Page
ugust 5, 1899.
the Government of Empire of China for a lease instead of a concession, necessitates the more restrained signification.
10. That the rights and powers and jurisdic. tion conferred upou Her Majesty by the said Convention are powers to be exercised within a foreign country, that is, within the dominions of His Majesty the Emperor of China.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE KEPORT
ނ .
109
Colonies your contention that Her Majesty has | IMPORTANT SALE OF PROPERTY. no power to make laws for the New Territory, and that a reply has been received from the On 27th July Messrs. Hughes and. Hongh Secretary of State to the effect that he is ad commenced the sale by public anction, at their vised by the Law Officers of the Crown that auction rooms, Ic house Lane, of 49 lots of your conteution cannot be supported. have leasehold property belonging to Mr. Ho Tung. the honour to be, sir, your most obedient ser- There was a large attendance, including about vant,
50 of the wealthiest Chinamen in the city.
· J. H. STEWARt Lockhart, Twenty-five lots were disposed of—from one to Colonial Secretary. 24 (inclusive) and 38. The following are the
11. That anch powers can only be exercised by Her Majesty, under the authority of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890 (53-54 Victoria J. J. Francis, Esq., Q.C. Chap. 87).
That it is only by virtue of the provi sions of that Act Her Majesty can confer upon any Court in any British possession any juris. diction which Her Majesty may lawfully have in any foreign country, and it has been deter- mined by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Conncil in the case of the Imperial Japanese Government versus the P. & O. Company, re- ported in the Law Reports, Appeal Cases 1895, that no Order-in-Council can confer on any British Court any jurisdiction other than what had boon acquired by Her Majesty by Treaty,.
13. That the Order-in-Council of the 20th day of October last purporting to put in force in the New Territory all Laws and Ordinances in force on a certain date in the Colony of Hongkong to try and punish all offences against the laws of Hongkong committed in the said New Territory after a certain date assumes á jurisdiction not conferred upon Her Ma- jesty by the Convention of the 9th June, 1898, and in so far is inoperative and null and void and purports to confer a jurisdiction which Her Majesty did not possess.
14.That at the date of the said Convention His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China did not possess in the said New Territories any jurisdiction whatever over (beyond the right to arrest) any subject of any nation-European or American committing any offence within the said territories. He had by Treaty ceded all his jurisdiction over such foreigners, except as aforesaid, to their respective Governments.
Your Petitioner humbly submits, in con- clusion, that the power to alter the laws in the New Territories is nowhere expressly conceded to Her Majesty by the Conven- tion of the 9th Jane, 1898; that such jurisdiction is nowhere impliedly conceded; that the jurisdiction conceded to Her said Majesty by the said Convention is only a power to administer the law and exercise the ordinary powers of Government. other than legislative, in the New Territories and must be consistent with the nature of the concession, a lease for a limited, period of years; that a power to wholly abrograte all. Chinese law and introduce English law into the New Territory is wholly inconsistent with the existence of mere leasehold interest; that it is impossible that the Emperor, of China could have intended to confer plenary legislative and judicial powers on the English Government and Courts as he had already granted away to other Powers all his powers legislative and judicial-over their respective subjects; that Her Majesty cannot by Her Orders in Council confer upon Her Governors and Courts powers in excess of those conferred on Her by the Convention of the 9th June, 1898; and that the trial and condemna tion of the said Tang Tsing Sz and Cheong Ting on the 5th July last are and ought to be held to be null and void and of no effect.
Your petitioner therefore humbly prays- I―That Your Excellency will not give effect to the sentence of the said Supreme Court on the said Tsang Tsing Sz and Cheong Ting, bat will reprieve the prisoners and will refer the question of the legality, or otherwise of the sentence pronounced against them to Her Majesty's Government under the provisions of section 407 of the rules and regulations for Her Majesty's Colonial Service..........
And your petitioner as in duty bound will ever pray, &c, &c.
No. 1180.
JNO. J. FRANCIS.
4, Praya Central, Victoria,
Hongkong, 22nd July, 1899.
Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge re- ceipt of your letter No. 1180 of the 21st inst. It came to hand last evening too late to reply to it.
Colonial Secretary's Office,
Hongkong, 21st July, 1899, Sir, In answer to your letter of the 10th nstant · enclosing a Petition by yon to His Excellency the Governor, for the reprieve of Tang Tsing Sz,and Chenng Tin, I am directed inform you that His Excellency submitted telegraph to the Secretary of State for the
details:-
Lot 1-No. 325, Queen's Road West aree 778
square feet; annual crown rent. $6.09 purchaser, Mr. Un Ti Chuen; price $4,050. Lot 2-No. 323, Queen's Road West;.ares 740 square feet, annual, crown rent: 25.80;
Lot 3-No. 321, Queen's Road West, ares purchaser Mr. Ip Chun Kam; price $4,050.
I deeply regret that in a matter of such im- portance, affecting the lives of the two Chinese under sentence of death, and the rights and liberties of so many other of the inhabitants of the New Territories, His Excellency the Go-Lot vernor has thought fit to submit the difficult questions of law raised by my petition by tele. graph instead of by the ordinary course of post.
of State in its entirety it would be almost im- Unless my petition was wired to the Secretary possible for him to submit a case for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in such a which it would be safe to act. form as to elicit a really sound opinion on the petition was likely to raise the precise point. No summary of If I were to judge of the character of the submitted for the opinion of the Law Officers message sent by His Excellency and of the case from the statements in the letter now under reply I should say that the point had been entirely missed. I have never contended that the New Territory. If I had so contended the Her Majesty had no power to make laws for
Law Officers of the Crown would be quite right in their opinion that such a contention could not be supported.
Her Majesty has undoubted power to make laws for the New Territory, laws regulating such matters as Police, Sanitation, &c., &c. Her Majesty has undoubted power to make laws constituting Courts both Civil and Crim- minal and defining and regulating the jurisdic tion of Her Courts and Magistrates. Her Majesty has power to make all laws that are not inconsistent with the fact that the New Territory is only held under lease.
My contention is set forth very clearly in the 3rd and 4th paras. of my petition. All the other paras, are by way of argument in support. I there say that the Order in Council of the 20th October last is null and void ‘and of no effect in so far as it directs all laws and ordin- ances then in force in Hongkong to take effect in the New Territories.
Under the circumstances I again respectfully urge that the men now awaiting execution should be reprieved until the whole case in their favour bas been submitted in adequate form to the Law Officers of the Crown and to the Privy Connoil. I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant,
JNO. J. FRANCIS. › The Hon. J. H. Stewart Lockhart, C.M.G.,
Colonial Secretary.
EXECUTION AT VICTORIA GAOL.
At Victoria Gaol at six o'clock on Monday morning Tang Tsing Sz and Cheung Tin, who had been sentenced to death for the murder of Tang Cheung at Un Loong last April, were executed in the presence of Hon. F. H. May, Superintendent of the Gaol; Mr. R. H. Craig, Assistant Superintendent; Dr. J. C. Thomson ; Chief Warder Pierrepoint, and the usual escort of prison warders. One of the warders acted as executioner. Death was instantaneous in both cases. A formal inquest was held in the afternoon by Mr. H. Gompertz, Aeting Police Magistrate, with Messrs. J. C. Peter, A. H. Skelton, and W. A. Stopani as jurors. Dr. Thomson said he had made an examination of the bodies, and in his opinion death was due to dislocation of the neck in both cases. Aver: dict in accordance with the medical testimony
was returned.
744 square feet; annual brown rent 85.82; purchaser Mr. Un Li Chuen, price 24,000. Lot 4-No. 319, Queen's Road West; ares 736 square feet; anunal crown rent $5.77; purchaser Mr. Un Li Chuen price-$4,000. 5.-No. 317, Queen's Road West, aron d
feet; annual crown rent $5.80.; square 6.-No. 315, Queen's Road West, ares 744 purchaser Mr. Kwok Tan, price $4.000.
square feet; annual crown rent $5.82.; purchaser Mr. Li Pan Kwai; price $4,000. 7.-No. 313, Queen's Road West; area 744 square feet; annual grown rent $5.82. purchaser Mr. Ip Chung Kan; price $4,100. Lot 8.—No 311. Queen's Road West; area 744
Lot
Lot
square feet, annual crown rent $5,82; purchaser Mr. Ip Chung Kan; price $4,100. Lot 9.-No. 309, Queen's Road West, area 744 square feet; annual crown rent $5.82; purchaser Mr. Yung Ping, price $4100. 10-No. 307, Queen's Road West; area 744 square feet; sangal crown rent. $5.82; 11.No. 305, Queen's Road Westy area 744 purchaser Mr. p. Chung Kau; price $4,150.
Lot
Lot
square feet, annual crown rent $5,82; purchaser Mr. Yung Ping; price, $4,450. Lot 12-No. 303, Queen's Road West, area 744
square feet; annual crown rent $5.82, Lot 13.-No. 301, Queen's Road West; area 744
purchaser Mr. Kwok Tan; price $ 5,000.
Lot
square feet, annual crown rent, 35.82, 14 No. 299. Queen's, Road West; area 783 purchaser Mr. Mok Li Tang; price $5,550.
equare feet; annual crown rent 86.16, purchaser Mr. Ip Chan Kas, price $8.900. The above 14 lots forming the whole of in- land lot No. 1,273 are held from the Crown for the residue of a term of 999 years., r Lot 15.-No. 173, Prays West; area 7703 square feet; annual crown rent $6.14; parchaser Mr. Wai Tun Shek, price $6,200. Lot 16.-No. 174, Praya West area 738 square
J
feet; annual crown rent 85.87, purchaser Mr. Li Pan Kwai; price $6 200... Lot 17.-No. 175, Praya West; area 734 square feet; annual erown rent 85.85; purchaser Mr. Un Li Chuen; price $6,300, Lot 18.-No. 176, Praya West; area 7708
square feet; annual crown rent 86.15; purchaser Mr. Un Li Chuen, price $7,050. The last mentioned 4 Lots forming the whole
of Inland Lot No. 1,279 are held from the Crown for the residue of a term of 999 years. Lot 19-Nos. 347, 349, 351, and 953. Queen's
Road West, with 2 basements Nos. 7 and 8 in a lane off Ki Ling Lane; ares 4,712 square feet, annual crown rent $37.25- purchaser 17,850.
Hongkong Land Investment Co., price Lot 20—Nos. 341, 343, and 345, Queen's Road West, and No. 1, Al Fung Lane, and basements Nos. 4, 5 and 6, în à langk Ling Lane ; area 4,390 square feet; «hnusl crown rent £35.97; purchaser, Hongkong Land Investment; price, $13,800“ 21-Nos, 335, 337. and 339, Queen's Road
Lot
a on Ki
West, and one house in the rear un- and basements: ares: 4,304 square annual crown rent $34.67*!
“parths! Ho Tang (for a friend); price $16,700 The last mentioned 3 lots forming the "hole of inland lot No. 1,270 are held from the Crown for the residue of a term of 999 years. Lot 22, No. 30, Cross Street, Wänch
616 square feet, annual crown rent purchaser Mr. Chan Chil Tau $4,100. Lot 23, No. 28, Cross Street,
feet; annual crown rent $9.12; pur Mr. Chan Chik Tang; price $3,400.
L