granting such leases was undertaken. They granted a 99-year lease of Marine Lot No. 2 Extension. Leases of Marine Lot No. 3 were also granted for 99 years.
This, however, did not satisfy the Governor, who contended that the ordinary rule of 75 years must apply with an option of one renewal for 99 years, making it effectively a 174-year lease, or in some cases, 198 years. They commenced by asking for the lease of Marine Lot No. 2 Extension to be for 999 years on the ground that they were going to build a dock on ML No. 2 & ML No. 2 Extension.
On this condition, Chamberlain agreed to their request. The Company accepted the condition but in Oct 1901 came again to say they were concerned with the Company promoting operations and the exact extent to which the public will apply for them. The mortgage securities of the new company were exceptional.
The firm had to show that they had discovered that ML No. 2 + Extension was maintainable for a dock and that they proposed to build there instead of on patent steps. They then asked for a lease of Marine Lot No. 3. We agreed that they might have the latter lot also on a 999-year lease.
In March 1902, the Company applied to the Governor to have Inland Lot No. 6 included on a 999-year lease, and this too was agreed to.
The next step was when the Company asked for a 999-year lease of land for a dock, suggesting that it would outlast the Company. The suggestion that to enable this, the Hongkong should throw away for nothing an asset worth many thousands of pounds when the present lease falls in, was met with the argument that only their success in the past could have led to such an application.
The past concessions were at least granted in order to see a large dock built. Now, they asked for the concession, which would bring no advantage at all, without compensating the public.
Page 3481
Page 38722;
35-233
GR18667/02
Drc'04
2924/04