CO129-033 - General Stavely - Lieut. Governor - 1850 [5-8] — Page 353

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

Land Committee. Numerous unimproved Lots - recommended to the favourable consideration of this Committee by: Henry Bollinger, because the parties had expended large sums of money in this way Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co., and others; are allowed to retain ten unimproved Lots. Messrs. Gibb, Livingston & Co., because they had spent $4,000 on one lot are allowed, if they choose, to retain seven others, and I, after being heard by the Committee, it was shown that they had spent £8,000, (or $12,000, but they were subject to certain conditions), they never applied to me on the subject. I recommend that they not be deprived of an improved lot upon which nearly $1,600 had been spent in improvements and buildings, without any reason other than a factitious entry that, it is evident, could have been inserted for a purpose.

With respect to Marine Lot No.36, I have little more to say. I am unwilling to apply to Mr. Holgate on the subject, and all other parties who could give evidence have left the Colony. I would however submit that - although the Committee appointed by notice dated 29th March, pursuant to notice dated 22nd March, left no record of their proceedings, it is no fault of mine, and I am prepared to make affidavit that that Committee not only confirmed me in the possession of 80 feet frontage, but added four feet additional, in evidence of which it will be found that the retaining wall against the road is exactly that length.

Perhaps it may not be consistent with the knowledge of your Committee, but I am satisfied I am correct in stating that at the time the lot in question was being cleared and formed, if Mr. Holgate had applied for 150 feet in place of 80 feet it would at once have been granted on the same terms, if no Government reserve intervened on the line required. Witness the number of lots that lapsed to the Crown because the holders did not think it worth while to improve them, besides others that were allowed to be retained after the period had expired, on the parties undertaking to improve them.

Edit History

2026-05-17 17:12:41 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
Land Committee. Numerous unimproved Lots - recommended to the favourable consideration of this Committee by: Henry Bollinger, because the parties had expended large sums of money in this way Messrs. Jardine, Matheson & Co., and others; are allowed to retain ten unimproved Lots. Messrs. Gibb, Livingston & Co., because they had spent $4,000 on one lot are allowed, if they choose, to retain seven others, and I, after being heard by the Committee, it was shown that they had spent £8,000, (or $12,000, but they were subject to certain conditions), they never applied to me on the subject. I recommend that they not be deprived of an improved lot upon which nearly $1,600 had been spent in improvements and buildings, without any reason other than a factitious entry that, it is evident, could have been inserted for a purpose. With respect to Marine Lot No.36, I have little more to say. I am unwilling to apply to Mr. Holgate on the subject, and all other parties who could give evidence have left the Colony. I would however submit that - although the Committee appointed by notice dated 29th March, pursuant to notice dated 22nd March, left no record of their proceedings, it is no fault of mine, and I am prepared to make affidavit that that Committee not only confirmed me in the possession of 80 feet frontage, but added four feet additional, in evidence of which it will be found that the retaining wall against the road is exactly that length. Perhaps it may not be consistent with the knowledge of your Committee, but I am satisfied I am correct in stating that at the time the lot in question was being cleared and formed, if Mr. Holgate had applied for 150 feet in place of 80 feet it would at once have been granted on the same terms, if no Government reserve intervened on the line required. Witness the number of lots that lapsed to the Crown because the holders did not think it worth while to improve them, besides others that were allowed to be retained after the period had expired, on the parties undertaking to improve them.
Baseline (Original)
ard Land Committee. Numerous unimproved Lots -recommended to the favourable consideration of this kecolloway So: Henry Bollinger, because the partie's had expended large sums of money in this ON- way Mosers, Jardino, Matheson & fo.. others; are) allowed to retained ten unimproved Lots. Messrs. Gjibb, Livingston & fe, because they had spent $4,000 on one) lob ard a allowed, if they choose, to retain seven others, and I, after, by the Committee's ourd it was nearer Showing, having spent £8,000, (it $12,000, but they subject), they never the applied to me on: recommend to be deprived of an improved lot upow which nearly $1,600 had rovements and been spent in impr improvemen without any t any other assigned factitious entry been buildings, reason than a that, it is evident, could have bon inserted for a purpose. With respect to Marind Lot No.36, I have little more I am unwilling, to say. to apply to Mr. Holgate on the subject, and all other parties who could 6 give evidence have left the Colony i I would however submit that 347 -although the th. Committee appointed by notice dated 29th March; no pursuant to notice dated 22nd March, left record of their proceedings, it is no fault of mine, and Land prepared to make affidauct that that Committée not only confirmed me in the e possession of 80 feet frontage, but added four fect additional, in evidened of which it will be found that the retaining wall against the road is exactly that length, Perhaps it may not be consistent with the kunwledge of your Committer, but I am satisfied I ans correct in stating that at the time the lot in question was being cleared and formed, if M to had applied for 150 feet in place of 80 Holgate feet it would at once. have been ted on the granted nt reserve intervenéð same terms, if no Government : on the line required . Witness the number of lots that lapsed to the frown because the holders did, not think it worth while to improved them, besides others that were allowed to be retained after the had expired, on the parties undertaking, to period
2026-05-17 17:12:41 · Baseline
View content

ard

Land Committee. Numerous unimproved Lots -recommended to the favourable consideration of this kecolloway So: Henry Bollinger, because the partie's had expended large sums of money

in this

ON-

way Mosers, Jardino, Matheson & fo..

others;

are)

allowed to retained ten unimproved Lots. Messrs.

Gjibb, Livingston & fe, because they had spent $4,000

on one)

lob

ard a

allowed, if they choose, to retain

seven others, and I, after, by the Committee's ourd

it was nearer

Showing, having spent £8,000, (it

$12,000, but they subject), they

never

the

applied to me on: recommend to be deprived of an

improved lot upow

which nearly $1,600 had

rovements and

been spent in impr

improvemen

without any

t any other assigned

factitious entry

been

buildings,

reason than a

that, it is evident, could have

bon inserted for a purpose.

With respect to Marind Lot No.36, I

have little more

I am unwilling, to say.

to apply to Mr. Holgate on the subject, and all other parties

who could

6 give

evidence have left the Colony i

I

would however submit that

347

-although the

th.

Committee appointed by notice dated 29th March;

no

pursuant to notice dated 22nd March, left record of their proceedings, it is no fault of mine, and Land prepared to make affidauct that that Committée not only confirmed

me in the

e possession of 80 feet frontage, but added four fect additional, in evidened of which it will be found that the retaining wall against the road is exactly that length,

Perhaps it may

not be consistent with

the kunwledge of your Committer, but I am satisfied

I ans correct in stating

that at the time the lot

in question was being cleared and formed, if M to had applied for 150 feet in place of 80

Holgate

feet

it would at once.

have been

ted on the

granted

nt reserve intervenéð

same terms, if no Government

:

on the line required . Witness the number of lots that lapsed to the frown because the holders did, not think it worth while to improved them, besides others that were allowed to be retained after the had expired, on the parties undertaking, to

period

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.