Admiralty
ENT
OVERLAND FRIEND OF CHINA
VICTORIA, THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 20TH, 1849.
Again, in the summer of 1844 there was another land sale. By the result of this sale the reasonable demands of the eleven for a reduction (if they really make such demands) may be tried. Side lots—such as are occupied by merchants—sold at an advance of upwards of 100 per cent upon the prices paid by the simples who bought in 1841! The lot upon which the Oriental Bank stands was knocked down for more than £200 a year; the adjoining lot, purchased at the "unnatural" sale of 1841, pays an annual ground rent of twenty and odd pounds. This £20 lot is one the Register's eleven hard bargains of 1841; it is notorious that that very property cleared itself three or four times by high rents, and this before the Bank (paying £200) was built. Moreover the manager of Bank gave upwards of $2,000 for a transfer of the lease. One allotment at Spring Gardens (purchased in 1844) brought more than twice the rent of the lots adjoining; and for one large allotment in town the proprietor pays three times the proportionate rent which is paid by his next neighbour, who has the good luck to be rated at the average of the "unnatural competition" sale. Were the government to reduce the rents of the first sale, it would act most unjustly towards those who purchased at a later period—who are actually paying 100 per cent more for their land than is paid by those who had the choice lots; virtually it would be taking money out of the pocket of one class of the Inhabitants to give it to another class. Those who are most clamorous in this matter are altogether mistaken in supposing the colony is deeply indebted to them, nearly two years after the treaty of Nanking was arranged; one had his buildings rented giving a return of 75 per cent per annum; another paid a considerable premium for the transfer of one of the lots sold in June 1841, upon this bit of ground he built a house which for a long term was let to government at a rental which gave him a return of 50 per cent per annum; another firm sold their original allotment to government for a pretty round sum, and got another which suited their purpose better; another did not lay a stone until long after the treaty of Nanking, and, speaking from memory, a second firm is in the same position; another firm built upon their land, and the rents have paid principal and interest long ago. One piece of land with the buildings belongs to a bankrupt estate, and out of the whole number of "hard cases" named is not more than two where the property has not remunerated the proprietors.
HONGKONG. We mentioned last month that by instructions from the Secretary of State a Committee had been appointed to investigate and report on the subject of the land tenure in this colony. The result of their inquiries will be transmitted to Her Majesty's government by this mail; and six months hence the local paper report may be published in China. A local paper has been discussing the matter for a month; but as he has not yet wound up the subject we are at a loss to tell what are his particular views,—whether he is bolstering up the opinions of the committee or merely hazarding his own peculiar notions upon a subject with which he does not appear to be very familiar. So far as we can understand the text, the Register argues that the parties who purchased building allotments in Hongkong previous to the treaty of Nanking are entitled to an abatement, on the plea that five parts are open to foreign commerce since that treaty, whereas formerly there was only one, consequently they were deceived into making foolish bargains! He cites the names of eleven parties who built upon their allotments before the treaty of Nanking was signed. In itself this argument is a poor one, but such as it is, it is incorrect. Of the eleven firms, five did not leave their quarters in Macao to settle in Hongkong for some time after the treaty of Nanking was signed.
Wherever a colonial government is established, there a population will congregate; and at this present moment the disaffected purchasers at the sale of 1841 (take them individually) contribute no more towards the revenue than a large portion of the other householders. Military officers, members of government, professional men, storekeepers, publicans, and others, all pay land rent included in house rent; many of them pay more than the individual members of mercantile firms or the factious proprietors of a few tenements, and—they have not so much to pay it with. The clamour for a reduction in the rents of 1841 is confined to a very few; something might be said in favour of a reduction of the subsequent sales when the average of 1841 was taken as a starting point, but when men buy property with their eyes open and their senses about them it is childish to cry out afterwards. The 75 years leases have been extended to 999 years, and many lots purchased on speculation have lapsed to government; in some instances the holders refused good offers for them, but when the colony was at its lowest ebb they were permitted to throw them up.
The opening of the four new ports gave a positive value to property in Hongkong; the houses largely engaged in trade with these ports must have a branch here or in Macao; in Macao they were living quietly enough when the land was offered for sale in 1841; of their own free will they ran the lots up from £10 to £20 and even £100. As at that time it was uncertain whether the Island would be retained (it had been formally ceded however before the sale before the treaty of Nanking), it is evident that they were most anxious to settle under protection of the flag of their country. To most of them the colony is almost invaluable; two of the eleven, who do not reside in the colony, have rented their houses to advantage. For one house the local government pays £500 a year; deduct £100 for land rent &c. and there remains 5 per cent upon £8,000—the house could be built now for one-half the money. There was no deception whatever in the land sale of 1841; the matter has been fully investigated before a parliamentary committee, and a perusal of the report will satisfy any disinterested reader that the land was sold fairly.
But we will test its value by the great sale in January 1844. There was then no mistake about the treaty of Nanking; its injurious effects could be appreciated by any one—did they exist. The land was put up at the average of the "unnatural" sale of 1841; odd enough, the old buyers were in the room and purchased more land at a considerable advance upon the average of the "unnatural competition." Some of these lots were afterwards resold (perhaps bought on speculation); for one of them we gave a premium of $500, for another allotment granted at the average rate, we gave $1,000, and we do not regret these bargains. Had we been one of the lucky buyers at the "fictitious" sale in 1841 we would not have required to buy at a second-hand price; having got our land cheaper than most of our neighbours, we would be entitled to demand an abatement—such is the Register's argument.
A few years ago people complained that they had been deprived of their land; nor were these complaints all groundless. Land which had been improved according to the regulations was resold by public auction; other parcels were required for public improvements. In every instance, however, the original cost of the house, or more, was paid. At the time, it is true, from the enormous rents given, the property was worth more money; though it possibly had repaid the proprietor once or twice before it was taken from him. Part of the lots thus resold fell into the hands of those who now would be glad to part with the property at cost price, or even less. These are old grievances, and even they were not so bad as represented.
At a time when a house which cost $1,500, rented for $150 a month; another which cost $700 at $75 a month; and nearly all the China houses, costing from $200 to $300 each, were renting at from $20 to $30 a month, there were no complaints of the land rent. Admitting that in several instances people were unfairly deprived of land for which they were willing to pay rent, at the same time we deny that a single landholder on the Island has an equitable claim to a reduction. As a favour, the government might reduce the rents of the few water lots sold in the summer of 1844 to the average of the "unnatural" sale of 1841; but the proprietors cannot demand such a concession. As to the buyers at the first sale, they ought to be thankful, they sit at lower rates than their neighbours. It is dangerous, however, to make such a concession.
This house is not one of the eleven, asserted to have been built before the treaty; however, it was not occupied by the firm for two years after the treaty. The adjoining house is on the list; the treaty was signed in 1842, it was erected in 1844.
230
Admiralty
ENT
OVERLAND FRIEND OF CHINA
VICTORIA, THURSDAY,
NOVEMBER 20TH, 1849.
Again, in the summer of 1844 there was ano- ther land sale. By the result of this sale the reason. able demands of the eleven for a reduction (if they Water really make such demands) may be tried. side lots-such as are occupied by merchants-sold at an advance of upwards of 100 per cent upon the prices paid by the simples who bought in 1841! The lot upon which the Oriental Bank stands was knocked down for more than £200 a year; the adjoining lot, purchased at the "unnatural" sale of 1841, pays an annual ground rent of twenty and odd pounds. This £20 lot is one the Register's eleven hard bargains of 1841; it is notorious that that very property cleared itself three or four times by high rents, and this before the Bank (paying £200) was built. Moreover the manager of Bank gave upwards of $2,000 for a transfer of the lease. One allotment at Spring Gardens (purchased in 1844) brought more than twice the rent of the lots adjoining; and for one large allotment in town the proprietor pays three times the proportionate rent which is paid by his next neighbour, who has the goodluck to be rated at the average of the "unnatural competition" sale. Were the gov. ernment to reduce the rents of the first sale, it would act most unjustly towards those who purchased at a lator period-who are actually paying 100 per cent more for their land than is paid by those who had the choice lots; virtually it would be taking money out of the pocket of one class of the Inhabitants to give it to another class. Those who are most
HONGKONG. We mentioned last month that by instructions from the Secretary of State a Committee had been ap- pointed to investigate and report on the subject of the land tenure in this colony." The result of their inquiries will be transmitted to Her Majesty's government by this mail; and six months hence the A local paper report may be published in China. bas been discussing the matter for a month; but as he has not yet wound up the subject we are at a li ss to tell what are his particulars views,-whether he is bolstering up the opinions of the committee or merely hazarding bis own peculiar notions upon a subject with which he does not appear to be very familiar. So far as we can understand the text, the Register argues that the parties who purchased building allotments in Hongkong previous to the treaty of Nanking are entitled to an abatement, on the plea that five parts are open to foreign commerce since that treaty, whereas formerly there was only one, consequently they were deceived into making foolish bargains! he cites the names of eleven parties who built upon their allotments before the treaty of Nanking was signed. In it- self this argument is a poor one, but such as it is, it is incorrect. Of the eleven firms, five did not leave their quarters in Macao to settle in Hongkong for clamorous in this matter are altogether mistaken in supposing the colony is deeply indebted to them, nearly two years after the treaty of Nanking was
and that they should pay less towards the revenue arranged; one had his buildings rented giving a re.
than others. Whereever a colonial government is turn of 75 per cent per annum; another paid a con- siderable premium for the transfer of one of the lots established, there a population will congregate; and at this present moment the disaffected purchasers at sold in June 1841, upon this bit of ground he built the sale of 1841 (take them individually) contribute a house which for a long term was let to gov.
no more towards the revenue than a large portion of ernment at a rental which gave him a return of 50 the other householders. Military officers, members per cont per annum; another firm sold their or- of government, professional men, storekeepers, pub. iginal allotment to government for a pretty roundlicans, and others, all pay land rent included in house sum, and got another which suited their purpose rent; many of them pay more that the individual better; another did not lay a stone until long after members of mercantile firms or the factious proprie the treaty of Nanking, and, speaking from memo. tors of a few tenements, and--the more's the pity— ry, a second firm is in the same position; another they have not so much to pay it with. The clamour firm built upon their land, and the renta have paid for a reduction in the rents of 1841 is confined to a principal and interest long ago. One piece of land very few; something might be said in favour of a with the buildings belongs to a bankrupt estate, and reduction of the subsequent sales when the average out of the whole number of hard cases" named of 1841 was taken as a starting point, but when there is not more than two where the property has
men buy property with their eyes open and their not remunerated the proprietors.
senses about them it is childish to cry out after- wards. The 75 years leases have been extended to 999 years, and many lots purchased on speculation have lapsed to government; in some instances the holders refused good offers for them, but when the colony was at its lowest ebb they were permitted to throw them up.
The opening of the four new ports gave a posi tive value to property in Hongkong; the houses largely engaged in trade with these ports must have a branch here or in Macao; in Macao they were living quietly enough when the land was of fered for sale in 1841; of their own free will they ran the lots up from £10 to £20 and even £100. As at that time it was uncertain whether the Island would be retained (it had been formally ced-plaints all groundless. ed however before the sale before the treaty of Nanking), it is evident that they were most anxious to settle under protection of the flag of their coun. try. To most of them the colony is almost in. valuable; two of the eleven, who do not reside in the colony, have rented their houses to ad. vantage. For one house the local government pays £500 a year; deduct £100 for land rent &c. and there remains 5 per cent upon £8,000-the house could be built now for one-half the money.* There was no deception whatever in the land sale of 1841; the matter has been fully investigat ed before a parliamentary committee, and a perusal of the report will satisfy any disinterested reader that the land was sold fairly.
But we will test its value by the great sale in Ja nuary 1844.
There was then no mistake about the treaty of Nanking; its injurious effects could be appreciated by any one-did they exist. The land was put up at the average ofthe unnatural" sale of 1841; odd enough, the old buyers were in the room and purchased more land at a considerable advance upon the average of the "unnatural com. petition." Some of these lots were afterwards resold (perhaps bought on speculation); for one of them we gave a premium of $500, for another allotment granted at the average rate, we gave $1,000, and we do not regret these bargains. Ilad had we been one of the lucky buyers at the "fictitious" sale in 1841 we wouldnot have required to buy at a second hand price; having got our land cheaper, than most of our neighbour, we would be entitled to demand an abatement-such is the Registers ar-
gument.
A few years ago people complained that they had been deprived of their land; nor were these com. Land which had been improved according to the regulations was resold by public auction; other parcels were required for public improvements. Iu every instance, however, the original cost of the house, or more, was paid. At the time, it is true, from the enormous rents given, the property was worth more money; though it possibly had repaid the proprietor once or twice before it was taken from him. Part of the lots thus resold fell into the hands of those who now would be glad to part with the property at cost price, or even less. These are old grievances, and even they were not so bad as represented.
At
a time when a house which cost $1,500, rented for $150 a month; another which cost $700 at $75 a month; and nearly all the China houses, costing from $200 to $300 each, were renting at from $20 to $30 a month, there were no complaints of the land rent. Admitting that in several instances peo. ple were unfairly deprived of land for which they were willing to pay rent, at the same time wa deny that a single landholder on the Island has a reduction. As a fa. an equitable claim to vour, the government might reduce the rents of the few water lots sold in the summer of 1844
to
the average of the "unnatural" sale of 1841; but the proprietors cannot demand such a concession. As to the buyers at the first sale, they ought to be thankful, they sit at lower rates than their neighbours. 3 is dangerous, however,
This house is not one of the eleven, asserted to have
been built before the treaty; however, it was not occupied by the firm for two years after the treaty. The adjoining house is on the list the treaty was signed in 1842, it was erected in 1844.
230
DEX
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.