743
fixed at $2 per annum positive hardship would be inflicted on A by putting him in as owner and therefore liable to Government for the Crown Rent. For A is unable under his perpetual contract to raise the rent on B, and therefore stands to lose $1 per annum on land which tilled by B, and out of which B draws all the profit. In this case, therefore, A is pecuniarily benefited by being ejected.
(c) There remains the case in which A obtained a rental of $2 per annum from B, the Crown Rent being $1 per annum, and where therefore A, as the value has not yet been recovered by him in instalments, would suffer pecuniary loss if ejected. In this case, I would suggest that B should be required to pay A the balance of the value of the land, as assessed by a Member of the Land Court, and thereby buy the land from A outright. The term for which the lease has already run and the increase in Crown Rent should be allowed for in assessing the purchase money. Thus, as B buys out his perpetual lessor, the latter is again eliminated.
(d) If B refuses, or is unable to buy out A at the price fixed by a Member of the Land Court, then I think the Government should buy out A and recover the amount by an increased tax on B until such time as the full amount plus interest is paid off. B should, of course, be permitted to pay the balance in a lump sum to the Government whenever he is in a position to do so. The Government will become B's taxlord. I doubt whether these cases will be numerous, especially if the proposal to double the land-tax is carried out: for in that case most of the taxlords would disappear automatically under (b) supra.
I do not think it necessary to deal with the further refinement in cases where C buys from A, the perpetual lessor, the right to draw rent from B, the perpetual lessee. In this case C never had any direct interest in the land, does not know where it is, and is merely speculating on a fraud upon the Chinese Government. All that I have said applies a fortiori to these cases and, moreover, I believe that every single such claim is out of date in point of time and therefore cannot be allowed as His Excellency has definitely