222
in 1913 under the Registration of Chinese Ordinance was a further example of Government's imposing its will on what was originally a private commercial concern. It is even possible that the reason for Government's introduction of the annual subsidy of $2,000 to augment the fees collected from the merchants was not entirely altruistic since this provided an additional area of Government control, albeit one which was camouflaged as generosity. What was awarded could also be taken away.
However, it should not be thought that the District Watch Committee was a mere rubber stamp and exerted no influence of its own. We need only consider the correspondence between Claud Severn and the Home Government in 1922 to see how seriously, in later years, this Committee was regarded by seasoned Hong Kong administrators.
Another reason why the District Watch Force is important is because it provided a precedent. Some of the Chinese merchants, notably those who founded the Nam Pak Hong, undoubtedly used the District Watch Force as a blueprint for the establishment of the Nam Pak Hong's own security force in 1868. Cynics may say that civil servants cherish precedents since they provide an escape clause should things go wrong. Thus, it may be argued that the Hong Kong Government would have relished the precedent of official control over the District Watch force since this provided the Government with a ready-made vehicle for controlling the private security men who worked as detectives in the Tung Wah Hospital and the Po Leung Kuk.28 Finally, it must never be forgotten that the Hong Kong Government depended on the Chinese merchants for the prosperity of the colony. It was through their work and their taxes that Hong Kong flourished. The Government could not afford to alienate this group of people and it is possible that the need for their continued goodwill was considered by Governor MacDonnell when he agreed to the creation of the scheme in 1866.29