CO129-494 - Governor Sir Clementi - 1926 [9-10] — Page 7

!

6

the dedopment of Howloon which noch pr

for says is likely

of the great

teherme me

I the world, she

noble kill of in the intuitio

of a few level speculation.

M29fe M 2 of 2

that pressure of other work

I am sorry,

has prescutid

from going; throw, to

als the as fuper and

2 will not

detain them until I return from

leave.

C

So far on the construction of the clave: in the Convention is conceret & fond

my sill

W

revent

حمام

reement with

40753/25

tie Bushes minuti on

thank (him this the question_

roused appens to for wa

of hobec

ate

X.R

29/12/26

-

I agree with Mr.Ellis' first proposition viz.

that the Convention must mean that land may be

resumed for any public purpose on payment of a fair price but not with his second proposition,

viz. that a fair price means what the Chinese authorities would have given. Surely in promising

a fair price" we meant what the English mean

by "fair".

This is confirmed by the proclamation

See $14 of th

Petition.

of 1899, in which Sir H.Blake said: -

"Should any land be required for public

purposes it will be paid for at its full

value".

The proclamation was referred to with approval

.

by Mr.Chamberlain in an official despatch.

Again I am impressed by the argument in

8 of the petition which is, shortly, that in

1902 the Government of Hong Kong, having had time to think what the Convention meant, passed an Ordinance giving the customary landowner in the New Territory a permanent, heritable, and transferable right of use in hisiand subject to certain reservations, one of which was the right of the Crown to resume for public purposes on payment of "full and fair compensation with an

appeal to the Supreme Court.

No doubt the Government were wrong in promising

permanent titles in leased territory.

The

Wei-hai-Wei Administration made the same mistake

and is faced with claims for compensation in

consequence,

The Government substituted Crown

leases and put in a reservation against building on agricultural lands. The petitioners contend that this has been understood to mean that a man who built would have to get a licence and pay

a higher rate or tax. By passing the Ordinance of 1922 the Government have treated it as justifying the resumption of agricultural land on payment of compensation based on what the agricultural use of the land is worth to the

agriculturalist.

When the petitioners contend that this is a breach of (a) the Convention (b) the promises

of the Government, it does not seem to me to be a sufficient answer to say that neither the Manchus nor the Chinese Republic would have

treated

by