(II). Memorandum by the Financial secretary.
1.
The assumption in the Report that 75 year non-renewable leases were a standard form of lease for a period between those in which 999 year leases, and 75 year renewable leases were standard is unsound. 999 years was the normal term in urban areas until 75 year renewable leases were introduced on Mr. Joseph Chamberlain's instructions. The 75 year leases were confined to lots in the hill district, Kowloon, (then undeveloped) and other non-urban areas and number 1,344 in all (3.1)
2. The arguments adduced are not new but have all been advanced in the past and rejected by Governors or Secretaries of State (S.2).
3. There are two omissions in the report viz (a) no mention is made of the small number of cases where leaseholders have accepted renewals on substantially the terms complained of: (b) no special case is advanced for the Peak leaseholders whose special circum- stances were the occasion of the 1912 petition from Messrs. Dennys and Bowley quoted in the Report. (8.3).
4. It is not true to say that Government has suddenly and towards the end of the lease period imposed new terms on the leaseholders, as the following instances show (S.5).
(a) In 1885, the holders of land on the Peak on 75 year leases petitioned that the standard term for building lots in the
The Town (1.e. then 999 years) should be extended to them. Secretary of State's reply made it clear that 75 years would be the limit of the lease granted, and he was not ready to accept a
the suggestion by the Hong Kong Government that Ieases might be extended on payment of increased rent and premia.
(b)
This decision was also mentioned in discussion on a petition in 1898 from the Chamber of Commerce against the change the tenure of Crown lands from 999 to 75 years (renewable).
(c) The decision on Messrs. Dennys and Bowley's petition of 8th March 1913 that no compensation would be given for buildings where 75 year non-renewable leases were resumed on expiry clearly distinguished such leases from the renewable leases where that concession was made.
(a) The statement of policy by Government on 14th May, was based on proposals approved by the Secretary of State, (SS.5-1.
5. No binding precedent can be drawn from the 1848 conversion which allowed 75 year leases to be freely extended to 999 years, since it was due to conditions peculiar to the early stage of the Colony's development, nor does the fact that the recommendations of the Land Commission 1886-7 were published as a sessional paper, bind the Government to uphold them, particularly having regard to later decisions by Secretaries of State (S.16).
6. The argument that ignorance of leasehold law in Hong Kong is widely prevalent is unacceptable. (S.17).
7. There is an acknowledged fundamental difference between the 75 year renewable and non-renewable leases in the question of compensation (see 4(c) above: i.e. in respect of the latter the Crown retains, its reversionary rights.(S.18).
8.