CO129-028 - Bonham - 1849 [1-3] — Page 229

225

To His Excellency, SAMUEL GEORGE BONHAM,

Esquire, Governor, &c., &c.

HONGKONG, 19th January, 1819. 1. SIA, Circumstances have prevented us from sooner addressing Your Excellency, with reference to the Extract of the Despatch from the Right Honourable Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, published by Your Excellency for general information on the 17th July last, being a reply to the Memorial of 19th February, 1848, from the inhabitants of Hongkong, praying for a reduction of the existing Ground Rents.

2. It is with regret we learn that His Lord- ship does not consider we have established good grounds for the reduction we seek, or that the measure would be really for the advantage of the Colony; and further, that the large grants that have already been made for Hongkong should seem, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Govern- ment, to preclude the propriety of our asking some relief from a burden weighing heavily upon us, and which we are prepared to shew His Lordship, has already interfered seriously with the prosperity of the Colony, and which it must continue to affect so long as it is maintained without some material reduction. Her Majesty's Government already sufficiently aware of the causes which led British Merchants to settle and to expend capital in Hongkong, and also how much the prospects and expectations then held out have been defeated and destroyed. What Sir Henry Pottinger, in his Despatch of 4th March 1844, states, that those who had taken land and built upon it, had been amply and quickly remunerated,--could only apply to a few speculators in land, and by no means to the bona fide settlers.

are

3. We have already pointed out to Her Majesty's Government, that the present Ground Rents cannot in justice be considered a voluntary imposition on our part; but allowing even that it were so, we are unwilling to believe that Her Majesty's Go- vernment, with the anxiety to promote the in- terests of the community and of the Colony, as expressed in the Despatch from Lord Grey, would wish to assign that as a reason for continuing to exact terms injurious to the welfare of both.

4. We would also respecfully submit to Her Ma jesty's Government, that it appears to us un- reasonable that the circumstance of large grants having already been made for Hongkong, should be a ground for rejecting our Memorial, inas- much as these grants ought to be considered as made for purposes connected with the protec- tion of the general Trade existing between the Empire of China and Great Britain and her possessions, which grants became necessarily larger, from the unfortunate selection of this barren island by the representatives of Her Majesty's Government, and by no means, we conceive, for the benefit of the few merchants who may have chosen to settle upon it.

5. We are not called upon to say whether the expenditure hitherto has been excessive or not, but if taxation in this Colony is to depend upon the expense of the establishment here for the Govern- ment of the Colony and the Superintendence of Trade, we would beg respectfully to give it as our opinion, that that Establishment has assumed a magnitude unnecessary for the objects for which it exists.

6. As regards the then unsuccessful bidders for lots," it is known to Your Excellency, that no injustice would be done to them by ac- ceding to our Memorial, as few of such bidders would now be disposed to pay the upset prices for the lots they formerly competed for.

7. With respect to the term of the leases, we observe that Her Majesty's Government are dis. posed to grant them in perpetuity. We shall be glad to see this measure carried into effect, although affording no immediate relief to the Colony; provided the liberty of ceding the land and buildings thereon to Government at all times exist, otherwise the grant might in many, if not in all cases, prove rather a burden than a benefit to the community.

8. By reference to Government Tables, we find that the Sales of Land ought to have produced the sum of £15,485, whereas from that source, only £12,616 was obtained in 1848, and by the estimate for the present year no more than £11,195 is expected; shewing a deficit of about 28 per cent, or, after allowing £185 for land re- sumed for Government purposes, a falling off of £4,105, or 27 per cent. 2,645 of this sum is for lots abandoned, upon which both de- posits and rents have been paid, and upon which money has been spent in the erection of buildings or otherwise; £1,029, upon which de- posits only have been paid; and £395 upon which the purchasers have neither paid deposit nor rent. This abandonment of property, con- sisting of 123 lots, has taken place within the last three years.

In 1846 it amounted to £1,356 upon 21 lots; in 1847 and 1848 to £2,764 upon 102 lots. These facts, obtained with Your Ex- cellency's permission from the Surveyor General and Government Returns, afford matter for serious reflection, and to these we would beg to call the particular attention of Her Majesty's Government. 9. It appears evident to us, that Her Ma- jesty's Government have been greatly misled by the Reports sent home with reference to this Colony. Sir Henry Pottinger in his despatch of 224 January 1844, states that the Ground-rents at that date, including the Sale to take place on that day, would amount to about £15,000; but the sale did actually produce £789 more than the estimate, making the total £15,789, which sum, by the subsequent sale of 9th July, would, if Sir Henry Pottinger's estimate had been correct, have been increased to £18,112; whereas the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners in their Fifth Report to Government make the total revenue at the last mentioned date (the 9th July 1844) only £9530, shewing a dfference of £8532 between their statement and Sir Henry Pot- tinger's estimate. The sales that have taken place subsequent to 9th July 1844 would, had that estinate been correct, have made the amount of Ground-rents £20,857, whereas by the Official Returns they have never exceeded £14,345.

10. With reference to the trade of the Colony also, the despatch of Sir John Davis to Lord Palmerston of 21st January 1848, is farther calculated to mislead. He makes the importa into Hongkong in Chinese vessels amount in 1846 to 642,700 piculs, value £325,780; in 1847 to 840,990 piculs, value £493,239. It is almost un- necessary to point out to your Excellency that the trade above alluded to (with the exception of that proportion of it in articles required for the consumption of the place) forms no part of the Trade of this Island, and that Denmark might with equal justice arrogate to herself indiscrimi- nately the Trade of all vessels passing through the Cattegat to and from the German Ocean

11. According to the latest list published, it would appear that there are 129′ Mercantile establishments in China, of which only 26 are in Hongkong. Most of these have branches at Canton or Shanghae, and it may be supposed that all, with three or four exceptions, who con- tinue here, only do so, either because they are proprietors of houses, or consider life and pro- perty in Hongkong more secure than at Canton. 12. From the want therefore of that protection to which they are entitled, and which they have a right to ask Her Majesty's Government to secure to them, they are compelled at consider- able expense to keep up an additional establish- ment in Hongkong. No doubt, also, the hope that Her Majesty's Government would eventually turu its attention to the relief of the Colony, has prevented many from abandoning their property, as others have already done and are still doing; but it must be evident to Your Excellency that should that relief not be granted, a further falling off in the revenue will be the result.

: