24
1855.
Memorandum of Is It is also the first year in which a surplus, sufficing to the undertaking and completion of the great work, has been declared in the Colonial Treasury. The more pressing among the other works contemplated by Sir Henry Pottinger, and enumerated by Mr M. Martin as improbabilities or impossibilities, have by succeeding Governors been, one by one, accomplished. If the Praya be now commenced, the project cannot be said to have slumbered in the interval, pending (No. 14.)
Neither can it with truth be said that anything ever occurred to disabuse the public mind of the belief which Hongkong Blue Books from 1846 was certainly there in 1843 and 1844, as to the intentions of Government. Vague and ambiguous assertions to the effect that the Government always led the Marine-Lot-holders to believe that they were at liberty to reclaim seaward for themselves, have been freely ventured—but these, wholly unsupported by even the attempt at proof, by degrees narrowed themselves, first to the period of the first formation of the Colony,—and, when that was proved to have been impossible, then to the period of the first issue of Crown Grants, and so from period to period, until at length they have dwindled down to two dubious cases, which are said to have occurred during the Governorship of Sir George Bonham,—one in the Year 1854, the other at a date not stated to us. It is only with specific instances like these that it is possible to grapple; and the particulars of these two instances will be found not undeserving of a brief passing notice, independently of the fact that they are the only cases adduced before us to prove anything like an official "encouragement" having been ever given to any purprestures on the part of Marine Lot-holders, past or present.
Evidence of Andrew Shortrede, Esq., p. pend. 1.
Evidence of the Honble Mr Edger, in Append. I.
Antrobus, Esq., and Y. J. Murrow, Esq., in Append. I.
Mr Antrobus's evidence, in Append. I.
Ibid.
Evidence of R. C. Autrobus, Esq., in Append. I.
A gentleman who has confessed a purpresture committed by himself in 1854, and who had more than once asserted, with some emphasis, the existence of a "general understanding that lands reclaimed would not be interfered with by Government, nor the parties' rights of access to the Sea prejudiced by the Act," was at length asked to state the circumstances which had produced that impression, so far as he and his firm were concerned.
His answer is a curious illustration of the proneness of these gentlemen to deceive themselves. It appears that the present Surveyor-General, Mr Cleverly, and the late Governor, Sir George Bonham, gave him, in 1854, a verbal assurance that he would not be prosecuted or called to account for his encroachment, "They gave me,” he adds, "no further assurances." This mere indemnity against punishment, if it be even that, he at once interpreted into a renunciation or waiver of a Crown right! Another witness, also a Marine-Lot-holder, was perfectly satisfied, he said, that he had received very recently an encouragement from the Governor himself to encroach upon the sea-shore in front of his lot, and reclaim it. On being requested to condescend to particulars, he stated that the Governor in question was Sir George Bonham,—that Sir George Bonham had told him, in answer to his questions, that he had no power to authorize his intended purpresture, or to make him any "title" to the land when he should have reclaimed it,—that all that he (the Governor) could say was, that, unless his (the tenant's) neighbors complained, Government would not prosecute him for the encroachment, and that, in his (the Governor's) "private opinion," the tenant would be "all right;"—but that the tenant must understand, that what he might do would be done at his own risk, and that he (the tenant) must hold himself responsible for the consequences. It is difficult to appreciate the amount of “encouragement" contained in these words of Sir George Bonham.
One useful suggestion may be gathered from this mass of incoherent asseveration and unsupported pretension, and it is, that the representatives of Her Majesty in this island cannot be too careful to avoid even the appearance of concession of Crown rights, lest perchance it be turned against the Crown at some distant day, into evidence of acquiescence in favor of a larger or more general one. In this point of view alone we would strongly advise Your Excellency, in the matter of the application of Messrs Lindsay & Co., referred to us for our opinion, not to take it into consideration until the plan of the Praya has been finally approved and made public, and the work commenced.
Letter of Messrs Lindsay & Co., applying for Sea-frontage, and Mr Duddell's counter memorial, both of which were referred to the Commission by His Excellency, in Append. II, (No. 17.)
Evidence of Mr Murrow and Mr Duddell, in Append. I.
In considering whether any indulgence ought to be shewn to the Marine-Lot-holders, beyond the not unreasonable one of overlooking the encroachments already committed, and of allowing as well those offenders as the holders in general to become purchasers, without competition, of the reclaimed lands fronting their respective Lots, it is surely a very important fact that, with the exception of Mr Murrow and Mr Duddell, who approved of the Government Notification of the 10th November last, Mr Pustau, who attended the Meetings of Marine-Lot-holders, but took no part either way "in the proceedings which ended in the too liberal proposals of Government contained in that Notification being rejected by a very large majority of the Marine-Lot-holders, the Hon Mr Edger, who did not attend the meetings, but appears to have approved of their result, and R C. Antrobus, Esq., of the firm of Messrs Lindsay & Co. (the only one completely identified with the majority of that class of Crown tenants, and their Notification of the 10th November, 1855, in Append. I, (No. 15.) not one has either presented himself to be examined, nor acceded to our invitations to that effect. One gentleman, indeed, who, with Mr Antrobus, distinguished himself as one of the most active promoters of those meetings, and who represented his firm there (that of Messrs Dent & Co.), at first consented to come and be examined on a day specially named to suit his convenience; but he neither appeared, nor excused his non-appearance. On this subject we beg to refer to our Minutes, and will merely add, that the general unwillingness of the Marine-Lot-holders, who profess to apprehend loss or injury to themselves by reason of the formation of the Praya, to afford any evidence in illustration of their asserted claims to equitable consideration, ought of itself to deprive the claimants of all expectation that their supposed claims will receive any consideration at all.
Evidence of Mr Pustau, in Append. I.
Evidence of the Honble Mr Edger, in Append. I.
Minutes of the 8th, 9th, and 10th March, 1856, in Append. I.
It cannot be supposed that their mere allegations are to be taken as proofs. We have been thus far minute in tracing the real history of the Marine-Lot question, because it is the only key to the solution of the Second Question referred to us. Those Marine-Lot-holders who have hitherto reclaimed portions of the Crown's domain without title from the Crown, and have converted the lands so reclaimed into their own tenement and farm," an offence in itself for which they are even now liable to punishment, cannot, as it seems to us, stand in a better position than those Marine-Lot-holders whom the Crown may think fit to admit into occupancy and enjoyment of those portions of the Crown's domain, which will, by or at the expense of the Crown, be reclaimed hereafter. In either case a full rent ought to be received—and we think that the rate payable upon ordinary Crown lands, sold in Lots for building purposes, affords a very moderate criterion whereby to determine the amount.
Evidence of Mr Murrow, in Append. I.
It is, we think, a mischievous suggestion that some deduction should be made in favor of those who have reclaimed but not built houses to let, nor derived profit in the shape of toll or otherwise, or of those who, being hereafter admitted into occupation of lands to be reclaimed by the Crown, shall content themselves in like manner with the mere enlargement of their borders, not seeking therein their own pecuniary advantage. It would be a difficult distinction to establish in the proof;—and, were it ever so well established, still there remains the objection, well put by another witness, that it is not the inclination of the tenant to use his holding in this or that manner, but that of the use and occupation in whatever manner, that imposes the liability to rent. We may add that, in either case, the detriment to the public is the same. The land is equally withdrawn from public use. The Crown is but the Trustee for the Public.
Evidence of Mr Duddell, in Append. I; and compare Evidence of Mr Murrow and the Honble Mr Edger, in Append. I.
Another distinction, which has been rather hinted at than suggested, would deserve to be called puerile, but that the consequences to which any recognition of it must lead, are of frightful moment. It would seem that there are those who distinguish "China houses" from "European houses," and apply a different rule to the one and to the other. It is admitted that the holder of the property, however unwilling to build, has the right to, change his mind, and build and let to tenants; and one witness goes so far as to say that such a case may be considered a reason for an enhancement of his rent. But as to "China Houses," there appears to be no doubt. The witnesses say that these have already, in proportion as they have been erected upon the reclaimed lands, injured the rentals of the houses in the Queen's Road, and tended to convert it into a back street. They ought therefore to be heavily assessed; not so the European houses so erected. Their cost is great, and the risk enormous; they have a strong tendency to disappear into cavities formed by the wash of the sea,—and, whilst they last, they are used as Offices and Stores, and not for Chinamen's dwellings.
Mr Shortrede.
Ibid.
Evidence of Andrew Shortrede, Esq., Append. I.
It appears to us that the mere enunciation of this theory suffices to shew its folly and injustice. Nor can we in any way accede to the opposite opinion, advanced by one respectable witness, that in assessing these rents, a distinction should be made in favor of Chinese Crown Tenants.
An absolute equality of rights and duties, without regard to colour, to creed, or to condition, is the only sound basis of all government. In this remote part of the British Empire, inhabited by a handful of Europeans and 70,000 Asiatics, it would be above all impolitic to do anything which might seem to call that truth in question;—and we must strongly protest against every such attempt, in whatever interest it may have been ventured.
Upon a general review of all the considerations to which we have adverted, we think that the Government will not be justified in allowing any distinction whatever between lands reclaimed by intruders, and lands reclaimed by the Crown, in assessing the amount of rental. In either case the rate of rent should be one, uniform and equal.
Letter of Mr Rienecker of the 5th January, 1856, in Append. II, (No. 16.)
If Mr Rienecker's computation of £3031, as the sum total of rent to be received from the frontage of the existing eighteen Marine Lots, be approved by Your Excellency, the rate of Assessment by which it is to be levied will be one of 15s. to every 100 superficial feet. But whether that or a more moderate revenue be anticipated from the lands in question, the rate by which it is to be assessed ought to press equally upon all who have to bear it.
We conclude our observations upon this branch of the subject matter of reference, by reminding Your Excellency that it is perfectly optional with the Government, either to sell to such as will bid for them any reclaimed lands in which the holder of the Marine Lot in the rear may decline to take, or to proceed under the resumption clause of his lease, and oust him from the Lot itself. In the latter case, it rests with the Surveyor-General alone to decide the question of his compensation;—and on that point again we have to remark a very extraordinary error which appears to exist as to the duty of Government, and which is stated—erroneously perhaps by one witness, who labors under the delusion, to have been produced, so far as he was concerned, by a conversation with the late Acting Attorney General.
Evidence of Y. J. Murrow, Esq., in Appendix I.
Evidence of Andrew Shortrede, Esq., in Appendix I.
A witness, whose opinions deserve all attention, considers that the co-operation of the willing Marine Lot-holders with the Crown as representing the unwilling, will tend to the more easy, cheap, and expeditious execution of the proposed work. He also thinks that Your Excellency's Government has not the means at present to bear so large an outlay, and that it will therefore be an improvement upon the plan proposed in the First Question, if the modification suggested by the Third be adopted. In that case, he thinks, the Government might advantageously agree with the Lot-holders, on executing their portions of the Praya to the satisfaction of the Surveyor-General, either to repay them their outlay, or to remit their rent of the lands reclaimed by them, for a period proportioned to the amount of expenditure incurred. On the other hand, we have been assured by a Marine Lot-holder who takes an active part against the Government plan in any shape, that he believes that the Marine Lot-holders never will co-operate with the Government in the execution of a work to which they are, upon principle, most hostile. Every other witness who has been examined dissents from Mr Shortrede's view, and agrees with Mr Antrobus in the opinion that the decision of this question is, in fact, involved in that of the First Question; the reasons by which they are to be determined being in fact the same, if not in degree, at least in principle. We confess that such is also our opinion.
Evidence of R. C. Antrobus, Esq., in Append. I.
Evidence of Mr Duddell, in Append. I.
The Bonham Strand portion is regarded by those witnesses, who are familiar with the locality and the peculiarities which belong to it, as the portion least open to animadversion, and as one which ought, if the arrangements of the Government permit, to be begun and accomplished with all possible despatch. Concurring thoroughly in that opinion, we would direct Your Excellency's especial notice to the evidence of a gentleman by whom the Praya has been considered in a sanitary point of view, and to that of another gentleman by whom it has been similarly regarded in its relation to a proper system of Police, and which have left no doubt in our minds that, if any Section of the work ought to be begun or finished before the residue, that Section is precisely that which Your Excellency describes as the Bonham Strand portion of the Praya.
Evidence of Messrs Antrobus, Murrow, Pustau, and Duddell, in Appendix I.
Evidence of Mr J. Shortrede, Ibid.
1856, in Append. II, (No. 18 & 16.)
Evidence of Mr Duddell in Appendix I.
Some diminution appears to have been long going on in the depth of water at the several wharves and landing-places. The recess or wash of the sea is a probable cause, and to this the large accumulations of earth and rubbish brought down by the drains and sewers, particularly in the rainy season, are certainly to be added. What was the line of low-water mark at the formation of the colony, is said to be that of the present high-water mark. It is an evil more likely to increase than diminish; and, far from agreeing in the strictures contained in the Colonial Treasurer's Plan and Letter of the 5th January 1856, as to the too great extent of the plan of the Surveyor-General (Mr Cleverly), we think that it may be well worth His Excellency's consideration whether some further extension of the plan may not be advisable to be adopted. One intelligent witness indeed is of opinion that the Praya ought to be carried so far into the sea as "to enable large steamers and ships to lie alongside, and passengers and goods to pass to and fro without being obliged to employ boats." The point deserves all consideration. But whether the Praya can be carried to that depth seaward is a question of ways and means, which Your Excellency alone can determine.
Plan and Letter of the Surveyor-General of the 28th December, 1855; and also Letter of Mr Rienecker of the 5th January 1856.
The arrangements for enabling the public to enjoy their rights of access to the sea, for the purpose of shipping and landing, embarking and disembarking, are described as having been from the early days of the colony altogether inadequate. There can be no doubt that they are now palpably and disgracefully so. All persons, except the owners of private wharves, suffer enormous inconvenience and damage from this state of things. It is probable, too, as related by one witness, that the unfortunate Chinamen, ignorant of their rights and our duties, are the principal sufferers, and that the facility thus afforded of "squeezing" their traders, by extortions in the name of "toll thorough," is a temptation which some Marine Lot-holders have not had the virtue to resist.
Evidence of Mr Murrow, Mr Duddell, and Mr Antrobus, in Append. I.
Evidence of Andrew Shortrede, in Appendix I.
Private wharves are of course private property, and the owners do what they will with their own. It is stated that they are, generally speaking, now anxious to accommodate the public with the use of their wharves, whether for goods or passengers; but, if this be true, it is a truth hard to be reconciled with their own theory, that the loss of privacy, consequent upon the formation of a Praya, can be either a "nuisance", or an "annoyance", or an "injury" to those gentlemen in their business. One and the same contradiction pervades their entire case. At one moment they are represented as persons who have been forced to encroach on the sea in order to get landing-places for the community; and as having reclaimed ground, constructed sea-walls, and built wharves for the common use of the public, not merely for their own. At another moment we are told, on the same authority, that they do not want any Praya at all, that they do not want any land to be reclaimed,—and that they object to be made to occupy and pay rent for it. It is quite clear that the sooner these contrarieties are smoothed, and an intelligible and broad rule of law laid down whereby to adjust the hitherto violated common law rights of the Crown and the public with the personal interests of the leading Merchants, the better alike for the few and for the many. We think that the claim to erect and maintain private wharves is a privilege, and as a privilege that it ought to be jealously regarded. The enjoyment of it must not be suffered to operate to the common annoyance of the subjects, or to the prejudice of the Crown. The fullest access to and from the Praya, seaward and landward, is a matter of public right. We think that the suggestions appearing in our minutes of evidence on this head are useful—but we forbear to express any opinion as to their sufficiency, a matter which may be thought doubtful. Neither are we prepared on our own part to add to the recommendations which have been laid before us, some which have occurred to ourselves, but which, so long as the port is unprovided with a system of police, we think impracticable. Otherwise we might have offered a few words upon the expediency of providing drainage and other conveniences of the kind at moderate but adequate rates of remuneration to the Government, and of establishing by stringent regulation the order of embarkation and disembarkation at the public wharves. But as we heartily concur in thinking that the whole and sole supervision of the work whilst in progress, and the conservation of it when finished, ought to be vested in the Surveyor-General, with full powers to carry his instructions into effect, we also think that these details of his general duty may be safely confided to the security which his official responsibility affords. We also think that, until the Praya is completed, as little as possible should be conceded to any Marine Lot-holder in addition to his existing sea-frontage, in order that the existing accommodations at the command of the public, for landing and shipping of goods and passengers, miserable as those accommodations are, may not be further diminished.
See the application of Messrs Lindsay & Co., in their letter of referred to the Commission by His Excellency.
In concluding our Report, we hope to be allowed to mention a fact which has occasioned all of us the greatest satisfaction in the discharge of the onerous and important duties with which we have been charged. We have been enabled to conduct our Enquiry in public, so far at least as regards the taking of evidence. It is impossible to overrate the great addition which the publicity of the examination gives to the authority of the evidence. But this is not the only advantage. We close our Enquiry in all certitude of being free from the reproach of partiality and injustice, as we are unquestionably free from the kindred one of concealment.
See the Notification of the 5th March 1856, published in the Friend of China of that date, in China Mail of 6th March 1856, and the Hongkong Government Gazette of the 8th March 1856.
All which we humbly certify to Your Excellency.
Council Room, Government Offices, 24th March, 1856,
To HIS EXCELLENCY
SIR JOHN BOWRING, LL.D.,
&c., &c., &c.
T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY, A.G.
WILLIAM COWPER, Captain-Commanding Royal Engineer,
J. C. POWER.
24
1855.
Memorandum of Is It is also the first year in which a surplus, sufficing to the undertaking and completion of the great work, has been Excellency Sir Johna declared in the Colonial Treasury, The more pressing among the other works contemplated by Sir Henry Pottinger, Bowring of the 18th and enumerated by Mr M. Martin as improbabilities or impossibilities, have by succeeding Governors been, one by October, 1855, in one, accomplished. If the Praya be now commenced, the project cannot be said to have slumbered in the interval, pendir (No. 14.)
Neither can it with truth be said that anything ever occurred to disabuse the public mind of the belief which Hongkong Blue Books from 1846 was certainly there in 1843 and 1844, as to the intentions of Government, Vague and ambiguous assertions to the to effect that the Government always led the Marine-Lotholders to believe that they were at liberty to reclaim Evidence of Andrew" seaward for themselves," have been freely ventured--but these, wholly unsupported by even the attempt at proof, Shortrede, Esq., p- by degrees narrowed themselves, first to the period of the first formation of the Colouy,--and, when that was proved pend. 1.
to have been impossible, then to the period of the first issue of Crown Grauts, and so from period to period, until Evidence of the at length they have dwindled down to two dubious cases, which are said to have occurred during the Governorship Honble Me Edger, in of Sir George Bonham,-one in the Year 1854, the other at a date not stated to us. It is only with specific Appent. I.
instances like these that it is possible to grapple; and the particulars of these two instances will be found not undeserving of a brief passing notice, independently of the fact that they are the only cases adduced before us to Antrobus, Esq., and Y. Prove anything like an official "encouragement" having been ever given to any purprestures on the part of Marine J. Murrow, Esq., in
Lotholders, past or present. Append 1.
Mr Autrobus's evi- dence,'iu Append. I.
Ibid.
Evidence of R. C.
A gentleman who has confessed a purpresture committed by himself in 1854, and who had more than once asserted, with some emphasis, the existence of a "general understanding that lands reclaimed would not be interfered with by Government, nor the parties' rights of access to the Sea prejudiced by the Act," was at length asked to state the circumstances which had produced that impression, so far as he and his firm were concerned.
His answer is a curious illustration of the proueness of these gentlemen to deceive themselves. It appears that the present Surveyor-General, Mr Cleverly, and the late Governor, Sir George Bonham, gave him, in 1854, a verbal assurance that lie would not be prosecuted or called to account for his encroachment,
"They gave me,” he adds, no further. "assurances." This mere indemnity against punishment, if it be even that, he at once interpreted into a renuncia- Mr Murrow's evi- tion or waiver of a Crown right! Another witness, also a Marine-Lotholder, was perfectly satisfied, he said, that dence, in Append. I. he had received very recently an encouragement from the Governor himself to encroach upon the sea-shore in frout of his lot, and reclaim it. On being requested to condescend to particulars, he stated that the Governor in question was Sir George Boulam,-that Sir George Bonham had told him, in answer to his questions, that he had no power to authorize his intended purpresture, or to make him any "title" to the land when he should have reclaimed it,-- that all that he (the Governor) could say was, that, unless his (the tenant's) neighbors complained, Government would not prosecute him for the encroachment, and that, in his (the Governor's)" private opinion," the tenant would be "all right;"--but that the tenant must understand, that what he might do would be done at his own risk, and that he (the tenant) must hold himself responsible for the consequences. It is difficult to appreciate the amount of “encouragement" contained in these words of Sir George Bonham.
us.
One useful suggestion may be gathered from this mass of incoherent asseveration and unsupported pretention, and it is, that the representatives of Her Majesty in this island cannot be too careful to avoid even the appearance of concession of Crown rights, lest perchancest be turned against the Crown at some distant day, into evidence of acquiescence in favor of a larger or more general one. In this point of view alone we would strongly advise Your Letter of Messrs Excellency, in the matter of the application of Messrs Lindsay & Co., referred to us for our opinion, not to take it Lindsay & Co., apply into consideration until the plan of the Praya has been finally approved and made public, and the work commenced, ing for Sea-frontage, In considering whether any indulgence ought to be shewn to the Marine-Lotholders, beyond the not unrea and Mr Duddell's coun-sonable one of overlooking the encroachments already committed, and of allowing as well those offenders as the ter memorial, both of holders in general to become purchasers, without competition, of the reclaimed lands fronting their respective Lots, it which were referred to is surely a very important fact that, with the exception of Mr Marrow and Mr Duddell, who approved of the the Comtnission by His Government Notification of the 10th November last, Mr Pustau, who attended the Meetings of Marine-Lotholders, Excellency, inAppend. but took no part either way "in the proceedings which ended in the too liberal proposals of Government contained II, (No. 17.)
Evidence of Mr Mur- in that Notification being rejected by a very large majority of the Marine-Lotholders, the Hon Mr Edger, who did not attend the meetings, but appears to have approved of their result,and R C. Autrobus, Esq., of the firm of row and Mr Duddell, iu, Append. I...
Messrs Lindsay & Co. (the only one completely identified with the majority of that class of Crown tenants, and their Notification of the November meetings),not one has either presented himself to be examined, nor acceded to our invitations to that 10th November, 1855, effect. One gentleman, indeed, who, with Mr Antrobus, distinguished himself as one of the most active promoters of in Append. 1, (No, those meetings, and who represented his firm there (that of Messrs Dent & Co.), at first consented to come and be 15.)
examined on a day specially named to suit his convenience; but he neither appeared, nor excused his non-appear- Evidence of Mr Pus-ance. On this subject we beg to refer to our Minutes, and will merely add, that the general unwillingness of the tau, in Append. I. Marine-Lotholders, who profess to apprehend loss or injury to themselves by reason of the formation of the Prayat Evidence of the to afford any evidence in illustration of their asserted claims to equitable consideration, ought of itself to deprive the Honble: Mr Edger, in claimants of all expectation that their supposed claims will receive any consideration at all. Append 1.
It cannot be supposed Minutes of the 8th,
that their mere allegations are to be taken as proofs. 9th, and 10th March, We have been thus far minute in tracing the real history of the Marine-Lot question, because it is the only key 1856, in Append. I.
to the solution of the Second Question referred to Those Marine-Lotholders who have hitherto reclaimed portions of the Crown's domain without title from the Crown, and have converted the lands so reclaimed into their own tenement and farm," an offence in itself for which they are even now liable to punishment, cannot, as it seems to us, stand in a better position than those Marine-Lotholders whom the Crown may think it to admit into occupancy and enjoyment of those portions of the Crown's domain, which will, by or at the expense of the Crown, be reclaimed hereafter. In either case a full rent ought to be received--and we think that the rate payable upon ordinary Crown hands, sold in Lots for building purposes, affords a very moderate criterion whereby to determine Evidence of Mr Mur, the amount. It is, we think, a mischievous suggestion that some deduction should be made in favor of those who row, in Append. I.
have reclaimed but not built houses to let, nor derived profit in the shape of toll or otherwise, or of those who, being hereafter admitted into occupation of lands to be reclaimed by the Crown, shall content themselves in like manner with the mere enlargement of their borders, not seeking therein their own pecuniary advantage. It would be a Evidence of Mr Dud- difficult distinction to establish in the proof;--and, were it ever so well established, still there remains the objection, dell, in Append. I; well put by another witness, that it is not the inclination of the tenant to use his holding in this or that manner, but and compare that of the use and occupation in whatever manner, that imposes the liability to rent. We may add that, in either case, the detriment to the public is the same. The land is equally withdrawn from public use. The Crown is but the Trustee for the Public. Evidence of Mr Mur- Another distinction, which has been rather hinted at than suggested, would deserve to be called puerile, but that row and the Honble: the consequences to which any recognition of it must lead, are of frightful moment. It would seem that there are Mr Edger, in Append, those who distinguish China houses" from "European houses," and apply a different rule to the one and to the other. It is admitted that the holder of the property, however unwilling to build, has the right to change his mind, and build and let to tenants; and one witness goes so far as to say that such a case may be considered a reason for an enhancement of his rent. But as to China Houses," there appears to be no doubt. The witnesses say that these have already, in proportion as they have been erected upon the reclaimed lands, injured the rentals of the houses in the Queen's Road, and tended to couvert it into a back street. They ought therefore to be heavily assessed; not so the European houses so erected. Their cost is great, and the risk enormous; they have a strong tendency to disappear into cavities formed by the wash of the sea,--and, whilst they last, they are used as Offices and Stores, aud not for Chinamen's dwellings.
Mr Shortrede.
I.
Ibid,
Evidence of Andrew Shortrele, Esq., Append. Í.
It appears to us that the mere enunciation of this theory suffices to shew its folly and injustice. Nor can we in accede to the opposite opinion, advanced by one respectable witness, that in assessing these rents, a distinction should
be made in favor of Chinese Crown Tenants.
An absolute equality of rights and duties, without regard to colour,
to creed, or to condition, is the only sound basis of all government. In this remote part of the British Empire, inhabited by a handful of Europeans and 70,000 Asiaties, it would be above all impolitic to do anything which might seem to call that truth in question;-and we must strongly protest against every such attempt, in whatever interest it may have been ventured.
Upon a general review of all the considerations to which we have adverted, we think that the Government will not be justified in allowing any distinction whatever between lands reclaimed by intruders, and lands reclaimed by Letter of Mr Rien- the Crowa, in assessing the amount of rental. In either case the rate of rent should be one, uniform and equal. accker of the 5th Ja- If Mr Rienecker's computation of £3031, as the sum total of reut to be received from the frontage of the existing nuary, 1856, in eighteen Marine Lots, be approved by Your Excellency, the rate of Assessment by which it is to be levied will be pent. 11, (No. 16.)
one of 158. to every 100 superficial feet. But whether that or a more moderate revenue be anticipated from the lauds in question, the rate by which it is to be assessed ought to press equally upon all who have to bear it.
313
We conclude our observations upon this branch of the subject matter of reference, by reminding Your Excellency Evidence of Andrew that it is perfectly optional with the Government, either to sell to such as will bid for them any reclaimed lands Shortrede, Esq., in which the holder of the Marine Lot in the rear may decline to take, or to proceed under the resumption clause of his Appendix 1. lease, and oust him from the Lot itself. In the latter case, it rests with the Surveyor-General alone to decide the question of his compensation ;--and on that point again we have to remark a very extraordinary error which appears Evidence of Y. J. to exist as to the duty of Government, and which is stated-erroneously perhaps by one witness, who labors noder. the delusion, to have been produced, so far as he was concerned, by a conversation with the late Acting Attorney. Murrow, Esq., in Ap-
pendix I. General.
Evidence of Andrew
III. A witness, whose opinions deserve all attention, considers that the co-operation of the willing Marine Lot- bolders with the Crown as representing the unwilling, will tend to the more easy, cheap, and expeditious execution Shortrede, Esq., in Ap- of the proposed work. He also thinks that Your Excellency's Government has not the means at present to bear so pendix 1. large an outlay, and that it will therefore be an improvement upon the plan proposed in the First Question, if the modification suggested by the Third be adopted. In that case, he thinks, the Government might advantageously agree with the Lotholders, on executing their portions of the Praya to the satisfaction of the Surveyor-General, either to repay them their outlay, or to remit their rent of the lands reclaimed by them, for a period proportioned to the amount of expenditure incurred. On the other hand, we have been assured by a Marine Lotholder who takes an active part against the Government plan in any shape, that he believes that the Marine Lotholders never will Antrobus, Esq., in Ap- co-operate with the Government in the execution of a work to which they are, upon principle, most hostile. Every pendir I. other witness who has been examined dissents from Mr Shortrede's view, and agrees with Mr Antrobus in the opinion that the decision of this question is, in fact, involved in that of the First Question; the reasons by which they are to be determined being in fact the same, if not in degree, at least in principle. We confess that such is also our opinion.
Evidence of R. C.
Evidence of Mr
IV. The Bonham Strand portion is regarded by those witnesses, who are familiar with the locality and the Evidence of Messrs peculiarities which belong to it, as the portion least open to animadversion, and as one which ought, if the arrange. Antrobus, Murrow, ments of the Government permit, to be begun and accomplished with all possible despatch. Concurring thoroughly Pustau, and Duddell, in that opinion, we would direct Your Excellency's especial notice to the evidence of a gentleman by whom the in Appendix 1. Praya has been considered in a sanitary point of view, and to that of another gentleman by whom it has been Duddel in Appendix similarly regarded in its relation to a proper system of Police, and which have left no doubt in our minds that, if any Section of the work ought to be begun or finished before the residue, that Section is precisely that which Your Evidence of Mr Excellency describes as the Bonham Strand portion of the Praya.
J.
Shortrede, Ibid.
1856, in Append. II, (No. 18 & 16.)
Evidence of Mr
of
A.
V. Some diminution appears to have been long going on in the depth of water at the several wharves and land- Evidence of Mr Mur- ing-places. The recess or wash of the sea is a probable cause, and to this the large accumulations of earth and rubbish row, Mr Duddell, and brought down by the drains and sewers, particularly in the rainy season, are certainly to he added. What was the Mr Antrobus, in Ap- line of low-water mark at the formation of the colony, is said to be that of the present high-water mark. It is an evil pond. I. more likely to increase than diminish; and, far from agreeing in the strictures contained in the Colonial Treasurer's Plan and Letter Letter of the 5th January 1856, as to the too great extent of the plan of the Surveyor-General (Mr Cleverly), we of the Surveyor-Gen think that it may be well worth His Excellency's consideration whether some further extension of the plan may not eral of the 28th De- be advisable to be adopted. One intelligent witness indeed is of opinion that the Praya ought to be carried so far cember, 1855; and also into the sea as "to enable large steamers and ships to lie alongside, and passengers and goods to pass to and fro Letter of Mr Rionaec- without being obliged to employ boats." The point deserves all consideration. But whether the Praya can be her of the 5th January carried to that depth seaward is a question of ways and means, which Your Excellency alone can determine.
The arrangements for enabling the public to enjoy their rights of access to the sea, for the purpose of shipping and landing, embarking and disembarking, are described as having been from the early days of the colony altogether Shortrede, in Appen- inadequate. There can be no doubt that they are now palpably and disgracefully so, All persons, except the owners die Į.
Ibid. And evidence of private wharves, suffer enormous inconvenience and damage from this state of things. It is probable, too, as related by one witness, that the unfortunate Chinamen, ignoraut of their rights and our duties, are the principal sufferers of Mr Duddell in Aps and that the facility thus afforded of "squeezing" their traders, by extortious in the name of " toll thorough," is apendix » 1. temptation which some Marine Lotholders have not had the virtue to resist.
Private wharves are of course private property, and the owners do what they will with their own.
It is stated Evidence that they are, generally speaking, now anxious to accommodate the public with the use of their wharves, whether for Shortrede, Esq., and goods or passengers; but, if this be true, it is a truth hard to be reconciled with their owntheory, that the loss of Hon; Mr Edger, in
Appendix 1. privacy, consequent upon the formation of a Praya, can be either a nuisance", or an annoyance, or an “jujury·
Evidence of the to" those gentlemen in their business. One and the same contradiction pervades their entire case.
At one moment Hon. Mr Edger, in they are represented as persons who have been forced to encroach on the sea in order to get landing-places for the
Append. 1. community; and as having reclaimed ground, constructed sea-walls, and built wharves for the common use of the public, not merely for their own, At another moment we are told, on the same authority, that they do not want any Praya at all, that they do not want any land to be reclaimed,—and that they object to be made to occupy and pay rent for it. It is quite clear that the sooner these contrarieties are smoothed, and an intelligible and broad rule of Mr Antrobus in Ap- laid down whereby to adjust the hitherto violated common law rights of the Crown and the public with the perso-pend. I. nal interests of the leading Merchants, the better alike for the few and for the many. We think that the claim to erect and maintain private wharves is a privilege, and as a privilege that it ought to be jealously regarded. The Evidence of Andrew enjoyment of it must not be suffered to operate to the common annoyance of the subjects, or to the prejudice of the Shertrede, Esq., the Crown. The fullest access to and from the Praya, seaward and landward, is a matter of public right. We think Hon. Mr Edger, Y. J. that the suggestions appearing in our minutes of evidence on this head are useful-but we forbear to express any Murrow, Esq., Wm. opinion as to their sufficiency, a matter which may be thought doubtful. Neither are we prepared on our own Pustau, Esq., and G. part to add to the recommendations which have been laid before us, some which have occured to ourselves, but Daddell, Esq. which, so long as the port is unprovided with a system of police, we think impracticable, Otherwise we might have [bid, and Ibid. offered a few words upon the expedicney of providing eranage and other conveniences of the kind at moderate but
See the application adequate rates of remuneration to the Government, and of establishing by stringent regulation the order of embar- of Messrs Lindsay & kation and disembarkation at the public wharves. But as we heartily concur in thinking that the whole and sole Co., in their letter of supervision of the work whilst in progress, and the conservation of it when finished, ought to be vested in the Sur- veyor-General, with full powers to carry his instructions into effect, we also think that these details of his general and Mr
the
Ibid.
Ibid. And Evidenco
Duddell's
duty may be safely confided to the security which his official responsibility affords. We also think that, until the counter memorial of Praya is completed, as little as possible should be conceded to any Marine Lotholder in addition to his existing sea-referred to the Com- frontage, in order that the existing accommodations at the command of the public, for landing and shipping of mission by His Excel- goods and passengers, miserable as those accommodations are, may not be further diminished.
lency.
In concluding our Report, we hope to be allowed to mention a fact which has occasioned all of us the greatest See the Notification satisfaction in the discharge of the onerous and important duties with which we have been charged. We have been of the 5th March 1856, enabled to conduct our Enquiry in public, so far at least as regards the taking of evidence. It is impossible to published in the overrate the great addition which the publicity of the examination gives to the authority of the evidence. But this Friend of China' of is not the only advantage. We close our Enquiry in all certitude of being free from the reproach of partiality and that date, in
China Mail' of 6th injustice, as we are unquestionably free from the kindred one of concealment.
All which we humbly certify to Your Excellency.
Council Room, Government Offices, 24th March, 1856,
To HIS EXCELLENCY
SIR JOHN BOWRING, LL.D.,
&c., &c., &c.
T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY, A.G. WILLIAM COWPER, Captain-Commanding Royal Engineer,
J. C. POWER.
the
March 1856, and the
⚫ Hongkong Govern.
ment Gazette of the
8th March 1856.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.