CO129-489 - Governor Sir Stubbs & Sir Clementi - 1925 [8-12] — Page 85

for the lease of the New Territories.

This is a

very big question; defending

great extent upon the rights which "holders of land possessed under Chinese law, & it is quite

imfossible on the infer, before

come to

any

Grad

to

it. I

conclusion upon it.

would only say

that it does not

the contentio

the fetitioners

(

and this really afflies

even

the

Mr.

former

Mr.

Mr.

Mr. Strachey.

Sir J. Shuckburgh.

Sir G. Davis.

Sir G. Grindle.

Sir

Masterton Smith.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

Mr. Amery.

contention is not

if

sound), that the compensation

payable in sofect of land

82

Raumed is not compensation

at a fair price

contemplated

by the

the Convention.

the first

of seem to we

ما

be a frivolous

One

which can lightly be baked apicals,

that it does affear that the views

of the Houghong Past.

rights of the

له

o the

land under

holders of land

chwere low have become less

разправите

of forvention the

time

progressed the

the founder made under

it receded into the fast.

The other two points made

firstly, that

the fatitioners

now extensions works are not worko

مين

for official surfoxes within the

I wonguing of the Convention; & secondly,

DRAFT.

As regards

point, I find great difficulty

in agreeing

wich Sir R& Stulbs

that the compulsory purchase

of

land is not expropriation.

or that town flamming,

camed

in the

which

-

way

he describes, is an

official

furfure within the meaning

of the Convention: The wording

of the Convention is

very

it will be observed

fecide expresion

that "[" "official purposes" is

Land