7, Castle Terrace,
Cowes,
Isle of Wight,
28th November, 1905.
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Sir,
I have now the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 41413/1905, under date the 25th instant, in reply to my letter of the 20th instant, wherein is set forth the unjust manner in which our claim has been dealt with by the Governor of Hongkong.
2. You remind me that in your letter of the 9th August, 1904, I was informed that the Governor's decision must be taken to be a final settlement of the matter. You also informed me that the reference was for enquiry whether any further compensation could justly be paid to us.
3. The enquiry has been made, but inasmuch as the decision is not based upon the facts in evidence, it is not just; nevertheless you tell me that Mr. Secretary Lyttelton regrets that he cannot continue the discussion of the case.
4. The matter, however, is too serious to be dismissed in such a summary manner, and seeing that the Compensation clause in the Ordinance, as interpreted by the Privy Council, is ultra vires; and as the Chief Justice of Hongkong has been sitting as Judicial Assessor in the recent Enquiry held in Hongkong, I have to ask if Mr. Secretary Lyttelton will consent to the question being raised in the English Courts of Law.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your Obedient Servant,
THOS. HOWARD,
Downing Street,
2nd December, 1905.
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Sir,
I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, and to state that he has nothing to add to the Letter from this department of November 25th.
I am, Sir,
Your Obedient Servant,
C. P. LUCAS.
7, Castle Terrace,
Cowes, Isle of Wight,
19th January, 1906.
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Sir,
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 42371/1905, under date 2nd December last, stating that Mr. Secretary Lyttelton has nothing to add to the reply of 25th November.
2. From your letter No. 27223/1904 of the 9th August, 1904, wherein it is stated that being anxious to remove, if possible, any grievance we might consider ourselves entitled to feel, Mr. Secretary Lyttelton had decided to refer to the newly appointed Governor of Hongkong, for enquiry, the question whether further compensation could justly be paid to us; and after my letter of the 25th November last, showing that the further compensation was not commensurate with the injury sustained by depreciation of the Property, that the claim for Loss of Rents had been disallowed, that the Award was not based upon the facts in evidence, but arrived at from conjecture only; and that two Acting Governors had previously failed to award proper compensation; I did not expect to receive a refusal to my request to have the case settled by a Government official experienced in matters of compensation and myself in London; I can only account for such refusal on the assumption that upon the eve of the resignation of the Ministry, Mr. Secretary Lyttelton decided to leave the matter to be completed by his successor.
3. In that view, I have to ask that the case may be submitted to his Lordship the present Secretary of State for the Colonies for his instructions thereupon, and in order that he may the more easily grasp the position, I will recapitulate as concisely as possible some of the salient points set forth in my letter of the 20th November last.
3. The reference to Sir Matthew Nathan was whether further compensation could justly be paid to us, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to the strict legal rights as defined by the Reclamation Ordinance and the Courts of Law.
Under the Ordinance, Governor Sir William des Voeux, who passed it, in his Message to the Legislative Council wrote, that the frontage Lot holders are strictly entitled to compensation only in respect of the actual depreciation of their property by the Reclamation in front of it, but by the provision in question (Compensation clause) there can be taken into account the moral claims, so that instead of being a hardship to the dissentient Lot holder, 'the clause in reality will operate for his protection.'
He also wrote that it is needless to say that the Government had no desire to accord other than the fullest justice in respect of private rights.
Mr. C. A. Cripps, K.C., has written that the Award being under the Ordinance, the Governor is bound to decide upon proper and legal grounds and not in an arbitrary manner.
Justice Fielding Clarke stated that it was within the competency of the Hongkong Legislature to modify, alter, and even destroy existing rights; though of course the greatest care should be exercised that no injury be inflicted without adequate compensation.
Page 692
Sir,
7, Castle Terrace,
Cowes,
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Isle of Wight,
Sir,
28th November, 1905.
I have now the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 41413/ 1905, under date the 25th instant, in reply to my letter of the 20th instant, wherein is set forth the unjust manner in which our claim has been dealt with by the Governor of Hongkong.
2. You remind me that in your letter of the 9th August, 1904, I was in- formed that the Governor's decision must be taken to be a final settlement of the matter. You also informed me that the reference was for enquiry whether any further compensation could justly be paid to us.
3-
The enquiry has been made, but inasmuch as the decision is not based upon the facts in evidence, it is not just; nevertheless you tell me that Mr. Secretary Lyttelton regrets that he cannot continue the discussion of the case.
4.
The matter, however, is too serious to be dismissed in such a summary manner, and seeing that the Compensation clause in the Ordinance, as inter- preted by the Privy Council, is ultra vires; and as the Chief Justice of Hong- kong has been sitting as Judicial Assessor in the recent Enquiry held in Hong- kong, I have to ask if Mr. Secretary Lyttelton will consent to the question being raised in the English Courts of Law.
The Under Secretary of State,
Sir,
Colonial Office.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your Obedient Servant,
THOS. HOWARD,
Downing Street,
2nd December, 1905.
I am directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, and to state that he has nothing to add to the Letter from this department of November 25th.
T. HOWARD, Esq.
I am, Sir,
Your Obedient Servant,
C. P. LUCAS.
7, Castle Terrace,
Cowes, Isle of Wight,
19th January, 1906.
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 42371/1905, under date 2nd December last, stating that Mr. Secretary Lyttelton has nothing to add to the reply of 25th November.
2. From your letter No. 27223/1904 of the 9th August, 1904, wherein it is stated that being anxious to remove, if possible, any grievance we might consider ourselves entitled to feel, Mr. Secretary Lyttelton had decided to refer to the newly appointed Governor of Hongkong, for enquiry, the question whether further compensation could justly be paid to us; and after my letter
of the 25th November last, showing that the further compensation was not commensurate with the injury sustained by depreciation of the Property, that the claim for Loss of Rents had been disallowed, that the Award was not based upon the facts in evidence, but arrived at from conjecture only; and that two Acting Governors had previously failed to award proper compensation; I did not expect to receive a refusal to my request to have the case settled by a Government official experienced in matters of compensation and myself in Lon- and I can only account for such refusal on the assumption that upon the eve of the resignation of the Ministry, Mr. Secretary Lyttelton decided to leave the matter to be completed by his successor.
don
;
In that view I have to ask that the case may be submitted to bis Lordship the present Secretary of State for the Colonies for his instructions thereupon, and in order that he may the more easily grasp the position, I will recapitulate as concisely as possible some of the salient points set forth in my letter of the 20th November last.
3. The reference to Sir Matthew Nathan was whether further compensa- tion could justly be paid to us, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, and without prejudice to the strict legal rights as defined by the Reclama- tion Ordinance and the Courts of Law.
Under the Ordinance Governor Sir William des Voeux, who passed it, in his Message to the Legislative Council wrote, that the frontage Lot holders are strictly entitled to compensation only in respect of the actual depreciation of their property by the Reclamation in front of it, but by the provision in question (Compensation clause) there can be taken into account the moral claims, so that instead of being a hardship to the dissentient Lot holder, 'the clause in reality will operate for his protection.
He also wrote that it is needless to say that the Government had no desire to accord other than the fullest justice in respect of private rights.
Mr. C. A. Cripps, K.C., has written that the Award being under the Ord- inance the Governor is bound to decide upon proper and legal grounds and not in an arbitrary manner.
Justice Fielding Clarke stated that it was within the competency of the Hongkong Legislature to modify, alter, and even destroy existing rights; though of course the greatest care should be exercised that no injury be in- flicted without adequate compensation.
692
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.