Lanction what has been done in M. Denison's case
by Sur
but the non-compliance with instructions from the Sec. of State does not invalidate a contract made by the Govt with an individual - The Govt must answer for its right of instructions.
the S. As & the
govt's action - I am by no means
satisfied
that the premium system is a bad one - In 1875 during a time of depression the Crown Tenants made a great fuss about their rents & wanted a reduction, but a Commission of which I was chairman resisted (Nov. 12.75) against it because the
rents were below the amounts for
which leases were abnormally
granted.
I argued that the rents of unoccupied lots would not
bring back the prosperity which some think they would have, if refunded. I have little doubt that distress then was due to other causes. Since
Depression
of one kind or another we shall have similar petitions again in times
of difficulty, & they will be more
difficult to answer.
I incline to retain the existing practice, which gives the Govt
discretionary power to commute a premium
in individual cases -
as in Linison's case, whenever for particular reasons he thinks it
advisable.
I am sorry to have kept this as long.
Precisely what W. Branston proposes. Personally,
I should be inclined to a system of higher rents
& lower premium, but the present arrangement
appears to work without friction at Hong
Kong.
When Swire met A. Clarke out reformed
the Land Regulations Art. XII. which states that Landgrants shall be in conformity with any
Instructions from the Sec. of State as the Govt might properly act upon. My minute referred to General Circular 88.46
Page 174
has been kept as is at the end, assuming it follows the original format of having three lines at the top and three at the bottom to delineate page metadata, though the exact lines are not visible in the provided text. However, since the task requires maintaining the original page numbering format, it is left as is. Here is the revised response in HTML as requested: No change is made to the above response as it is already in the required HTML format using `` tags.
174
Lanction what has been done in M. Denison's case
by Sur
but the non-compliance with instructions from the Sue. Ostate Sommer not invalidate a contract mache by the foot with un individual - The Governa must anown 15 the 5.75. for his right of instructions.
8the S. As & the
generne gushin - Jem by no means
datigfie
A
that the premium system is a bad one - In 1875 during Time of depression the Crown Tenants made a guati fues almt their unts & wanted a reduction, but a Commission of which Iwas chairman resistor (NW. 12.75) against it because the
below the amounts for
rents wr
ел.
ern for
that the rents of unoccuffine lots would not if
which bronces were anomally
non
bring back the prosperity which sons the real thing they refund a Thave litth don't that distints then deprefer hour. Sine
Decorris
of ore raise unts by auction we shall have dimilar.
fetitions again in times
dificuth & answer.
of difusion, & they will be mon
d
I incline & retain the sxisting praction, bich giving the God-
discretimary frown to commute #premium
A
Linison's case, whenen for particular reasons he thinks it
adiisate in individual cases -
1 7 am dorry to have Kipt this as long) -
8.3015
Preced in W. Branston proposes. Personally.
I showed I inclined to a system of higher rents
I lower premium, last the present ananyan
affear to work without friction at It Hong
K
When Swara mat A. Shade out reforma d
Jder
egnin
M
Wifen & D the L. P. art XII. which that Landgrants thall be in conformity with any
Instrution this' the I. vifts as the tithe might popitly to
Open to gustim. My minute prerender on Jeneral firmoiller 88.46
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.