[ 18 ]
5. Curiously enough however a few days ago members of another branch of the same clan-the Tangs of Kam Tin-brought to this office a document which appears to be the original deed described to me by the first claimants as missing. It is dated some seventy years earlier than the Certificate: which may be accounted for by the latter being a duplicate issue made at the instance of persons desiring some convenient evidence of title. This deed relates to land in three different localities and
the area in each are as follows:----
(1) For a place, name illegible,
(2) For Ts'ing 1,.
(3) For Ngan Ku Tua,....
.21.6 man .36.2
Total,
6.3
**
..64.1 97
According to this deed, which is dated 1788, the real area of the land belonging to the Tangs of Kam Tin in Tsing I was only some 36.2 mau.
No other deed is produced or alleged to have ever existed and that this is the instrument to which the Certificate above mentioued relates may be concluded from the close approximation of the areas mentioned-64.1 mau in the deed and 66 mau in the Certificate dated more than half a century later. Further confirmation if it were necessary is afforded by the mention of three different localities in each. I cannot make up my mind whether this deed was purposely kept back by the persons who laid the claim under the apprehension that its production would dispose once and for all of their claims to the proprietorship of the whole Island. Possibly they told the truth when they said that they did not know where it was, but it is significant that it was eventually produced by a man who accused his kinsmeu-the original claimants-of conspiring to sell the Island to other parties without giving him a share of the purchase money. He expressly declared that the fact of the deed having always been in his custody showed that he was entitled to at any rate a share of whatever his family might be entitled to possess in the Ts'ing I.
6. Apart from a prawn fishery in the sea adjoining the Island the Tangs seem not to have any other source of profit from Ts'ing I beyond the annual rent of 40 piculs of padi already mentioned.
It is true that they point to an old embankment which has been long in ruins and which they state marked the site of a fish pond which was constructed originally by an ancestor of theirs and has continued in the possession of their family until it was destroyed by a typhoon many years ago. There is however no reference to any fish pond in the only deed produced by them and we may fairly assume that if the construction of this work was ever known to and approved by the Chinese Government and if the claimant's interest in it had really survived its destruction by the elements they would now be able to produce some sort of proof of their ownership.
It only remains to mention that there is on the north-eastern side of the Island the site of an old brick kiln which the Taugs declare was worked by lessees of their own about ten years ago.
7. As regards the cultivators it is evident, I think, that they are the perpetual-lessees of the Tang family to whom they are bound to pay 40 piculs of grain annually as long as they continue to cultivate the 36.2 mau of land originally taken by them on lease.
The Island has not yet been cadastrally surveyed and it is impossible to say how far they may have encroached on Crown land and what is the real area they have under cultivation. Meanwhile however they should be called on to pay the proper Crown Rent on 36.2 mau of land which amount they are entitled under the Rules made by His Excellency in Council to deduct from the rent they pay their landlords the Tangs.
Later on when their fields have been surveyed they will pay according to the actual areas they farm and I recommend that titles should then be issued to them as customary lessees of all the land they were in occupation of at the date of the Convention.
8. The Tang family should be told that their claim to the Island as a whole will not be allowed, but that they are entitled to collect the annual rent of 40 piculs of grain less the amount paid by the tenauts as Crown Rent as long as their tenants continue in occupation of the Tang land.
As an act of grace they might, I think, be allowed to take up the site they desire which was once in their occupation not exceeding one acre in extent for the purpose of a brick or lime kiln on the north-eastern shore of the Island.
9. There are two more claims-Nos. 76 and 77—to which I should like to allude briefly. They relate to fishing grounds on the coast of Tsing I, but as the representative of the claimants has produced no tax receipts to substantiate his claim and has failed to call his vendor to vouch for the original sale although expressly called on by me to do so as soon as possible, I do not think that they need further consideration.
10. Should my recommendations be approved it will be a matter of no great difficulty for me to prepare a short Rough Rent Roll which will suffice for the collection of Revenue until the cultivation has been surveyed and the titles properly adjusted.
There is no doubt that the trees on the Island have been used by the cultivators as their property for some generations. They should, I think, be allowed to continue this practice for the present on the express understanding that no area is to be denuded of its forest without the express sanction of Government.
In conclusion I think that the Colonial Government is fortunate in the possession of a fine Island, easily accessible in all weathers and comprising considerably more than a thousand acres of hill and level land well wooded and watered. There would be ample room for plague and other cemeteries were it thought desirable to establish them there and this could be arranged without in any way interfering with the various sites available for factories, kilns, and residential areas.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
H. H. J. GOMPERTZ,
Member of Court.