for the lease of the New Territories.
This is a
very big question; defending
great extent upon the rights which "holders of land possessed under Chinese law, & it is quite
imfossible on the infer, before
come to
any
Grad
to
it. I
conclusion upon it.
would only say
that it does not
the contentio
the fetitioners
(
and this really afflies
even
the
Mr.
former
Mr.
Mr.
Mr. Strachey.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
Sir G. Davis.
Sir G. Grindle.
Sir
Masterton Smith.
Mr. Ormsby-Gore.
Mr. Amery.
contention is not
if
sound), that the compensation
payable in sofect of land
82
Raumed is not compensation
at a fair price
contemplated
by the
the Convention.
the first
of seem to we
ما
be a frivolous
One
which can lightly be baked apicals,
that it does affear that the views
of the Houghong Past.
rights of the
له
o the
land under
holders of land
chwere low have become less
разправите
of forvention the
time
progressed the
the founder made under
it receded into the fast.
The other two points made
firstly, that
the fatitioners
now extensions works are not worko
مين
for official surfoxes within the
I wonguing of the Convention; & secondly,
DRAFT.
As regards
point, I find great difficulty
in agreeing
wich Sir R& Stulbs
that the compulsory purchase
of
land is not expropriation.
or that town flamming,
camed
in the
which
-
way
he describes, is an
official
furfure within the meaning
of the Convention: The wording
of the Convention is
very
it will be observed
fecide expresion
that "[" "official purposes" is
Land