- 10 -
this, one might argue that where no adequate or prompt compensa-
tion is made the Government concerned has no right to expropriate.
26.
It is true that the scheme of land resumption under
the Crown Lands Resumption Ordinance provides for compensation.
But that, it seems to us, is not the complete answer. If the
compensation is such that the amount is far below the "fair
price", and there is inordinate delay in payment (which,
basically, are the complaints of the New Territories people),
then it would seem to us arguable that there has, in truth,
been "expropriation". As to the questions of adequacy and
promptness in payment of compensation we shall deal with these
hereafter.
"PUBLIC OFFICES OR THE LIKE OFFICIAL PURPOSES"
27.
The preamble of the Convention, as we have mentioned
above, states this:
Whereas it has for many years past been recognised that an extension of Hong Kong territory is necessary for the proper defence and protection of the Colony.
28.
The parties to the Convention clearly never contem-
plated that Hong Kong would develop into the strong industrial
centre it is to-day, requiring large-scale resumption of land
for a large number of public purposes, and it was probably
assumed in 1898 that the words "public offices, fortifications,
or the like official purposes", covered all the possible
situations when the Government might require land for public
purposes: these purposes would, basically, have related generally
to government and defence. Industrial expansion was beyond the