155
"-tents
and purposes, as if they had originally formed
"part of the said Colony". (See Ordce.No.10 of 1899.) Now
although the Land Court will not expropriate or dispossess
persons having, at the time the New Territories were ceded,
bona fide titles, yet they must have these titles verified,
and, during the 99 years, all persons must be made to
understand they hold from the Queen ant not from the
Chinese Government. It is to the Queen, rent must be paid,
not to the Emperor of China; and my own view is that, if a
person claiming to be a perpetual legsee at a rent to the
Chinese Government at the time of the Convention, has his
claim allowed, a Lease for the 99 years the land belongs
to the Queen, would be the appropriate title. In theory,
when the 99 years have expired and the land reverts to
China (if it ever does) the descendants of the "so called”
perpetual Lessees can fall back on the title they
possessed prior to the Convention.
What Mr. Whitehead apparently would like
would be a Certificate that the claimant has "a title from
the Chinese Government". If not, I do not understand his
passed, appears to
J
meaning Clause 16 of the Bill, as
me in no way to disregard the Convention.
The preceding remarks apply to (1) as
well as (e) of the Protest.
As regards (e), the Law Committee in-
cluding the two Chinese Members were strongly in favour
of preventing lawyers from practising in the Land Court.
Some of the Chinese clerks or interpreters of some of the
Hongkong lawyers are not desirable people to send to the New Territories if simple and cheap and speedy settlement
of land claims is the object in view. There are no lawyers
heard in Chinese Courts and, as a rule, it would be
undesirable to allow them to practise in the New Land
Court.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.