t
3
4.
or expulsion of the inhabitants as contemplated by the Convention, In any event a question as to the correct interpretation of the Convention is a matter to be settled with the Chinese Government and not with the petitioners.
The main contention of the memorial is to the effect that the Hongkong Government pledged itself to safeguard the rights which the inhabitants of the New Territories had under Chinese law in respect of their land tenure, and that that Goverment, in violation of its pledge seriously diminished and curtailed those rights under the Crown leases and the law which define the conditions of land tenure in the New Territories.
5.
Chinese law, as propounded by the Manchu Dynasty, undoubtedly recognised a right to hold land in perpetuity, and, if it did not expressly permit, it did not forbid conversion of agricultural land into building land. The law was very general in its terms and it depended largely upon local custom for its interpretation. All land was subject to land tax which varied according to the value of the land, land occupied by buildings being less highly assessed than agricultural land which was in ancient times the more valuable, and it was, theoretically, the duty of the officials to ascertain when land changed in its class and to assess it accordingly. It was also, theory, the duty of the landholder to report to the Government any change in the nature of his holding. practice the local Magistrate had neither the time, nor the staff, nor the inclination to make the laborious enquiries and peregrinations necessary to keep up with the shifting classification of land, and the people never went to a Chinese Yamen unless obliged, and certainly never went to report that their taxes should be increased. The result was that the villagers built houses and otherwise changed
the
In
Page