CO129-587-8 Crown leases 18-4-1940 - 17-3-1941 — Page 42

17

of 924 years. The lots become urmarketable, tenants will do nothing towards repairs, or in the improvements or sustenance of their dwellings; if they were habitable towards the expiration of the term that is as much as they would be.

?? No-one has bought land on a 75 years ase only, with the idea that the Crown would enforce its right of re-entry at the end of 75 years and turn them out. Nor does it appear why there should be any distinction on one side of the harbour to another; or on lands in the town or in the country. It may be urged that parties should be kept to the strict performance of their engage- ment with the Crown, and that where land has risen in value the landlord should be entitled to the unearned increment, at least proportionably with the tenant.

42

"In modern days it has been strenuously urged that the landlord, even if a private individual, ras no right to this unearned increment. In case the Crown insists upon its rights, however, the Crown will, at the expiration of 75 years, take not only the unearned increm nt, but the whole value of the improvement effected by the tenants.

"The Crown, in dealing with the Crown lands, is not like some private person selfishly seeking to drive a hard bargain at the expense of an individual, but to dispose of its lands in the best interests of the whole community.

"The Crown, as the Commissioners have endeavoured to point out in another part of this Report, has the entire monopoly of all ungranted land, and in the case of the settlers at Kowloon, and on the Hills, pur hasers were, and are, compelled either to accept the terra that are offered by the Crown, or to go without the land.

"The Commissioners feel sure that the same reasons which decided Earl Grey to sanction the extension or Town Lots from 75 to 999 years would apply equally to the extension of the Leases of all other Lots from 75 to 999 years.

23,

#:

This Report was printed as Sessional Paper No. 3 of 1887

and was presented to the Legislative Council by command o His

Excellency the Officer Administering the Government on the 23rd

September, 1887, so that to that extent the remarks of the land

Commission had official approval. Had the Government of that day

taken the view that the strict letter of leasehold law would, and

should, be insisted upon in the fullness of time, it is reasonable

to suppose that they would have rented out to the members of the

Iand Commision hefors their report was printed that in the

paragraphs above quoted they had entirely misconceived the facts f

the case and that their warning should have been addressed to the

leaseholders instead of to the Government.