Honourable Colonial Secretary,
When I said that I regarded the term "where" including the shore to high-water mark, I was thinking generally of the jurisdiction of His Excellency as Vice-Admiral of the Colony, which by common law and statute law extends over the shore within the flow of the sea.
2. The salt-shore belongs to the salt-sea. A grant of the waters must include everything which appertains to the shore, that is to say, it must include the right of anchorage whether in the bed of the sea or on shore within the flow of the sea. If no bounds are named in the grant of the waters, the grant would be held to include the soil.
3. The preamble of the Convention of 9th June, 1893, recites that it has for many years past been recognised that an extension of Hongkong territory is necessary for the proper defence and protection of the Colony, and the clause relating to the extension of the waters of the Colony is "The area leased by Great Britain as shown on the annexed map includes the waters of Mirs Bay and Deep Bay."
4. The waters of Mirs Bay and Deep Bay are, therefore, included in the extension of Hongkong as an area and (from the wording of the preamble) a territorial area.
5. Be that as it may. These Bays are within the flow of the sea, and, if there is no exception to the grant of the waters, Admiralty jurisdiction would extend to high water mark and thus include all the shore within the flow of the sea.
6. Admiralty jurisdiction extends to wreckage, and if a wreck should take place, say, on the northern coast of Mirs Bay, it would be extremely awkward if the jurisdiction could be held to be limited to the edge of the water, for goods cast on shore would then be out of the jurisdiction and would be taken possession of by the Chinese who would loot or burn them. There is nothing, however, in the Convention which gives such limit, and a statutory definition...