4
The Hongkong Government Casette.
Memorandum of Ulis It is also the first year in which a surplus, sufficing to the undertaking and completion of the great work, has been Excellency Sir John declared in the Colonial Treasury. The more pressing among the other works contemplated by Sir Henry Pottinger, Bowring of the 18th and enumerated by Mr M. Martin as improbabilities or impossibilities, have by succeeding Governors been, one by October, 1855, in Ap one, accomplished. If the Praya be now commended, the project cannot be said to have slumbered in the interval, pendir (No. 14.)
Hongkong Blue Rooks from 1846 to 1855.
Neither can it with truth be said that anything ever occurred to disabuse the public mind of the belief which was certainly there in 1843 and 1844, as to the intentions of Government. Vague and ambiguous assertions to the effect that the Government always led the Marine-Lotholders to believe that they were at liberty to reclaim Evidence of Androw “seaward for themselves," have been freely ventured; but these, wholly unsupported by even the attempt at proof, Shortrede, Esq., Ap. by degrees narrowed themselves, first to the period of the first formation of the Colony, and, when that was proved pond. I.
to have been impossible, then to the period of the first issue of Crown Grants,—and so'from period to period, until Evidence of the at length they have dwindled down to two dubious cases, which are said to have occurred during the Governorship It is only with specifio Houble: Mr Edger, in of Sir George Bonham,-one in the Year 1854, the other at a date not stated to us. Append. I.
instances like these that it is possible to grapple; and the particulars of these two instances will be found not Ibid.
undeserving of a brief passing notice, independently of the fact that they are the only cases adduced before us to Evidence of R. C.
'encouragement” having been ever given to any purprestures on the part of Marine Antrobus, Esq., and Y. prove anything like an official "
Lotholders, past or present. J. Murrow, Esq., in
A gentleman who has confessed a purpresture committed by himself in 1854, and who had more than once Append 1.
Mr Antrobus's evi- asserted, with some emphasis, the existence of a "general understanding that lands reclaimed would not be interfered dence, in Append. I. "with by Government, nor the parties' rights of access to the Sea prejudiced by the Act," was at length asked to state the circumstances which had produced that impression, so far as he and his firm were concerned. His answer is a curious illustration of the proneness of these gentlemen to deceive themselves. It appears that the present Surveyor-General, Mr Cleverly, and the late Governor, Sir George Bonham, gave him, in 1854, a verbal assurance that he would not be prosecuted or called to account for his encroachment. They gave me," he adds, "no further ** assurances.' This mere indemnity against punishment,-if it be even that, he at once interpreted into a renuncia. Mr Murrow's evi-tion or waiver of a Crown right! Another witness, also a Marine-Lotholder, was perfectly satisfied, he said, that dence, in Append. I. he had received very recently an encouragement from the Governor himself to encroach upon the sea-shore in front of his lot, and reclaim it. On being requested to condescend to particulars, he stated that the Governor in question was Sir George Bonham,--that Sir George Bonham had told him, in answer to his questions, that he had no power to authorize his intended purpresture, or to make him any "title" to the land when he should have reclaimed it,→ that all that he (the Governor) could say was, that, unless his (the tenant's) neighbors complained, Government would not prosecute him for the encroachment, and that, in his (the Governor's) "private opinion," the tenant would be "all right;"—but that the tenant must understand, that what he might do would be done at his own risk, and that he (the tenant) must hold himself responsible for the consequences. It is difficult to appreciate the amount of "encouragement" contained in these words of Sir George Bonham.
One useful suggestion may be gathered from this mass of incoherent asseveration and unsupported pretention, and it is, that the representatives of Her Majesty in this island cannot be too careful to avoid even the appearance of concession of Crown rights, lest perchance it be turned against the Crown at some distant day, into evidence of acquiescence in favor of a larger or more general one. In this point of view alone we would strongly advise Your Letter of Messrs Excellency, in the matter of the application of Messrs Lindsay & Co., referred to us for our opinion, not to take it Lindsay & Co., apply into consideration until the plan of the Praya has been finally approved and made public, and the work commenced, ing for Sea-frontage, In considering whether any indulgence ought to be shewn to the Marine-Lotholders, beyond the not unreas and Mr Duddell's coun- sonable one of overlooking the encroachments already committed, and of allowing as well those offenders as the ter memorial, both of holders in general to become purchasers, without competition, of the reclaimed lands fronting their respective Lots, it which were referred to is surely a very important fact that, with the exception of Mr Murrow and Mr Duddell, who approved of the the Commission by His Government Notification of the 10th November last, Mr Pustau, who attended the Meetings of Marine-Lotholders, Excellency, in Append. but "took no part either way" in the proceedings which ended in the too liberal proposals of Government contained II, (No. 17.)
Evidence of Mr Mur- in that Notification being rejected by a very large majority of the Marine-Lotholders, the Hon. Mr Edger, who row and Mr Daddell, did not attend the meetings, but appears to have approved of their result,—and R C. Autrobus, Esq., of the firm of in Append. I.
Messrs Lindsay & Co. (the only one completely identified with the majority of that class of Crown tenants, and their Notification of the November meetings),-not one has either presented himself to be examined, nor acceded to our invitations to that 10th November, 1855, effect. One gentleman, indeed, who, with Mr Antrobus, distinguished himself as one of the most active promoters of in Append. II, (No. those meetings, and who represented his firm there (that of Messrs Dent & Co.), at first consented to come and be 15.)
examined on a day specially named to suit his convenience; but he neither appeared, nor excused his non-appear- Evidence of Mr Pus- ance. On this subject we beg to refer to our Minutes, and will merely add, that the general unwillingness of the tau, in Append. I.
Marine-Lotholders, who profess to apprehend loss or injury to themselves by reason of the formation of the Praya' Evidence of the to afford any evidence in illustration of their asserted claims to equitable consideration, ought of itself to deprive the Honble: Mr Edger, in claimants of all expectation that their supposed claims will receive any consideration at all. It cannot be supposed Append I.
Minutes of the 8th, that their mere allegations are to be taken as proofs. 9th, and 10th March, 1856, in Append. I.
We have been thus far minute in tracing the real history of the Marine-Lot question, because it is the only key to the solution of the Second Question reforred to us. Those Marine-Lotholders who have hitherto reclaimed portions of the Crown's domain without title from the Crown, and have converted the lands so reclaimed into their own “tenement and farm,”-
"-an offence in itself for which they are even now liable to punishment,-cannot, as it seems to us, stand in a better position than those Marine-Lotholders whom the Crown may think fit to admit into occupancy and enjoyment of those portions of the Crown's domain, which will, by or at the expense of the Crown, be reclaimed hereafter. In either case a full rent ought to be received;-and we think that the rate payable upon ordinary Crown Lands, sold in Lots for building purposes, affords a very moderate criterion whereby to determine Evidence of Mr Mur, the amount. It is, we think, a mischievous suggestion that some deduction should be made in favor of those who row, in Append. I. have reclaimed but not built houses to let, nor derived profit in the shape of toll or otherwise, or of those who, being bereafter admitted into occupation of lands to be reclaimed by the Crown, shall content themselves in like manner with the mere enlargement of their borders, not seeking therein their own pecuniary advantage. It would be a Evidence of Mr Dud- difficult distinction to establish in the proof;-and, were it ever so well established, still there remains the objection, but dell, in Append. I well put by another witness, that it is not the inclination of the tenant to use his holding in this or that manner, and compare that of the use and occupation in whatever manner, that imposes the liability to rent. We may add that, in either case, the detriment to the public is the same. The land is equally withdrawn from public use. The Crown is but the
Mr Shortrede.
Ibid.
Trustee for the Public.
Evidence of Mr Mur- Another distinction, which has been rather hinted at than suggested, would deserve to be called puerile, but that It would seem that there are row and the Honble: the consequences to which any recognition of it must lead, are of frightful moment. Mr Edger, in Append. those who distinguish “China houses" from "European houses,” and apply a different rule to the one and to the I.
other. It is admitted that the holder of the property, however unwilling to build, has the right to change his mind, and build and let to tenants; and one witness goes so far as to say that such a case may be considered a reason for an enhancement of his rent, But as to "China Houses," there appears to be no doubt. The witnesses say that these have already, in proportion as they have been erected upon the reclaimed lands, injured the rentals of the houses in the Queen's Road, and tended to convert it into a back street. They ought therefore to be heavily assessed; not so the European houses so erected. Their cost is great, and the risk enormous;-they have a strong tendency to disappear into cavities formed by the wash of the sea,-and, whilst they last, they are used as Offices and Stores, and not for Chinamen's dwellings.
Evidence of Andrew Shortrede, Esq., Append. 1.
It appears to us that the mere enunciation of this theory suffices to shew its folly and injustice. Nor can we in accede to the opposite opinion, advanced by one respectable witness, that in assessing these rents, a distinction should be made in favor of Chinese Crown Tenants. An absolute equality of rights and duties, without regard to colour, to creed, or to condition, is the only sound basis of all government. In this remote part of the British Empire, inhabited by a handful of Europeans and 70,000 Asiatics, it would be above all impolitic to do anything which might seem to call that truth in question;—and we must strongly protest against every such attempt, in whatever interest it may have been ventured.
Upon a general review of all the considerations to which we have adverted, we think that the Government will not be justified in allowing any distinction whatever between lands reclaimed by intruders, and lands reclaimed by Letter of Mr Rien- the Crown, in assessing the amount of rental. In either case the rate of rent should be one, uniform and equal. accker of the 5th Ja- If Mr Rienaecker's computation of £3031, as the sum total of rent to be received from the frontage of the existing nuary, 1866, in 4p-eighteen Marine Lots, be approved by Your Excellency, the rate of Assessment by which it is to be levied will be pend. II, (No. 16.) one of 158. to every 100 superficial feet. But whether that or a more moderate revenue be anticipated from the
lands in question, the rate by which it is to be assessed ought to press equally upon all who have to bear it.
that
whic
lease ques
to e the
Gen
bold
of t
Jarg
ntor
ugr
eitl
the
2114
Co-
oth
opi
the
alg
pr
me
in
Pr
vik
Sc
E:
in
br
li
mi
L
tl
bi
#
C
A
- મ
t
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.