[ 11 ]
In the first place unless a man had a “heading —a page with his own name or that of his ancestor in the register-it cost him not less than $100 to begin his registration. Even when he had this heading in the register there were fees legitimate and otherwise, to be paid and the trouble and
F delay of going to the District City.
10. The result was that very few sales of land were registered. The more usual course was for the transaction to be evidenced by a white, že., an unregistered deed containing a covenant by the purchaser to pay the vendor a yearly sum to meet the tax which the vendor continued to pay as before. This was frequently done even when the vendor parted with the whole of the land held by him under a red deed when in order to save the purchaser the trouble and expense of registration the latter took a white or unregistered deed as evidence between himself and the vendor of the transac- tion and of the payment of the purchase money. He might also get the original red deed to be kept as security against subsequent dealings with the land by his vendor. Thus the taxes were still paid in the old name though the land had passed into other hands.
It is possible I think to find in one or other of these sources the origin of all the clan claims in the New Territory. This is to say: either a clan has forced later immigrants to pay to itself an imposition under the name of land tax; or the clan (or individual members of it) has parted with land under a white deed and still continues to be responsible for the tax.
Ownership of Land how acquired.
11. It may not be amiss to recapitulate briefly the various methods of acquiring land in the New Territory,
First by grant from the Crown.-On application to the District Magistrate for unoccupied waste, or for newly formed alluvial land, a notice was posted reciting the application. Then, after five months if no objection had been lodged a grant issued stating the area and class of the land and the tax payable.
Secondly by purchase. The law required that every deed of sale should be registered and the amount of tax due transferred into the purchaser's name. In most cases the instrument was not registered, the vendor continuing to pay the tax and the purchaser indemnifying him by a yearly contribution. It was however usual in such cases as I have stated above for the vendor to hand over the prior registered deed to the purchaser to secure the latter against any subsequent dealings with it to his prejudice.
The Perpetual Lease.
12. Thirdly by perpetual lease. This was by far the most common method of dealing with land in the New Territory.
The effect of a grant of land from the Crown was really to make the grantee a perpetual lessec subject to the payment of the proper Crown Rent. Something analogous was adopted by private individuals. When the transaction was intended to be registered it was usually called a sale, being in effect the transfer of the perpetual lease granted by the Crown from the vendor to the purchaser who took the place of the former as the person inscribed as tax-payer in the register. When as was. usually the case it was preferred to dispense with registration, a sale was inconvenient, for it left the vendor responsible for the tax and without any covenant of indemnity from the purchaser. On the other hand under a perpetual lease the purchaser got practically the full rights of ownership and could mortgage or lease or even sell the property provided always that the rent reserved under the old lease was punctually paid. The vendor got an annual sum sufficient to indemnify him for the tax to be paid but had otherwise no further interest in the land.
13. I have said that the annual sum reserved was sufficient to indemnify the vendor for the tax it was supposed he would continue to pay, but its amount was often very much larger than this. Frequently the rent under a perpetual lease is a full rack rent the explanation no doubt being that in such cases the true relationship of land lord and tenant exists and that through habit people in the New Territory have come to prefer this form of alienation to a regular sale.
14. The perpetual lease was sometimes in writing but very much oftener it was oral merely and so general was it and so popular that it seems usually to have been presumed in the absence of any explicit agreement between the parties. Thus if A builds a house on B's land and B ratifies his action by accepting rent the implied condition is that subject to the payment of annual sum initially fixed and not liable to be raised A can continue in occupation of the land and that B has meanwhile no interest therein beyond the receipt of this annual reut. B has it is true the reversion if A die without heirs but that is a remote contingency in China where in default of issue adoption is freely resorted to.
15. The annual rent may be very small-this usually means either that a capital sum was paid originally or that the value of the land was so insignificant that no more rent was reserved than was necessary to meet the tax. It may again amount to almost the full annual value of the land and in some localities this is said to be as high as $3 and $4 a mau-thongh in view of the exceedingly clastic ideas of measurement current amongst the villagers it is impossible to place much reliance on their figures.
by
16. The interest of the lessee then amounts to this-that as long as the rent is paid the landi belapestethim and to his heirs for ever. It seems beside the purpose to ask whether he can leave it The will as we know it does not exist in the New Territory. If the lessee parts with the the rent is not paid be remains liable to the lessor for the amount. The lessor on the as a perpetual right to receive the rent originally stipulated for. He cannot increase it nor can frendicnate more than the right to receive this annual sum. The land reverts to him if the lessees family becomes extinct.
pog
ot
17. In several cases that have come to my notice since the Convention landlords have realized that in view of the recent enhancement in the value of property it is to their interest to compound with their perpetual lessecs and resume for a money payment their original interest in the land. I anticipate frequent attempts to override the rights of lessees by persons who have recently acquired land for parts of which such leases have been, originally granted. It may be well to note, that out of the several hundreds of such leases which have come to my notice I have not found a single instance of the lessee's rights not being respected under Chinese rule.