 of the schedule, I would suggest that the date be altered from January 31st to the end of February. I am sorry to say I do not know much about the subject myself, but the suggestion is made on the remarks of certain sportsmen.

HIS EXCELLENCY―I have discussed that with several sportsmen, and they all agree that the 1st February is the proper date. It is the 2nd February in England.

HON. MR. SHELLIM―That is so, but I understand the conditions which apply in England do not apply here.

HIS EXCELLENCY―I took some trouble to find out the opinion of others. Several sportsmen think the extension of time is a very good thing to give the birds a chance.

The Schedule was approved.

On Council resuming,

74 HONGKONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL reported that the Bill had passed through Committee with slight amendment, and moved that it be read a third time.

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and the Bill was read a third time and passed.

HIS EXCELLENCY―Council will adjourn till this day week.

HON. MR. POLLOCK ― I venture respectfully to suggest that it might be well for the Council to adjourn for a fortnight, as a very important measure was read for a first time to-day―the Estate Duty Bill.

HIS EXCELLENCY―That will not come on at the next meeting, but we well consider the Development Agreement. Council will adjourn till this day week.

——

FINANCE COMMITTEE.

——

A meeting of the Finance Committee was then held, the COLONIAL SECRETARY presiding. The following votes were passed:―

Sanitary Department

The Governor recommended the Council to vote a sum of three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500) in aid of the vote Sanitary Department, Other Charges, Sanitary Staff, Disinfectants.

THE CHAIRMAN―There are two reasons for this sum being wanted. One, the large increase in the price of kerosene from which the disinfectant emulsion is made; two, the abnormal number of plague cases for this year and the extra amount of emulsion required.

Hunghom Police Station

The Governor recommended the Council to vote a sum of nine thousand two hundred dollars ($9,200) in aid of the vote Public Works, Extraordinary, Kowloon, Buildings, Hunghom Police Station, ―Additions.

THE CHAIRMAN―I will ask the Director of Public Works to explain this.

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ― The original estimate for this work was $6,500. That was taken last year. Since then, more additions and alterations to

the building have been required. For instance, in the out-buildings additional accommodation had to be provided for Indian police constables. Then in the main building subsequently, an additional bedroom, bathroom and kitchen had to be provided for the inspector in charge. Previous to that there was only one bedroom and the kitchen was common both to him and the sergeant and a European police constable. Thirdly, there is the addition of another bedroom for the European police constable. It is due to those additions that the extra amount is now asked for.

HON. MR. HEWETT―Was not it supposed from the first that there would be Indian constables, an inspector in charge, and so forth?

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ― No.

THE CHAIRMAN― I visited the Station with the C.S.P. nearly two years ago to see what was required, and what was then asked for was an extension of the back premises of the police station to provide for the Indian police constables, and to give a little more room for the Chinese, and to set free the front part of the Station for the European police. For that $6,500 was estimated, but since then it was found that this police station is of such importance that a large force is kept there, and married quarters have been made. The increase on the original vote is not $9,200. In 1913 only $2,581 was expended out of the vote, so that some of that had to be re-voted. The total is $14,000, the revised estimate for the whole being $11,600, and the excess on plan A $2,400. The original estimate was $6,500, so $7,500 is the exact figure in addition to the original estimate.

Police and Prison Vote

The Governor recommended the Council to vote a sum of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) in aid of the vote Police and Prison Departments, A. ― Police, Other Charges, Incidental Expenses.

THE CHAIRMAN―Pending the provision of quarters for certain married European police, we have had to hire houses, and this sum is for the remainder of the year for the payment of house rent until the quarters are provided.