S
it
ཚོ ཚཙ ཟ 3ཌརྞྞ ཀ་ྱ་ྡ་ྔ=<ནཱ༡་རྟ|ཟཁྲུ༥ཆ༢F༢ཚོམ་
ly
it.
ir
in
nt
Id
no
es
d.
ly
ce
be
he
ng
ar
fi-
ed,
ly
of
its
or
of
at
se
Jer
as
nt,
a if
he
nt,
ne.
10-
ror
ind
hat
eir
ind
ge-
the
the
ire
, if
na
ing
er.
-01
irst
ing
leir
of
in
the
Che Wangkong Government. Gazette.
practice, and the positive prohibition of reclaiming land beyond high-water mark by any private persons as an ́.
We find that the terms of the "title" now about to be exchanged for Correspondence of gement of the Royalties of the Crown." {varknowledgement,” did, in 1844, excite complaints on the part of the Marine-Lotholders. But we also find the 4th and the 6th the local government at these complaints had no reference to the limitation of "boundaries" seaward or landward, as contained in the March 1844,-between s, nor to the right of resumption thereby vested in the Crown, nor to the paramount claims therein asserted on and Messrs Jardine sf of " public purposes" over personal privileges, nor even to the absolute powers in respect of those reservations and twelve other firins the Queen's Surveyor-General, nor indeed to any matter bearing upon the present question of Marine-Lotholders, reby bestowed" npou the slightest degree. We find that a former letter of Captain Elliot was made the groundwork of complaint. But in Appendix II, (No. Letter dated Macao also find that in that letter only one subject is discussed, and that one entirely foreign to our enquiry. Captain 6.) st had there held out some “encouragement" for the hope that "the Queen's further pleasure" might operate to advantage of the first buyers of lots, Inland and Marine, in the way either of reduction of Quit Rent, or of 17 June 1841, printed The promulgation of the form of Crown Grant had dissipated those hopes, in the Hongkong Ga- "On zette of the 25th June tessmutation into a fee simple tenure.
Mas of that disappointment that the Thirteen firms of Marine-Lotholders complained, and only of that one.
Hongkong, p. 3 seo
•he faith of that pledge,” as they termed it, they told Sir Henry Pottinger that they had, down to that date, (the 4th 1855,—and • Laws of March, 1844,) expended "on sea-walls, warehouses, and dwellings, very considerable sums."
1
19
Expressio unius est Appendix 11, (No. 6.)
usio alterius. If encouragements of any other kind had been held out to them, either “to build sea walls," or to any other work seaward of their Northern boundaries, it is clear from this document that they had not thought antakelves safe in relying upon those encouragements, and in commencing those works. The personal testimony of Marine-Lotholders themselves confirms the inferences which we have deduced. The Honble. Mr Edger, whose, Evidence of the Hon.
Sections go
back to a period anterior to the formation of the Colony, "thinks that no land at all was reclaimed Mr Edger in Appen- From the sea) before Leases were issued,” and that indeed "sea-walls were made before the issue of leases, but in general diz 1.
• tetween the limits of the land that was measured off;" and Mr Antrobus, whose own encroachments on the sea-sbore Evidence of R. C.
date but from 1854, states that “he is not aware whether any land was reclaimed from the sea before his arrival here, Antrobus, Esq., in Ape
rather more than five years ago." Such being the case before the issue, what was to result from a "title" so onerous pendix I.
that which was now to be forced upon them? If any regard ve had to the strength of language, we must suppose· that the Crown Grant was viewed, from its first promulgation, not only as no "encouragement
to costly and un- horized encroachments upon the Marine domain of Her Majesty, but as the utter bar to all improvements what-
"Had they been previously Letter of the 4th wever, even within the surveyed and registered boundaries of the grantee's own Lot.
dix II, (No. 6.) are," say the Thirteen Firms of Marine-Lotholders, “ of the conditions now proposed, they certainly should not March1844, in Appen- *hare expended one farthing on buildings at Hongkong.”
On the other hand, every one of Sir Henry Pottinger's acts and words at this very juncture is utterly incon wistent with the notion that he entertained any doubt himself, or bad led others into any doubt, as to his line of duct with respect to the rights of the Crown to the sea-shore in front of the Marine Lots. His Excellency's decision en the subject already cited was notorious to the whole community. Among the principal works which, at his request, Letter of Mr Gor- the Land Officer, Mr Gordon proposed to undertake, and which Sir Henry Pottinger referred home with approbation, don, of the 6th July t for lack of the means could not undertake without the authority and assistance of Her Majesty's Imperial Govern- 1843, in Appen ix 11, ment, a prominent place was given to the following project: "a space of land to be reclaimed from the sea in front of (No. 7.) * Government Hill, to form a Public Landing-place, with an Esplanade or Public Walk; a Praya to be carried out in * front of all the buildings, both Eastward to the Point, the property of Messrs Jardine & Co., and Westward as far as Sayy Bay, or four miles between the two extremities,-the land thus reclaimed to form a number of Marine Lots; public roadway close to the sea, of fifty feet in width to be left on the Praya, and the space between that and the Louses to be the private property of the possessors of the Lots assisting in carrying out the plan paying a proportion of the expenses, and for whatever land they gained of course charged at the same rate as for the rent of the Lots." That the fact of such a proposal having been made,—and the details of it were no secret to the community at the time, or even long afterwards, may be very fairly inferred from Mr Montgomery Martin's once celebrated Report, Extracts from the Re evapiled by him within six weeks of his arrival here in the following year, when Sir John Davis had succeeded Sir port of Mr M. Martin, Hrary Pottinger in the Government of this Island. That Report contains a direct but sneering allusion to the July 1844, and Sir and Letter, each dated Praya, amongst other valuable projects of Sir Henry Pottinger, all of which are ridiculed by Mr Martin, little John Davis's Despatch the 20th August 1844, Ceaning how many of his sarcasms were soon to be refuted by the literal fulfilment of the projects. Whilst the
in Appendix 11, (No. Botoriety of the fact is proved by the boldness of the sarcasm, the mild and temperate rebuke which is contained in the observations of Sir John Davis in reply, and which, together with the attack, will be found in the Appendix, is, on 8.) its side, a proof that his Government and that of his predecessor were agreed in their opinions as to the policy to be followed with respect to Crown rights to the sea-shore, and the propriety of commencing the Praya, as projected by the latter, so soon as the fiuances of the Colony would permit, bat without impeding the construction of the other public works and improvements enumerated in Mr Martin's Report.
and
Nothing indeed but the financial difficulties under which, even in Sir Henry Pottinger's time, the Colony had been laboring, and which were greatly and notoriously aggravated in later years, appears to have led to the delay in
Letter of Sir E, el- The formation of such a work had been strongly urged upon the Admiralty by carrying his project into execution.
It had been notified by a cher, R.N., (Enclosure Commodore Sir Edward Belcher, R.N., then commanding a squadron in the China Seas.
private despatch of Government Circular to all the leading mercantile firmas,-perhaps to all the mercantile firms without distinction, No. 3 in Lord Stanley's then carrying on business, and many of whom we perceive, now represent themselves to be hostile to the formation 5th November 1843) of a Praya, except on the condition of being allowed to monopolise the whole benefit so far as their sea-frontage of 15th November 1843, extends, with an entire exemption from Quit Rent, and without being called upon to defray any portion of the cost in Append II, (No. 9.) Circular Letter of Yet the project of those days had the remarkable fate of being received by them with an almost unanimous adhesion. Out of eight firms, themselves Marine-Lotholders, whose replies have been recorded in the Land Office, only one Mr Gordon, dated 28th (that of Messrs Holliday, Wise & Co.,) hesitated" to add to their already heavy expenditure," and to incur April 1843,in Append. the loss of privacy and convenience, "to say nothing of the profits of wharfage," privileges which they were II, (No. 10.)
Letters of the 1st, perertheless ready and willing to forego for the public advantage." All the rest signified their consent and
10th May, 1843, to the proffered their co-operation. They were willing to do it at their own expense to renounce the formation of 2d, 4th, 5th, 8th, and Land Officer from eight private wharves, in favor of the common advantage. They had the welfare of the community at heart, not their own
firms of Merchants. individual profit. One highly respectable firm, to whom the Circular was sent, but who do not appear to have returned
Extract of Letter
■ direct answer, nevertheless took the opportunity, in reference to another question then at issue between themselves
I the local Government on the subject of an alleged encroachment by the Land Officer upon their Southern frontage, from Messrs Dent & to express their highly creditable repugnance to all purprestures and encroachments whatever. Messrs Dent & Co. Co., to the Land Officer, ay that "the boundary marks (granite blocks) on their Water-front Lots, marked Nos. 3 and 4, and 4 and 5, were at dated the 3d May 1844, *that time in the exact situation where they were placed by the Officers of Government, and also on the spot where the in Append. II, (No. *pickets were placed on the day of public sale, when they made the purchase." They remark,—that "the quantity of 11,)
water-frontage which they purchased was not a matter of speculation in land, but that they confined their purchase to what was strictly and indispensably necessary for their establishment, and had not sought to increase their interest in "such land elsewhere. Nothing short of such reasons," they conclude, "would have induced them to solicit the con- *sideration of Government to their case, it being far from their wish or intention either to ask for anything more that *(c) what they had considered to be their actual right, or in the most remote manner to stand in the way of public improvement." It is, we think, impossible better to describe the relative positions of Crown, Crown tenants, and the public.
This general concurrence of the Government and Community of Hongkong on the subject of the Praya, did not
Lord Stanley's pri But the project required some coù- fail to impress the Secretary of State very strongly in favor of the measure. sideration, and His Lordship's friendly feeling towards it was at first evinced only by privately transmitting to Sir vate despatch of 15th November 1843,in Ap- Henry Pottinger some corroborating testimony from another quarter in favor of the project. In the following year,
Lord Stanley's des- however, his decision was officially announced. The utmost approbation was bestowed on the works projected, pend. 11 (No. 12.) especially the Praya-the Governor was invited to send home the necessary Reports and Plans; but the question patch of the 3d Janua ry, 1844, in Append. was asked “whether there were the necessary funds for the execution,” and a clear intimation was given that to the Marine Lots, rather than to the Imperial Treasury, His Excellency must be prepared to have recourse for the means II, (No. 13.) whereby the Praya might be executed at the least possible" cost to the public." The matter of necessity rested there until the pecuniary difficulty could be overcome. Owing to circumstances too well known to need recapitula- tion, it was not fully overcome until the end of our last financial year. Your Excelleucy is the first Governor who has been able to decline the Parliamentary Grant, and this is the first year in which you have been able to decline it.
.aw