756
him any reasonable terms in exchange for his rights.
We cannot, I fear, leave the tax lord wholly on one side for it is impossible to issue a clear title to the cultivation while his claims are still pending.
11.
It is then necessary to consider what the tax lord can fairly claim to be entitled to. His interest in the land appears to be of a twofold nature; he has (1) the right to receive an annual rent charge in grain or in money; (2) the chance of reversion, that is of getting the land back on the total failure of the family of the perpetual lessee.
To consider (1): The value of the annual charge depends, of course, upon its amount. Where it is so small as not to be the equivalent of the new Crown Rent payable on the land, the rent charge vanishes and the tax lord should not, I think, receive any compensation for it. Under Chinese rule, he collected the tax as a middleman and made what profit he could on the transaction. The Colonial Government is not bound to continue the arrangement if it prefers to receive the tax direct from the beneficial owner. When the annual charge amounts to a real rent, the tax lord will get what remains of that rent after Crown Rent on the land has been deducted from it. If the tax lord is to be bought out, this remainder should be capitalised at, say, twelve years' purchase. In many cases, notably at Sai Kung, the tenants will find the money necessary; when they refuse to do so, I think Government should provide the amount required, and recoup itself by increasing