Hong Kong New Territories (Britain, Chinese, origin, years)

[juppiter]

I have always wondered why Britian only requested a 99-year lease on the New Territories. They had previously gained perpetual control of Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula from Qing China. Why, all of a sudden, when they wanted to expand their territory in 1898, did they only seek a 99-year lease? What had changed? Obviously, they were arrogant enough to assume that in 99 years they would still be superior to Qing China and would be able to extend it. But what happened? Did Qing China suddenly become a difficult negotiator that refused to another perpetual lease? Did Britain do this to save face on the world stage?

I was 9 when Britain transferred administration of Hong Kong to China, and this question has been on my mind ever since.

[jobseeker2013]

My wife and I are visiting Hong Kong shortly. What I have read about is that the British casually gave 99 years because of legal tradition with that number being the maximum longevity of leases.

At the time, they never really thought they would have to give it back. HK was only on the perpetual lease. The rest of the territories were not.

[juppiter]

I just wish there was more information on the internet about this. I get the UK thought they'd never have to give it back, but why even risk it?

[Kingofturtles]

My understanding of the origin of the 99-year lease was that it had its basis in common law. Typically, the 99 year lease was symbolic, as it would last beyond the life of both the lesser and the lessee, at which point the lease could be reviewed and extended.

I believe Thatcher fully intended to retain Hong Kong, citing several binding treaties that the UK signed with China in the past, but the Chinese would have none of it. It is very possible that when negotiating the treaty in the past, the British simply figured that they would be able to pressure the Chinese into extending the lease, and since the global environment had shifted since the lease began, the British really had no choice.

[juppiter]

Originally Posted by Kingofturtles

My understanding of the origin of the 99-year lease was that it had its basis in common law. Typically, the 99 year lease was symbolic, as it would last beyond the life of both the lesser and the lessee, at which point the lease could be reviewed and extended.

I believe Thatcher fully intended to retain Hong Kong, citing several binding treaties that the UK signed with China in the past, but the Chinese would have none of it. It is very possible that when negotiating the treaty in the past, the British simply figured that they would be able to pressure the Chinese into extending the lease, and since the global environment had shifted since the lease began, the British really had no choice.

Definitely. The thing is, she had nothing they wanted, and it would have been very difficult to return ONLY the New Territories.

[tpk-nyc]

It wasn’t a casual omission or an arrogant assumption that they could always acquire the rights latter. The British didn’t have as strong a bargaining position in 1898 as they did in 1842 or 1860. The concessions of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were demands in peace treaties. The 1898 lease was a “request,” not an spoil of war. They wanted the New Territories in perpetuity, and tried several times to secure them after the fact, but they never had the leverage to get China to agree.

[GwendolynChen]

The Hong Kong Island lease had not expired in 1997, Jiulong and Xinjie had. However freshwater is supplied to Hong Kong Island from mainland China through Jiulong and Xinjie. Deng Xiaoping threatened to cut if off if Hong Kong Island was not returned as well.