To
HIS MOST GRACIOUS MAJESTY,
EDWARD VII., BY THE GRACE OF GOD, OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, AND OF THE BRITISH DOMINIONS BEYOND THE SEAS, KING, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, EMPEROR OF INDIA.
THIS FURTHER HUMBLE PETITION OF
THOMAS HOWARD
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :-
I.
Since the Petition to your Most Gracious Majesty by Matthew John Denman Stephens and Thomas Howard, under date the 22nd May, 1903, in reference to their claim for Compensation for losses sustained by the conversion of their Hongkong Marine Lot 184 into an Inland Lot, by the Works of the Praya Reclamation, regarding which Petition your Majesty was not pleased to give any commands, certain correspondence has taken place between the Home Secretary, the Colonial Secretary, and your Petitioner Thomas Howard, with the result that the question was referred by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to Sir Matthew Nathan, Governor of Hongkong, for enquiry, whether further compensation could justly be paid to your Petitioners, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to the strict legal rights as defined by the Ordinance and the Courts of Law.
2. Under the Ordinance, Governor des Voeux, who passed it, in his Message to the Legislative Council wrote, that the Frontage Lot Holders are strictly entitled to compensation, only in respect of the actual depreciation of their property by the Reclamation in front of it, but by the provision in question (Compensation clause) there can be taken into account the moral claims, so that instead of being a hardship to the dissentient Lot Holder, the clause in reality will operate for his protection.
He also wrote that it is needless to say that the Government had no desire to accord other than the fullest justice in respect of private rights.
Mr. C. A. Cripps, K.C. has written that the Award being under the Ordinance, the Governor is bound to decide upon proper and legal grounds and not in an arbitrary manner.
Justice Fielding Clarke stated that it was within the competency of the Hongkong Legislature to modify, alter, and even destroy existing rights; although of course, the greatest care should be exercised that no injury be inflicted without adequate compensation.
Chief Justice Sir John Carrington endorsed this, and added that although the legal right is taken away, it cannot but be a point of honour with the Governor to pay full regard to the moral right.
Attorney General Goodman stated before the Full Court on the 30th March, 1898, that the Government had not said that it would not fairly and rightly assess the damage, even if only morally bound, and he recognised the loss of intermediate rents as a proper subject of claim for compensation.
The Present Chief Justice of Hongkong, Sir F. T. Piggott, who sat as Judicial Assessor on the recent Enquiry, stated that in his opinion the case falls within the principle given in "Cripps on Compensation" (4th Ed.) p. 128, and the owner is entitled to compensation for depreciation; and as to loss of rents, he states that if silting occurred, this is a proper subject for compensation and may be awarded under the Ordinance.
Page 688