such importance, namely, "that the Crown should not, " at the expiration of leases, confiscate the whole " value of the tenants' inprovements."
8
"(The point about actitiation in paragraphs 6 my require presteer Considente)
I am not quite happy, however, about the position generally, because I cannot help feeling that it is at any rate arguable that the Government led people in Hong Kong to believe that in due course fresh leases for 75 years would be granted at a
cown
that
re-assessed to rent without any fine or premium (whether in that form or in the form of additional rent) and they act accordingly and, if that were so, questions or good faith would
FACEKAMAN be involved.
H.D.
-
11/2/41.
I add to peron 3 s
Mr. Grat.
15/2
I think that Iom addition to para. 3 is an unfronment though it does not, of course, dispore of the point in the last para. of my minute of 1/1/2/41.
17/2/41
A.D.
Regarding that point, dowever, we know from No 6 that,
in the Col Gost's view, the Gont have not led people
to believe it.
I now subiimb the efit- despatch for conson I approval
Su Gant. 19/2
Page
Page
ん
و
I re
see no
objection
to the draft from a
Gusal standpoint Holde
Und 2612/41
Sir C. Parkinson.
21.2·41
This is a question of the conditions on which certain Crown leases in Hong Kong, originally granted for a term of 75 years, may be renewed when they expire. A note on the points at issue is to be found as No. 13 in this file, but briefly the situation is as follows.
Leases in Hong Kong were first granted for 75 years, but in 1848 (7 years after the founding of the Colony) the Secretary of State approved the grant of these leases for 999 years. Many years later (about 1880) the issue of 999 year leases ceased, and a system was introduced of granting 75 year leases without option of renewal. It is the small group of leases of this character which concerns the present problem.
In 1898 a standard lease for a period of 75 years, renewable for another 75 years without premium, was introduced, the Crown rent for the second period to be fixed at the fair and reasonable rental value of the ground at the date of renewal. This last form of lease has since been the normal form in the Colony.
The relatively small number of 75 year leases without option of renewal which were issued between 1880 and 1898 were the subject of a report by a special committee of the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce, whose recommendations are principally based on the claim that it was generally believed in Hong Kong that when the 1898 decision was taken to issue 75 year leases renewable for a further 75 years without payment of premium, the former simple 75 year leases would be similarly treated, viz. would be renewable for another 75 years without payment of premium.
The Acting Governor, in No. 6, says that there is no real weight in that argument, and that there was no official statement which could be cited in support of it. He nevertheless agreed with an opinion previously recorded by Sir G. Northcote that the claim of a tenant, who had faithfully fulfilled his contractual duty, to favourable treatment should not be disregarded, but that such treatment should not go so far as to relieve the tenant of his obligation to make a complete surrender of the property in good order on the expiration of the 75 year lease. General Norton suggested that the
concession to the tenant might take the form of the
offer of a new lease at full economic rent calculated on the value of the land and buildings thereon.
The Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce claims that the leases should be renewable for 75 years,
the Crown rents being increased to the rates then prevailing in the locality, but that no other expense should be incurred by the lessee.
Sir