527
Aday
25747
99
3.
In these circumstances and in the absence of any evidence that it was the intention of the Government only to part with the land for the residue of the lease of 75 years from 1892 which had been re-purchased from the former lease-holder, it does not appear to me that this Colony can properly resist the contention of the Admiralty that they have acquired the freehold of the property.
4.
Undoubtedly the acceptance of the sum of $43,700 for this freehold was a bad bargain for the Colony. This sum was based on the Crown Rent of $305 per acre per annum fixed when Lot 35 was originally sold in 1892. In 1899 an adjoining Lot (No.49) was sold at a rent of $800 per acre per annum and when permanently disposing of Lot 35 three years later the rent should have been fixed for the purpose of calculating the capital amount to be paid in lieu of it at double and not at the same rate that it stood at in 1892. But it is obviously not possible now to ask for further payment.
5.
With regard to Marine Lots 20 and 21 referred to in the last paragraph of the Admiralty letter of the 4th July, 1904, I would call your attention to Mr. Chamberlain's Despatch No.215 dated the 3rd October, 1899, which informed Sir Henry Blake that it had been decided that the Admiralty should pay the Hongkong Government Crown Rent on these lots and that the rent in question should be commuted at 25 years purchase for $27,859. The lots had been purchased by the Admiralty from a private owner who held them on a 999 year lease. In this case also the Admiralty's tenure should be recognised as freehold.
6.
I am unable to trace that any information was
527
Aday
25747
99
3.
In these circumstances and in the absence
of any evidence that it was the intention of the Goverment
only to part with the land for the residue of the lease of 75
years from 1892 which had been re-purchased from the former
lease-holder, it does not appear to me that this Colony can
?
properly resist the contention of the Admiralty that they have
acquired the freehold of the property.
4.
Undoubtedly the acceptance of the sum of
$43,700 for this freehold was a had bargain for the Colony.
This sum was based on the Crown Rent of $305 per acre per an-
num fixed when Lot 35 was originally sold in 1892. In 1899 an
adjoining Lot (No.49) was sold at a rent of $800 per acre per
annum and when permanently disposing of Lot 35 three years later
the rent should have been fixed for the purpose of calculating
the capital amount to be paid in lieu of it at double and not
at the same rate that it stood at in 1892. But it is obviously
not possible now to ask for further payment.
5.
With regard to Marine Lots 20 and 21
referred to in the last paragraph of the Admiralty letter of
the 4th. July, 1904, I would call your attention to Mr. Cham-
berlain's Despatch No. 215 dated the 3rd. October, 1899, which
informed Sir Henry Blake that it had been decided that the
Admiralty should pay the Hongkong Government Crown Rent on
these lots and that the rent in question should be commuted
at 25 years purchase for $27,859. The lots had been purchased
by the Admiralty from a private owner who held them on a 999
year lease. In this case also the Admiralty's tenure should
be recognised as freehold.
6.
I am unable to trace that any information
vas
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.