the misconduct of the Governor, it remains only for me to appeal to His Lordship the Secretary of State for the Colonies to exercise his prerogative to prevent a grave injustice being done to a Crown Lessee by a wrongful act of the Governor in repudiating the promise of his predecessor Governor des Voeux that the Government would accord the fullest justice in respect of private rights, a promise which we were entitled to believe would be carried out when the obligation became due by whomsoever might be the Governor; and seeing that three Governors have failed to assess the compensation fairly from the facts in evidence, I would suggest, with all due respect, that the matter be referred for adjustment to a Government official experienced in matters of compensation and myself in London, and thus end a matter which in the hands of a competent Arbitrator would have been settled years ago.
Sir,
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your Obedient Servant,
THOS. HOWARD.
Downing Street,
24th January, 1905.
I am directed by the Earl of Elgin to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, with regard to your claim to increased compensation in respect of Hongkong Marine Lot No. 184, and to inform you that he sees no reason for departing from the decision of his predecessor,
I am, Sir,
T. HOWARD, Esq.
Your Obedient Servant,
C. P. LUCAS.
The Under Secretary of State,
Home Office.
Sir,
Whitehall.
7, Castle Terrace,
Cowes,
Isle of Wight,
5th February, 1906.
With reference to a letter from your office B.37,068/6 under date 14th April, 1903, stating that the case of Stephens & Howard does not appear to be one for a "Petition of Right," but that it was open to them to present a Petition to His Majesty asking for relief in the circumstances in which they are placed.
2. Such Petition was duly presented, but our solicitors, Messrs. Trass & Taylor, were informed by your letter under date 17th July, 1903, signed Kenelm E. Digby, that His Majesty the King had not been pleased to give any commands regarding it.
3. Believing that further information was required to enable His Majesty to direct that the prayer of the Petitioners should be granted, as a matter of right and justice, when asked for in the manner directed in your letter; we, on the 5th September, 1903, addressed a letter to Sir Kenelm E. Digby giving a detailed account of the case as it then stood, and stated that Mr. Howard would be in London soon after the receipt of the letter, and would call at the Home Office to answer any question that might be thought essential for the further information of His Majesty's advisers,
4. On the 19th October, 1903, I called at your Office, but was referred to the Colonial Office, and after an interview with the Legal Assistant Under Secretary, and a further interview on the 20th, a letter was written to Governor Sir Henry Blake, signed Alfred Lyttelton, stating that he was not entirely satisfied that the compensation awarded may not have been inadequate, and requested the Governor to investigate the whole matter afresh, and that if substantial justice demanded it, to ask the Legislative Council to vote an additional sum.
5. Governor Blake was not in the Colony at the time but the investigation was undertaken by Acting Governor May, who awarded a sum of $9,367 in addition to the $15,000 already awarded by Acting Governor Major General Black, making in all $24,367.
6. This sum was in no sense commensurate with the loss sustained, and we informed the Secretary of State to that effect, with the result that the question was referred to the new Governor of Hongkong, Sir Matthew Nathan, for enquiry whether further compensation could justly be paid to us, 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.
7. Under the Ordinance Governor Sir William 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.
Page 694