+ 99%1 Butterfield & Swire (see 994
the Station that they
previous papers.)
His views on that
precedent
might perhaps be used to test the
lease for
999 years with
proviso that
the property should
be used
ceasing to be used
for
dock.
The lease is of great importance to the
Shipping & to the Royal Navy, it
is of
the importance to the
Navy. We must,
I think,
before
that
The expressing
291
views they
had
ascertained from the
Admiral
in command for the China
Res. 39.
I agree but, it is a matter on which the Chamberlain should himself decide.
Conf. 4/1x
It is nowhere stated in
Mr Lucas's
letters to us
that the Admiralty attach great importance to this dock, but that they
I think may be inferred from their insistence on the right of priority (now slightly modified) and from the
paragraph 3 of 29150, & paragraph 9
of 18622
Major-General Sir H.A. Blake
in his despatch, speaks of
the importance of this proposed dock
shared by the naval authorities
Friday's
despatch, send a copy of our letter to the Admiralty of 3 Sept. Say
we have also written to the War Office. Say that from the correspondence has given
no adequate guidance
as to the term of lease. It shows that the Governor rightly named 75 years, and
the company backed
the
for 999 years, that the Governor also rightly did not consider the case of Butterfield & Swire to be parallel to the present case. The case Butterfield & Swire was one of extension of a holding
already held on lease for 999 years with a frontage which the Government could not otherwise dispose of. It is not clear what
advantage to
the public that a large dock should be, but it is not shown that this advantage is sufficient
that
...