CLOSED UNTIL
Previous
03/129/513/4
Position of New Territories. (have heases)
52723/28
Subsequent
See 72858
the Come
In Rechect M. Eelis
........
Sing famille 1444 Su's. Wilo 4/4 M. Omerly Tue 5.4. Sexy of lase
hi - 26/4
Mr. Gunk. 27. Reelis Su G Grindle
M'Omarly rae 19 Sec. of State. 29 FED
Mr. 2x shangwa 26/6
they life 28
lis f. finally
Mr. Junon 1.
(67496) Wt. 11474-13 10m. 9/28 H. St.
G. 101/33A.
1. Gov. Sever
27·2·29 Z
Submits proposals for affroval,
regarding grant of land
New Terrinies
This is rather disappoint ing. To repeat
once again the issues in the matter, the position
is that, in order to secure the proper economic
development of the New Territories, it is essential
that persons desirous of settling there or
establishing businesses should have security of
tenure. The normal lease in Hong Kong is
75 years but if leases of this length are granted in the New Territories they will extend beyond the
period when our own lease expires, that is in 1997.
There are two obvious alternative solutions:-
(1) To ignore merely legal considerations
and grant leases for 75 years on the ground that this is the only practical business-like method
of dealing with the land.
(2) To grant leases expiring with our own lease so that the term of the leases granted will automatically diminish as the years go on.
The first solution was that originally suggested by Sir C. Clementi and supported by
this Office. The Foreign Office, however, made
it quite clear in their letter No.1 on 52723 and
in the discussions which followed, that they could not agree, as any such action would amount
be in refere
to a declaration that we had no intention of
returning the leased territory to China when the lease expired, and when the Chinese heard of it, as they would sooner or later, there would be a tremendous agitation against us.
At the discussion which took place
last November we thought we had agreed upon
a compromise under which Hong Kong would
issue leases expiring within the term of
our lease from China but including an under-
taking to renew the grant for a further period
if it was within the power of the Hong Kong
Government to do so when the original lease
expired. It was understood that Sir C.
Clementi would get the Hong Kong lawyers to
concoct some formula to this effect which would
make the position plain without too obviously
advertising it.
It does not appear that any very
serious attempt has been made to produce such
a formula. Instead, as a result of local
discussions the Governor goes back to his
original proposal to grant 75-year leases.
I see no prospect of getting the Foreign Office
to agree to this and little hope that if the matter
is taken to the Cabinet we shall be successful.
Personally I can see no effective answer to
the Foreign Office arguments. In the present
state of Chinese feeling it is no use asking
for appreciation of practical business-like
methods. The mere suggestion that we were
seeking to exceed our powers in relation to
the New Territories could easily give rise to
a very considerable agitation. In any case, however business-like the present system of
alienation of land in Hong Kong may be, there
are certain aspects of it which would not
conciliate the Chinese. If, for example,
practice of granting leases running over the end
of our own lease were continued, the position
might arise in which the Hong Kong Government
had granted a lease of which the greater part was in what we may call the Chinese period in return for a large premium and no rent or very little rent.
The Chinese could then argue that the Hong Kong
Government was selling rights it did not properly
& hocheting the proceeds
possess, and even if we reply that the money was being spent on the development of the territory,
they might complain that we were squandering its
resources.
I am inclined to think, therefore, that
it will be useless to press the Governor's proposal.
His objections to the solution agreed upon with the
Foreign Office are not very clearly stated, but they
appear to hinge on the undesirability of stating or implying in any published document that there is
possibility of the termination of British control
of the New Territories. He says that it is
undesirable that the Government should admit that
the future of the New Territories is an open
question. I should have thought that it was very
desirable that the Government should make it clear
that this is an open question. If it is closed it
seems to me it must be regarded as closed against
us, not in our favour. The legal position is
perfectly clear, that at the end of the 99 years
the New Territories are pledged to revert to the
complete sovereignty of China. When that time
comes there is no doubt that we shall have to
insist for practical reasons their close connect ion with Hong Kong etc.)on some other solution of
their future, but it would be impossible for H.M.G.
The pressur form of
fact different
lease is in from the usual one
(see below) & doves therefre adoutive the
uncertani fortune of
The Teritages withi apparently causing any "dilmay
to maintain officially that there is no
question of our returning them to China.
That would be equivalent to saying that
Treaty or no Treaty we intended to interpret
the 99 year lease as a perpetual one.
I cannot see, therefore, what are
the evils which would result from an admission
of our Treaty obligations in respect of the
New Territories, but I should not wish to press
this solution on the Governor in view of
his objections.
There is, however, one comfort ing
thing in this despatch, I had been under
the impression, and I gather from the minutes
and correspondence that everybody else had been
under the same impression, that at present 75 year leases were being issued. This is
not so. The present practice/to issue
meshired
leases in effect for the term of our own
lease from China (see paragraph 4 of enclosure
No.2). So far there appears to have been
no general demand for longer leases, and from
the enormous revenue the Government derives from
the sale of land, there seems to be no
difficulty of disposing of the land on these
terms. It is not, therefore, immediately
necessary to make any departure from the present
practice. The difficulties to be encountered
in whatever direction we move are so great that
the obvious thing to do seems to be to stay
where we are as long as possible. In what
direction we should move if a new situation
such as the demand for longer leases arises,
seems to me a matter which should not be
prejudged,
prejudged, but will have to be decided in the
circumstances of the moment. It is possible
that demand may not arise for many years, at any
rate not in such force that it camot be put off.
On the other hand it is conceivable that if and when
it does arise our relations with China may be so
improved that we can explain our difficulty to the Chinese authorities and, may be, reach some agreement. I feel, therefore, that the best thing will be
to refuse to approve the Governor's proposal for
75 year leases and say that the Secretary of State
considers that the present practice should be
continued until there arises any strong demand
for longer leases, and that he considers that it
is undesirable to decide in advance whether and
how that demand can be met.
We must, of course, consult the Foreign
Office. As a matter of tactics I think there is
something to be said for simply sending a copy
of the despatch for their observations without
committing ourselves to any opinion, but on the
whole I think it would be best to write in
substance as in the immediately preced ing
paragraph.
I aque Ala Holu
with Mr Caine except that
Whink it might to
might be best tomoned to dons her the forst fleck
F.O. fu dom
Disappointing. Sis
C. Clementi has
jove back on his attitude at
The Conference, ats
(he and of
which he was in a
more conciliatory mooch.
The only osuction is
, I believe,
The issue
of leaves renewable on application 5-
the proper authority"
Oce what 1.0. say beforem
But we con
we Modena.
Soft to the an return.
6875.4.29.
Dup. of 1 to F.D. cons. secret of ap/ 29
F1785/1985/10. Comments on Grois vinos -
cals. to 2.
This apparelle got pub by before 1.5ft saw (vide Mr. Onnoby-
minuti above)
The 7.0. propsels in
ingarchs para s of Feb.
off the Rumorandum
Ete Лино.
1. Wathing.
26. 4. 2.
for seurt, say
that 545
only appe сутс
expressed
ach for Lia to consider the
Suggestion made
Ite Cach
Fo. once
(I don't suffere be wilt
take Pony to consider it
as it arnoms
little of value to a
Inspection
Estibles pressed
for the definite trumpfer of the
Tembus to
To be made
condition
rendition of WHW:
lut if ur
the win where
China is exch & divided, what chenuis there.
7 getting
in sting &
It might be useful in due
to endeavour to get the Fo. 10
That the transfer i to Hong Kong should,
The N. T.
as occasion
offere in the grative, be given
the I is concerned
a favomed
position pornny in
amongst the
aims of our
- per 27/0
Jager bette action fistances the
do not like the F.O. suggestion. It amounts
to announ
cing in och terms that
it is at least probable that the leaved
turitory will revert to China,
solution
this question is a
system of
renewable leases.
thought we
had for vii C. Clementi
up to the point of agreeing to that
but he has gone back
Matter of tactics,
action proponed
is peobably
best way of getting the Hongkong
Gout to realize that some
compromise is
necessary.
Therefore
as proposed
29.4.29 1009
Par 5+6y on C. Clementos despoled
to doing common tern Ut I think We shall return to the clage white ko
alin ale we are wt fucked from selling, t Katt has offene foale wo!
Draft submitted for consideration.
I have assumed that the S. of S. does not wish
to make any suggestion as to selling instead
of leasing land at this stage. If we are
I had understand this to be the
bon'tim but
Lewes which
I had wat par
read. I find it is
an accusie
accomar of the W.H.W.
Mitin. See C360/26
to take up anything on those lines we should
first have to go into the correspondence about the grant of freeholds in Weihaiwei, whether her.
they were granted in the early years and
whether the practice was later stopped because
it was held that we had no right to grant
freeholds in territory held under lease.
Jes. As for
Turn awa
we have not world land in the band touitiries; if in
about th
fart in do roll it would be
alourd to baggle a
light of line.
Willie the Ellin 3/5
I don't understand the V. Ops. to
are to mention
vale officially
to the F.O., but-
are to note
the point
one of discussions
we shall have
we get any where
settlement.
nvention
And anyway
of vole in the corresa
would probably bring the
e 10Page 11
usual protest from tir Cr Clementi
that this
a would involve a
fundamental alteration
Ke land system
of Hougking"
which he regards as
hinsuperable commuter objections
To FC como (3 and) 3 May 129
8. Coby Peking
DESTROYED UND STATUTE
Tel. 318 of 14.4
Tel.co Peking
Lampson's Tel. 15
5-8 deal, inter alle, with
Ceases in CHINKIANS concension, &
have han attached in case that
Les femand to wear in that of the leans in H.K. Tenitnies.
See minutes on 62707
21. 6. 28.
adhum 4 views expuned
52723/25 and
3 on this file.
The F.O.
slands fast.
do nothing excepte
? proced
minut of
dup. LEO. LF.)
ala at "A" in th. 3.4.25. (copy of
6. Lathangwur.
I attach
issue pu
convenience.
how proceed
proposed
I don't suggest sunding ont also Copies of Nos 4-5: it wi not helps
be peoporns by Ms. Gent
in the vicus
in F.Olethe No3on the lite
0. maile of
I put the
50. at the and
And atten
Walls D. Whe 296
sue typed note altached).
I do not them in the
F.0. suggestions
final volction
The difficulty,
but for the moment
chief need is to get these
The Gourmor
of Hongkong into
of mind conducive to
Compromcie
the F.O.
And I believe
The best way to do this is
to let him
The F.O.
not have his solution.
oystem of
In the end
able to arrange
renewals
the difficulty.
I agres with 7. Q. point of Jew
WL.1.7.29
And d. (our wrikas proposed /
10. Coffy is to Far. (1 amped), ppcret 12 July 129
M. EN, Sever
DESTROYED UNDER STATUTE
Reminder
SCOTd 10. Pur by
166.8.29 atime
to (dupl)
12/9/29.
(article in the China Frull
of 4 Howlern)
Att a fr
re utrocession.
waad. Put y
26.9 time
(F 4504/4046/10)
British Consulate General,
29th July 1922.
13 SEP 1929 COL. OFFICE
With reference to my P/L despatch No. 32, dated
9th July, concerning Mr. Kentwell, I have the honour to
enclose herewith for your information the following
document:
Copy of my despatch to H.M. Minister, Peking, No. 90,
dated 29th July, relating to an article appearing in
"The China Trath" by Mr. Kentwell, on the retrocession
of Hongkong and the leased Territory of Kowloon,
I have, etc.,
(sa) G. S. Moss.
jotina Consul-General.
His Majesty's Frincipal Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs,
etc.. eto.,
Foreign office, London.
No. 90 (and 1 copy)
Mr. Moss to Sir Miles Lampson.
Copies to:-F.0. No.35
Hongkong No.205
H.B.M. Consulate General,
29th July, 1929.
Shanghai.
With reference to my despatch No. 83 of the 9th
instant on the subject of Mr. L.K. Kentwell, I have the
honour to report that Mr. Kentwell writing on the subject
of Weihaiwei ander his Chinese name "Kan Teh-yun" in the
issue of July 27th of his weekly publication "The China
Truth" ended with the following two paragraphs about
Hongkong and the New Territories of Kowloon:-
"The Chinese people have no desire to embarrass the
Labor Government by demanding the retrocession of
Hongkong at the present stage of the game. In fact
its retrocession may be postponed. If this important
seaport were to be handed oaok to China today, it
would no doubt create a very awkward situation for
the British nation.
It would surely dislocate British shipping through-
out the world, and might intensify the problem of un-
employment in England. The Chinese nation is quite
prepared to give the Macdonald Government every
opportunity to make good the promises given to China
by its predecessor - the Baldwin Government, and
would remain quite content to leave the question of
the retrocession of Hong Kong in abeyance or during
His Majesty's Minister,
the life of the present Government when they may have ample opportunities to find ways and means to arrange
for the return of Hongkong to China. In the case of
the leased territory of Kowloon or New Territories, the
Baldwin Government had given a definite promise in 1926
to arrange for its early retrocession and we expect the
Labor Government will tackle the job when it gets more
firmly seated on the saddle. It is our sincere wish and
hope that the Eritish Government under the Labor regime
will do much to cement the good relations now happily
existing between this country and Great Britain. And
we on our part will endeavor to do likewise".
2. From this and other articles of Chinese Fationalist
propaganda it is evident that if and when the Concessions
at Treaty Forts are retroceded we shall have to face an
intensive Nationalist campaign, und possibly economic pressure, for the retrocession of Kowloon and of Hongkong
3. Recently at an official dinner-party I was asked
in a bantering tone whether the British Government would
be likely to wish to retain Hongkong if shameen and the International settlement at Shanghai were retroceded.
like bantering tone I advised my Chinese questioner, who was slightly flusned, to "wait and see", adding that he doubtless knew that Gibraltar had been successfully defended
by war more than once. That was the only time that the
question has been forced on my attention and it passed off with laughter. There is however no doubt in my mind that
the retrocession of Hongkong is considered as not being
beyond the bounds of the successes hoped for through insistence in a campaign of Nationalist blaff and propaganda.
Nationalists/
Nationalists hope to segregate any discussion of the status
of Hongkong from that of the status of Formosa.
should be easy to prevent.
I have, ete.,
(sa) G. S. Mo33.
Acting Consul-General.
Mr. Fox-Strangway/
Mr. Bottomley.
Mr. E. J. Harding.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
Så. Grindle.
Sir C. Davis.
62723/29
Hong Kong.
Downing Street,
July, 1929.
12 July,
Sir S. Wilson.
Mr. Ormsby-Gore.
Lord Lovat.
Mr. Amery.
HONG KONG,
GOVERNOR.
F.0.25.4.29
I have the honour to acknowledge
the receipt of your Secret despatch of the
27th of February, enclosing a copy of a
memorandum recording the result of a meeting
held in Hong Kong on the 5th of February 1929
to discuss the question of land leases in the
New Territories of Hong Kong, and to transmit
to you the accompanying copy of a letter from
the Foreign Office containing Secretary
Sir Austen Chamberlain's comments on the
proposals outlined in your despatch under reply
and in the memorandum.
In the circumstances I can only agree
with theviews expressed in the Foreign Office letter,
I should be glad, however, if you could give your
consideration to the suggestion put forward in the
last paragraph of that letter.
I have the honour to be,
Your most obedient
humble servant,
(Sa). Parfield (f/
HONG KONG NEW TERRITORIES
In view of the change of Ministers, it may be convenient to have this brief general note of the
points involved. A full statement of the conflicting Foreign Office and Hong Kong Government attitude can be read in the enclosures in No.1 in this file.)
The Colony of Hong Kong comprises the
Island of Victoria with a small portion of Chinese mainland, Kowloon, these respectively forming the Northern and Southern shores of Hong Kong Harbour.
In order to secure the Northern Shore (Kowloon) a
convention was made with China in 1898 for the lease
to His Majesty's Government for a period of 99 years of a strip of the hinterland surrounding Kowloon on the
north. This strip is known as the New Territories.
Under the convention the lease is not merely a land lease but a lease of all sovereign rights for the
99 year period.
The position now is that the Southern side
of the Harbour is fully developed, and the Northern side is rapidly developing but was being held up by the uncertainty as to security of tenure. Land
for large undertakings would only be taken up if
firms and persons interested could be given leases beyond the unexpired portion of His Majesty's
Government's lease of the New Territories from China.
The standard form of land lease in Hong Kong is
75 years.
If land in the New Territories were now to be leased to an individual for a 75 year term it would exceed the period of our lease from China.
The Foreign Office view is that leases by the
Hong Kong Government to individuals must be confined
an the New Territories to the period of our own tenure of those Territories under the Convention. At present the practice of the Hong Kong Government is to grant leases for 75 years as from 1898, renewable for a further term of 24 years. Their proposal is that they should be allowed to grant leases for 75 years from the date of grant, and that if the applicant asked for more definite
assurance as to his security of tenure in respect of the period after our 99 years' lease from China expired he should be "informed verbally" that in the Government's view the Convention was intended to, and did in fact, confer full sovereign rights on His Majesty's Government for the 99 year period, and that those sovereign rights include the right to
dispose of land and grant leases even beyond the
99 year period: be told verbally, in a suitable case" that in any negotiations with China in due course regarding the Convention it would be natural for a stipulation to be introduced that the rights of such lessees would be respected.
Further "he might, Further "he might, perhaps, also
The Foreign Office decline to assent to any authority being given for land in the New Territory to be leased for periods beyond the
expiration of His Majesty's Government's 99 years lease under the Convention with China.
They can only
suggest that some other way be found to satisfy
apprehensions on the part of prospective lessees in
the New Territories e.g.
hat they should be informed
that when the question arises of renewing leases under
the existing practice for the further term of 24 years,
"every effort will be made, possibly by means of
some arrangement with the Chinese Government" to
give the lessees greater security than could be
afforded by a 24 year extension of the lease.
The Foreign Office declines to reconsider
this view though pressed by the late Secretary of
State to do so.
(Sgd) G.E.J. GENT.
In any further communication on this subject, please quote
No. F 2225/1785/10
and address
not to any person by name,
"The Under-Secretary of State,"
Foreign Office,
London, S.W.1.
RECEIVED
2 2 JUN 1929 COLFICE
FOREIGN OFFICE.
21st June, 1929. 24
(1)om 82723/28
I am directed by Mr. Secretary Henderson to refer
to your letter No.62723/29 of the 3rd May on the subject of
land leases in the New Territories of Hongkong and to state
that further consideration has, as requested, been given to
the proposals put forward and the contentions advanced in
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the secret memorandum copy of which
was enclosed in your letter No. 62723/29 of the 9th April.
The proposal to grant leases running beyond the term of the
ninety nine years lease to His Majesty's Government was
fully considered at the conference held at the Foreign Office
on November 7th last. It was agreed that in view of the
dangers involved in adopting this course Sir C. Clementi
should on his return to Hongkong consider with his advisers
the practicability of adopting some alternative method of
attaining the object in view. It would appear that Sir C.
Clementi has reverted to the original position taken up by
him at the conference in question and has put forward
proposals, not alternative to, but substantially the same as
those then rejected on account of the dangers and apparent
breach of faith involved. After the fullest consideration,
however, Mr. Henderson adheres to the views expressed in the
letters from this department No. F 4270/3338/10 of the 8th
September, 1928, and No. F 1785/1785/10 of the 25th April
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Your obedient Servant,
Елайн Споткий
F2225/1785/10
21st June, 1929.
I am directed by kr. Secretary Henderson to refer
to your letter No.62723/29 of the 3rd May on the subject of
land leases in the New Territories of Hongkong and to state
that further consideration has, as requested, been given to
the proposals put forward and the contentions advanced in
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the secret memorandum copy of which
was enclosed in your letter No. 62723/29 of the 9th April.
The proposal to grant leases running beyond the term of the
ninety nine years lease to His Majesty's Government was
fully considered at the conference held at the Foreign Office
on November 7th last. It was agreed that in view of the
dangers involved in adopting this course Sir C. Clementi
should on his return to Hongkong consider with his advisers
the practicability of adopting some alternative method of
attaining the object in view. It would appear that Sir C.
Clementi has reverted to the original position taken up by
him at the conference in question and has put forward
proposals, not alternative to, but substantially the same as
those then rejected on account of the dangers and apparent
breach of faith involved. After the fullest consideration,
however, Mr. Henderson adheres to the views expressed in the
letters from this department Ho. F 4270/3338/10 of the 8th
September, 1928, and No. F 1785/1785/10 of the 25th April
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Your obedient Servant,
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government, and should be returned to the Foreign Office if not required for official use.]
From CHINA.
Sir M. Lampson (Shanghai).
21st May, 1929.
11.40 p.m.,
21st May, 1929.
6.55 p.m.,
21st May, 1929.
Rendition of Chinkiang concession.
I discussed this with Minister for Foreign Affairs
on May 20th. As liquidation of municipal assets and
paying off of municipal liabilities is proceeding
smoothly and does not concern Chinese authorities, the
only questions to settle with the latter before proceeding
with rendition are those of exchange of our Crown leases
for Chinese deeds of perpetual lease, claims and mooring
2. The Minister for Foreign Affairs showed no
disposition to contest principle of perpetual leases
but difficulty has arisen over wording of deed of lease
(based on ordinary triplicate deed) as Wang objects to
binding his government to a fixed rental of 1,500 cash
per mou per annum in perpetuity. We agreed to have a
formula worked out probably on the following lines:
deed would state that land is held subject to payment of national land tax while a separate exchange of
letters would provide that in this particular case land
tax would remain at the present figure of 1,500 cash
pending its reorganization throughout China. The
point is a minor one at Chinkiang but the question of principle and precedent raised thereby is important.
I have been guided by the consideration that we have always admitted liability of British property owners
to pay Chinese land tex, that we cannot expect tax to remain always at the present nominal figure and that we are committed under our 1927 treaty alteration offer to
pay non-discriminatory Chinese national taxation.
3. As regards claims, the Minister for Foreign Affairs endeavoured to argue that this was a separate question unconnected with the rendition of the concession and he objects to it being regarded as a condition. did not stress the point and do not anticipate serious difficulty in dealing with it probably through a small claims commission by means of a separate but parallel exchange of notes as in the case of the Kiukiang settlement.
Mooring rights no longer exist as such owing to silting up of the concession front but Minister for Foreign Affairs raised no objection to provision being made in their place for safeguarding rights of British shipping firms to convey cargo from godowns in con- cession to ships in the river.
Addressed to Foreign Office.
Repeated to Peking,
Nanking and Chinkiang.
This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government, and should be returned to the Foreign Office if not required for official use.]
(F 2385/90/10)
Το CHINA.
Code telegram to Mr. Ingram (Peking)
Foreign Office, 21st May 1929, 3.00 p.m.
No. 216.
Your telegram No. 318 (of April 14th:
of Chinkiang concession) paragraph 5.
I approve
rendition
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government, and should be
returned to the Foreign Office if not required for official use.
From CHINA.
Sir M. Lampson (Peking).
April 24th 1929.
D. 10.45 a.m.
April 24th 1929.
R. 9.30 a.m.
April 24th 1929.
My telegram No.518.
Special meeting of electors approved sale of water and electric light works and of municipality's holding of Shanghal debentures. The works were sold to Chinese Chamber of Commerce on April 20th for 50,000 dollars.
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government, and should be returned to the Foreign Office if not required for official use.]
From CHINA.
Sir M. Lampson, (Peking)
14th April 1929.
14th April 1929.
9 .0 p.m.
15th April 1929.
No. 318. (R).
Your despatch No.1147.
Chinking.
Chinese Chamber of Commerce have now made offer
of 50,000 dollars for water and electric light works.
2. Crown advocate considers sale of this and other
assets for liquidation of liabilities (estimated to yield surplus of dollars 20,000) requires formal consent
of the electors: Special meeting has therefore been
called for April 18th.
3. Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Chinkiang has informed the Consul that he has been instructed by Narking that Chinese deeds of perpetual lease will be exchanged for crown leases at Chinkiang. A most useful and im-
portant precedent may thus be established.
4. Commissioner for Foreign Affairs has indicated that he will accept lot plans based on our survey and assuming consent of Minister for Foreign Affairs to form
of perpetual lease submitted for his approval by Commissioner for Foreign Affairs after consultation and in agreement with His Majesty's Consul and Office of Works
representative, Crown Advocate suggests the following
procedure.
A. Commissioner for Foreign Affairs to hand to the
Consul Chinese decds of perpetual lease with plans
attached.
attached.
B. Consul to arrange with individual crown lessces for endorsement of crown lease in terms of draft deed of assignment and release, repeated to you in Peking telegra
No.174 of last year.
Chinese deeds to be exchanged for crown leases duly endorsed which will be retained in the Consulate
archives.
D. Exchange of notes between the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Consul recording can- cellation by mutual consent of the respective governments of deed of lease of February 23rd 1861.
E. Repeal of King's regulation number 2 of 1925
as from date of cancellation of above deed.
5. I request your approval on the understanding
that stages
D and E will be preceded or accompanied by
an agreement between His Majesty's Government and the National government as in the case of Kiuking transferring administration of concession, providing for compensation of local British losses arising from looting and safe- guarding existing vested interests such as mooring rights. I await further details about these compensation claims and vested interests before requesting Mr. Newton to discuss such an arrangement with Wang.
Mr. Caine 2
Mr. Geur 2/5, Mr. Ellis 2/5-
Mr. Bottomley.
Sir E. Harding.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
KSir G. Grindle.
Sir C. Davis.
Sir S. Wilson.
Mr. Ormsby-Gore.
Lord Lovat.
Mr. Amery.
DRAFT.cusa –
Eee minute
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE,
FOREIGN OFFICE.
62723/29.
Downing Street,
3rd May, 1929.
I am etc. to acknow-
ledge the receipt of your letter
F.1785/1785/10 of the 25th of
April, on the subject of the
land leases in the New Territories
of Hong Kong.
Mr. Amery considers
that there is considerable force
in the contentions advanced in
paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Seer?
memorandum which forms the
second enclosure to the despatch
of the 27th of February from the
Governor
Governor of Hong Kong, and that
Convention
the interpretation of the lease
there adopted by the Governor
and the course proposed to be
the matter of leasehold grants
followed by him are in fact the
not other
only reasonable ones from the
practicable point of view.
2.M Ammery
Ne does not feel that the
alternative/proposed in your
letter under acknowledgment would
be likely to reassure
offer anything of real value to a
prospective lessee and he would be
glad, therefore, if Secretary Sir
Austen Chamberlain would give
further consideration to the
possibility of agreeing to Sir C.
Clementi's proposals.
I am, etc.,
(Voll Walter D.Ellin
In any further communication on this subject, please quote
No. 1785/1785/10
and address-
not to any person by name,
The Under-Secretary of State,"
Foreign Office,
London, S.W.1.
FOREIGN OFFICE,
25th April, 1929.
I am directed by Secretary Sir Austen Chamberlain
to state that he has had under consideration the despatch
from the Governor of Hongkong and the memorandum recording
the result of a meeting held in Hongkong on the 5th February
last to consider the question of the land leases in the
New Territories of Hongkong, forming enclosures to Colonial
Office letter No. 62723/29 of the 9th April.
2. It appears that the present practice in regard to
such leases is to grant a lease for seventy five years as
from the 1st July 1898 with option of renewal for twenty
four years less three days. Sir Cecil Clementi now
proposes to abstain from making any voluntary alteration
in this practice but, in cases where the prospective lessee
is dissatisfied with so short a term, to grant a lease
for a period extending beyond the term for which the
New Territories are leased to His Majesty's Government.
3. Sir Austen Chamberlain regrets that Sir C. Clementi's
suggestions, contained in paragraph 6 of the memorandum
under reference, as to possible ways of meeting hostile
propaganda which the adoption of the new policy might give
rise to, do not in any way meet the objections to the grant
of leases extending beyond the term laid down in the
The Under Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
Convention
52723/18
Sung we to splant the lase.
Convention between China and Great Britain of the 9th
June. 1898 which were set out in the letter from this
department No. F 4270/3338/10 of the 8th September last.
He agrees with Sir C. Clementi's view that it is
undesirable that there should be any change in the present
policy of granting leases for seventy five years from the
1st July 1898, renewable for a further term of twenty four
years less three days, but it would appear to be desirable
to adopt some other method than that suggested in paragraph
5 of the memorandum under reference with a view to
reassuring prospective lessees who may be dissatisfied with
the length of the term which is all that it is within the
power of the Hongkong Government legally to grant.
An alternative method which I am to submit for the
consideration of Mr. Secretary Amery would be to inform
prospective lessees in such cases that when the question
of renewing the seventy five years' lease comes up for
consideration in the year 1973 every effort will be made,
possibly by means of some arrangement with the Chinese
Government, to give the lessees greater security of
tenure than could be afforded under the normal extension
of twenty four years less three days.
Your obedient Servant,
Елитно Споткий
Mr. Came 5/4
Mr. Beckett 5
Mr. Bottomley.
Sir E. Harding.
Sir J. Shuckburgh.
Sir G. Grindle.
Sir C. Davis.
Sir S. Wilson.
Mr. Ormsby-Gore.
Lord Lovat.
Mr. Amery.
52723/28
So, Lecer 27.2.19
previous
62723/294.6.
9th Mail 1929
etc. To refer to
caves. ending with Sin
5. Junicle's 5/0 letter 52723/48 of
The 19th of reyreding the Hong Kony Teritaies
November 1928,
to transmit, for
obams of Su Sin A
Chamberlan a
on the zeljeer,
dash. from the [ov. of
(Sa/. Walter Dollis
NO SECRET
Enclo. No.
Enclo. No. 2.
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
GOVERNMENT HOUSE,
HONG KONG 27th February, 1929.
I have the honour to enclose herewith a
copy of a Memorandum prepared in the Foreign Office
of the proceedings at the Conference held in that
Office on 7th November, 1928, to discuss the
question of land leases in the New Territories of
Hong Kong.
In accordance with the decision contained
in the last paragraph of the Memorandum I have
carefully considered the matter with my principal
advisers, and I now enclose a Memorandum of a
Conference held on 5th February, 1929.
proposals contained in paragraph 5 of this Memorandum
appear to me to constitute the safest line for the
immediate future and I recommend that they should
receive the sanction of His Majesty's Government.
At the same time the position indicated in paragraph 6 of the latter Memorandum may arise at
LIEUTENANT COLONEL L.C.M.S. AMERY, M.P.,
any moment and I should be glad if His Majesty's
Government would give early consideration to the
formula to be adopted in making any public
statement on this delicate matter.
I have the honour to be,
Your most obedient, humble servant,
Governor, &c.
Enclosure No. 1.
MEMORANDUM.
Land Leases in the New Territories of Hong Kong.
A conference was held in Sir V. Wellesley's
room at the Foreign Office on Wednesday, November 7th, to
discuss the question of land leases in the New Territoriės
of Hong Kong. The following were present: Sir Cecil
Clementi, Sir G. Grindle, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Caine;
Sir V. Wellesley, Mr. Pratt, Mr. Ashton-Gwatkin.
Sir Cecil Clementi explained that although the
Hong Kong territories were divided into three parts,
viz. the Colony of Hong Kong, old Kowloon and new Kowloon
(i.e. the leased territory) yet for practical purposes
they constituted a single entity that of Hong Kong
Harbour. The Southern side of the harbour (i.e. the
Colony) was almost if not quite fully developed; the
Northern side (i.e. the leased territory) was beginning
to develop and would develop rapidly if security of tenure
were assured. Persons and firms interested would take
up land for large undertakings only if granted leases
beyond the period for which the territory had been leased
by the Chinese Government to His Majesty's Government, i.e.
99 years from 1898. It was pointed out that the lease
from Government to Government was not merely a land lease,
but a lease of all sovereign rights; this would include
the right to dispose of land and allot leases even beyond
the term of the head lease. Sir C. Clementi therefore
urged that, in the best interests of the Colony and of the
new territories themselves, he should proceed to grant
leases for periods beyond the balance of the 99 years.
Sir V. Wellesley pointed out the danger of
seeming to dispose of that which it might not be in our
power to give; the danger of encouraging Hong Kong to
think that we were going to keep the New Territories for
ever, when we were under an obligation to return them-
an obligation which the Chinese would probably invoke and
which the League of Nations if called on to intervene
would undoubtedly confirm; the danger of arousing
propaganda among the Chinese, not only in the South but
throughout China, if Sir Cecil Clementi's proposals were
acted on;
the danger of giving the lessees a claim
against His Majesty's Government, if it were found
impossible to secure them in the rights stipulated in the
new leases.
It was however generally recognised by the
conference that it would be unfortunate if development
around Hong Kong harbour were suspended owing to (perhaps exaggerated) apprehensions regarding security of
It was therefore suggested and agreed that a way out of the difficulty might be found (a) by issuing
leases for short periods renewable either indefinitely
or for a stated number of times at the lessee's option
on application to the proper authorities; or (b) by
issuing leases for 65 years, renewable at the lessee's
option. Either of these methods would give the lessees
title to their land running on into the period when the
leased territories may have to be returned to China, but
without providing such material for propaganda an
Sir C. Clementi's original proposal, and without compelling us to prejudge the situation that may arise nearly seventy
years hence.
It was decided that Sir C. Clementi should
explore these suggestions further, and report on their
practicability after his return to Hong Kong.
FOREIGN OFFICE.
8th November, 1928.
Enclosure No. 2.
MEMORANDUM
on the subject of
the term for which land in the
New Territories
should be leased.
This subject was discussed at a meeting at
Government House on the 5th February, presided over by
His Excellency the Governor (Sir Cecil Clementi).
others present were the Honourable Mr. W.T. Southorn
(Colonial Secretary), the Honourable Sir Joseph Kemp
(Attorney General), Mr. P. Jacks (Land Officer, and
Lieutenant Colonel F. Eaves (Assistant Land Officer).
It was emphasized that it was most desirable,
if at all possible, to avoid any policy which would
hinder or discourage the development of the northern shore
of the harbour of Hong Kong. Much of this shore lies
within the leased (New) Territories, and the room for
development in the portion of Kowloon ceded in 1860
now very limited.
It was pointed out that any policy of granting
leases expiring within the period laid down in the
Convention, but renewable beyond that period at the lessee's
option, would be open to all the dangers contemplated at
the conference held in the Foreign Office on the 7th
November, 1928, just as much as the policy of granting
leases expressly extending beyond that period.
recognised as a possibility that there would be less danger
of arousing propaganda if the former policy were adopted,
but that would be so only if the device were successful in
preventing
preventing attention being drawn to the point.
was thought unlikely.
It was considered that it would be undesirable
at the moment voluntarily to alter generally the present
policy of granting leases for 75 years from the 1st July,
1898, renewable for a further term of 24 years less three
days. To do so would probably result in drawing
attention to the point at a moment when our relations with
China are somewhat improved but not stabilized.
action might perhaps be more advisable either when our
relations were more stable or when they were worse. At
the same time it was felt desirable that the Government
should be ready with a definite policy in case application
for a longer lease is made by some one who is dissatisfied
with the term, gradually diminishing, which is all that can
be granted under the present policy.
It was therefore decided to recommend that the
Government should be prepared to grant leases for 75
years from the date of the grant, in case application is.
made for a longer title than that which the present policy allows. If, for instance, such a lease were granted
this year, the term of it would overlap by seven years the
period laid down in the Convention. If the intending
lessee were to ask for more definite assurances as to
the probabilities of security of tenure during the over-
lapping portion of the term, it is submitted that he might
be informed verbally that the view taken by the Hong Kong
Government is that the Convention was intended to confer,
and did in fact confer, full sovereign bights on His
Majesty's Government for the period contemplated by the
Convention,
Convention, and that those sovereign rights include the
right to dispose of land and grant leases even beyond
the period in question. It is further submitted that he
might, perhaps, also be told verbally, in a suitable case,
that in any negotiations which may take place between the
two Governments towards the end of the period contemplated
by the Convention a natural term for insertion in any
agreement to be then entered into would be a stipulation
that the rights of such lessees would be respected.
If occasion arises and this dormant policy is
put into operation, and if it arouses propaganda, there
would be a perfectly reasonable answer to such propaganda,
though unfortunately it is not always possible to
counter propaganda by reason.
The answer would be two-
One part of it would be based on the presumed
intention of the two parties to the Convention (see the
latter part of paragraph 5 above). The other would be
the consideration that, whichever state is to exercise
sovereignty in the New Territories after the 30th June,
1997, a question which must be left to the two Governments
freely to discuss when the time comes, it is to the
obvious interest of the state which does in fact exercise
the sovereignty after that date that development should
not have been hindered in the meantime, and that a great
mass of titles should not expire simultaneously just before
that date, a position which would cause great uncertainty
and stagnation in the New Territories for years before the
end of the present century. Of course before any public
statement on these lines were made it would have to be
weighed with the greatest care, and would probably have to
be referred to His Majesty's Government beforehand. Perhaps
the first part of the answer could be given in the first
instance.
If the proposed policy is not attractive
enough to prevent development being discouraged, it will be
necessary to reconsider the position, but if it should
then appear that the chief objection is that 75 years is
not long enough for such undertakings as docks and wharves,
perhaps terms of 99 years might be granted. One
advantage, however, of the 75 year period is that, if
granted within the next few years, the "overlapping"
portion of the term of such comparatively short duration
that a little uncertainty about it is of comparatively
less importance, and the new policy of granting leases
expressly extending beyond the period contemplated by the
Convention might be introduced quietly and gradually made
general.
Another proposal was also considered, i.e., that
the Government should be prepared to grant leases for
seventy-five years from the 1st July, 1898, less the last
three days, renewable at the lessee's option on the usual
terms for a further period of seventy-five years if the
Hong Kong Government is then competent to grant such
renewal. It was urged that this proposal would have the
following advantages :-
(a) There would be no doubt as to the power of the
Government to make the grant.
(b) It would afford no ground for any propaganda.
(c) Such a lease would be of more value to the lessee
because he would have a definite right to renewal
in the event of the Hong Kong Government having
power to grant the renewal, and it is likely that
long before the end of the term the lessee would
be able to estimate the probabilities of the
Hong Kong Government having this power.
(a) The Hong Kong Government would be saved from the
embarrassment of inquiries which might be
prompted by the form of lease recommended above,
and the danger of even verbal replies to such
inquiries would be avoided.
This proposal was rejected for the following reasons :
(1) The proposal would involve an admission in a
formal document that doubt exists as to whether
the Convention enables the Hong Kong Government
to grant leases extending beyond the period
contemplated by the Convention.
(2) It would also involve a dangerous admission in a
formal document that renewal of the lease of the
New Territories is doubtful.
The renewal is
of course an open question but is seems desirable
to avoid any formal admission that it is so.
(3) It is true that the lessee would be given a
conditional right to renewal, but he would not for
many years to come be able to estimate in any way
the probability of the condition being fulfilled,
and the certain rights which he would receive
would be no greater than those which he would
receive under the proposal recommended above.
(4) The intending lessee would be just as likely to
make inquiries from the Government as to the prob-
ability of the condition being fulfilled as he
would be to make inquiries with regard to the prob-
ability of security of tenure during the "over-
lapping" portion of the term granted under the
scheme recommended.
(Signed) J.H. Kemp, Attorney General.
(Signed) Philip Jacks,
Land Officer.
(Signed) F. Eaves, Assistant Land Officer.