A
Jam afraid this is bound
to be a
BHE
ov
Of course His Majesty's present
Government cannot legally-bind its successors
in such a matter, but if leases for 75 years
the
continue to be issued Government of the day
will (whether any such assurances have been given or not) find itself obliged to insist
on the safeguarding of the lessees when and if
the New Territories are given back to China,
unless it prefers the alternative of paying
Evicted compensation to any lessee who is 2 victim
A
by the Chinese authorities before the expira-
tion of the term purporting to have been
granted by his lease.
I confess that I cannot think of any
expedient which will successfully camouflage
the question of the future fate of the New
Territories. It is impossible to grant leases
in such terms as will at the same time lead
(i) China to infer that we mean to give up
the Territories in accordance with the
Agreement of 1898, and (ii) the lessees to
infer that we shall retain them.
A lease for the unexpired period,
etc., would produce the first result but not
the second, and a lease for 75 years would
produce the second result but not the first.
The only sort of legal compromise between those
two leases that I can suggest would be a lease
for the unexpired period, plus so many years
as will make up a total of 75 years in the
event of H.M. retaining the New Territories
after 1997. But this would probably provoke
immediate