Sessional_Paper_1901 — Page 595

[ 27 ]

Appendix No. 9.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,

HONGKONG, 24th March, 1900.

Extract from Report on Ordinance 8 of 1900.

I have examined the accompanying Ordinance, entitled an Ordinance to facilitate the hearing, determination, and settlement of land claims in the New Territories, to establish a Land Court, and for other purposes, and I am of opinion that the Onlinance is one which is not contrary to the Governor's Instructions.

Objects and Reasons.

By Her Majesty's Order in Conneil of 20th October, 1898, it was ordered that the Territories within the limits and for the term described in the Couvention of the 9th June, 1898, should be and the same were thereby declared to be part and parcel of Her Majesty's Colony of Hongkong in like manner and for all intents and purposes as if they had originally formed part of the sail Colony.

It was understood by the Convention that there would be no expropriation or expulsion of the inhabitants and it, therefore, became necessary to constitute some tribunal which should have authority to deal with the numerous claims in relation to the land in the New Territories which were certain to be made on behalf of those inhabitants as well as by others. It seems clear that for the term mentioned in the Convention, namely 99 years, (from I presume the 1st July, 1898, when the Convention came into force) the laud in the New Territories belongs to the Crown, subject to the allowance of bonâ fide tilles existing when the new Convention came into force. Now, although, as pointed out in the Secretary of State's Despatch of the 6th January, 1899, "the examination into the titles should not be of too technical a nature and where lengthened occupation or improvements can be shown with no adverse claims from private individuals, a Government title should be granted even if no other is forthcoming," yet it is clear that claims must be looked into, to see if they are bonâ fide.

I should not be surprised to find claims asserted to nearly all the land, claims some of which would not have been allowed by the Chinese Authorities, if they had remained in possession.

It seems to me that the best way will be to deal liberally with bonâ fide claims, but it is not at all unlikely that there will be also some utterly groundless pretentions advanced to rights over large tracts of land and especially of foreshore; nor, from what I already hear, is it unlikely that, in some cases, forged Chinese documents will be forthcoming. Not only will simple rustics have to be dealt with but also various designing persons capable of appreciating the rise in the value of various parts of the land certain to take place in the near future when roads are completed and communica- tion with Hongkong proper becomes easy.

The Ordinance is drawn, to a considerable extent, upon the lines of the Squatters Ordinance, 1890 (No. 27 of 1890), which has, I think, worked satisfactorily, but which could have worked more expeditiously had the Board been composed of fewer members. It is not always easy to get a quorum of at least three very busy men together from different departments for a fairly long sitting. Bearing this in mind, Section 3 confers considerable jurisdiction on one member sitting alone. But, as there will also be some cases involving important principles or where the claims advanced are of considerable value, the addition of the second member, viz., a President, will give additional weight to the decisions of the Court when it is necessary for both members to sit together.

Section 4 provides for the appointment of a Registrar. If he has tact and knows the ways of the Chinese and their language he will greatly facilitate the successful working of the Ordinance.

Sections 5 and 6 are very similar to sections 4 and 6 of the Squatters Ordinance. Section 7 sanctions friendly compromises of disputed rights.

Section 8 empowers the Court to make those who, by false claims or improper opposition, put the other side to unnecessary expense, pay the costs of witnesses, &c.

Sections 9, 10 and 11 are similar to Sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Squatters Ordinance.

Section 12 is intended to prevent Chinese in the New Territory who are not accustomed to lawyers being compelled either to pay what, to them, would be very large fees or else to find them- selves at a disadvantage as compared with rival claimants who had long purses and had engaged legal assistance.

Section 13 will give an opportunity of dealing fairly with people who have squattered on land without any title and improved it and are willing to pay a small rent.

Section 14.-I think it important that all the inhabitants should feel that during the 99 years, they are holding from the Crown and not from the Emperor of China or the Chinese Authorities, but this clause leaves the Governor to settle the appropriate form of title.

Some Chinese may claim perpetual titles, but I have grave doubts whether those titles would have been recognised in China as lasting any longer than during such time as the rent was duly paid and the land cultivated or occupied.

The latter part of Section 14 (compare with section 12 of the Squatters Ordinance) is intended to meet such cases as, for instance, a man producing a sort of title from the Sun On Magistrate giving him vague fishing and foreshore rights for which bis grandfather, as he alleges, paid some trifling sum. The use he makes of his claim is to "squeeze" the poor fishermen if they fish near his preserves and "squeeze" them again if they dry their nets on what he would call his foreshore. He alleges that his rights go to the top of the hill and I noticed that, in December, 1899, he appears to have sold his rights to two Europeans in Hongkong. Of course this will develop shortly into a claim to land and also large and valuable foreshore rights put forward by Europeans. The man in question not long ago let out his right for $9 a year. It would certainly be to the public interest to clear the foreshore and waters of claims of this kind even if trifling compousation had to be given.