period, unless broken before the end and the first period notice is given to the tenant that the land is required for public purposes. His Lordship stated that the leases should be subject to such terms & conditions as the Governor determines, including the stipulation that except with the previous consent in writing of the Governor land is not to be used for other than assigned purposes, nor be sublet, and that at the termination of the lease by efflux of time, but not by act of forfeiture, the tenant shall be allowed a reasonable period, such as 3 months, to remove any growing crops then on the land.
I presume that the garden leases in question are framed in accordance with these instructions. But it is a pity that the Governor should have sent home the present application without comment and without any copy of a garden lease or of a farm lease to show the differences between the two. We have never had or seen a copy of either lease – being unable therefore to say what are the rents and conditions comprised in each. But judging from the information at hand
30 Dec 76
I do not think that the Petitioners have made out a sufficient case for what they ask. It is clear from the instructions issued by Lord Kimberley that it was not intended that garden leases should be converted into building leases (one of the objects the Petitioners have in view) other than by stipulation. They were to contain a stipulation that without the previous written consent of the Governor the land was not to be used for garden purposes. It may also reasonably be inferred from the official reply given to the Petitioners that the Governor's opinion is not favourable to their request, and that he doubted whether the policy of letting Crown land at Kowloon on short leases – which had been deliberately adopted – should now be changed, or was justified even in submitting their petition to the Secretary of State. This is in accordance with the decided opinion expressed in his despatch of 10 July