*
6
being constructed, but was unable to insist upon the Tenants doing better work which doubtless might have been ensured by their paying a some- what higher price. The great evil no doubt has been that several Contractors have been employed by the different Tenants and they have failed either to connect their work properly or to keep any proper line for the face of the wall.
The wall too has not been built up regularly course by course as might have been the case had one man received a contract for the whole work. I may remark that that portion of the wall constructed by Government is little better than elsewhere, Mr. Cleverly has told me that he found it impossible to get the work properly done while the adjoining Tenants were not carrying up their portion of the wall at the same time. The rents were increased on the completion of the extension of the Praya, but this was on account of the increased area occupied by the Tenants and cannot I think be constructed into an admission on the part of Government that the Sea wall was satisfactorily completed.
The next Paragraph refers to the proposed extension of 100 feet.
I think a road 30 feet wide would be required in place of the present Praya Road between the Harbour Master's Office and Pedder's Wharf, thus leaving a depth of only 70 feet for building which would be sufficient West of Pedder's Wharf for any dwelling houses likely to be erected.
however where Godowns are most likely to be built, a passage of 10 or 12 feet wide would probably be all that would be required, thus leaving a depth of 90 feet for building.
With regard to the last Paragraph in which the Committee state "That an exceedingly strong feeling prevails that the existing boundary "lines should not in any case be interfered with or extended nor should "any obstacle be permitted between them and the Sea" I may remark that all the Marine Lots now interested have been enlarged by reclaiming from the Sea since they were originally bought, and there is no doubt from the accumulation of silt forining a Fore shore in many places, that a further extension must shortly take place. In a year or two hence the present Praya wall will be probably useless as Boats will be unable to approach at all events except at high water.
The Committee state that the proposition to award a portion of pre- mium received as compensation to Marine Lot Holders is not in accordance with the terms of their Government Leases which stipulate for full com- pensation under such circumstances. If such stipulation exists, it is evident that a further extension of the Lots at soine future time must have been anticipated or the stipulation would not have been made.
The Marine Tenants do not allude to the fact that whereas they are now responsible in case of the Praya wall being washed away, when the wall has once been constructed by Government as proposed they cannot of course be called upon to execute any further repairs or be responsible in any way for accidents that
any
inay occur.
When sending out my Circular of 15th August it was anticipated that the Marine Lot Holders would be only too glad to get an extension of their Marine Lots without purchase, with a Sea wall strongly built in sufficiently deep water to ensure the collection of silt being impossible. Such however not being the case, it remains for His Excellency to decide Under whether the extension shall be allowed to stand over for a time.
no circumstances should I recommend the present wall being either repaired or raised.
7
I forward an answer to my Circular from the Chinese Lot Holders from which it will be seen that they all concur with the arrangements proposed by Government. They request that the extension may be 130 feet instead of 100 feet. I think however it will not be advisable to erect the wall in deeper water than we have at 100 feet and should propose leaving a 10 feet passage only, north of the present buildings,-I have, &c.
(Signed,) W. WILSON,
Acting Surveyor General.
The Acting Colonial Secretary to the Committee of Marine Lot Holders.
No. 842.
GENTLEMEN,
COLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,
HONGKONG, 3rd October, 1864.
I am directed by His Excellency the Governor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 20th ultimo, written on behalf of the 27 Marine Lot Holders who were represented at a Meeting held at the Chamber of Commerce on the 13th. This letter was referred to the Acting Surveyor General, and his observations upon it are forwarded for your perusal.
His Excellency however finds it necessary to ask for explanation in reference to certain statements contained in your letter, before he can come to a final decision upon the subject to which it refers.
In paragraph 7 you state that "the whole of the Sea wall" was "passed by the Surveyor General" and with the roadway "taken over "by the Local Government from the hands of the Contractors without "comment, question or protest." His Excellency would be glad if you would refer him to the facts or correspondence upon which you rely in support of this statement.
you
In paragraph 10 observe "that the proposition to award a portion "of such premiums (which might occasionally be exceedingly small) as "compensation to present Marine Lot Holders, is not in accordance with "the tenor of our Government Leases which stipulate for full compen- "sation under such circumstances." His Excellency would feel obliged by your quoting the stipulation in the Crown Leases which view when making this observation, as he is advised that no provision whatever is made in the Leases for "such circumstances" as the conver sion of a Marine into an Inland Lot.--I have, &c.,
(Signed,)
you
had in
W. H. RENNIE, for the Colonial Secretory.
307