CO129-115 - Sir MacDonnell - 1866 [9-10] — Page 231

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

230

3. Marine Miles of the shores of the Island,

2.

Mr Pauncefote having furnished me with the papers and his opinion on the subject, I enclosed transmit it because Mr. Pauncefote holds that in the narrow waters British Jurisdiction only goes to the centre where it is met by Chinese jurisdiction - each exclusive of and excluding the other.

3.

I am not convinced by the arguments advanced by Mr Pauncefote in applying to Narrow Seas the rules adopted in the case of rivers - viz division of the river by a line running down the middle of the channel. That is a necessary rule followed, I believe, as a corollary from the direct ownership of the soil in the bed of the river by the proprietors of each bank. Whereas, though a partial right to the soil of the Sea is occasionally asserted in Pearl and Oyster fisheries - it is of a nature totally different, because ownership of the beach conveys no right over the soil beyond low water mark.

4.

It would be very injurious to this Colony to limit the jurisdiction of its Courts to the line which Mr Pauncefote would draw - and if it be decided that his interpretation of the law be correct, I trust some arrangement may be made with the Chinese Government for

Edit History

2026-05-19 11:46:31 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
230 3. Marine Miles of the shores of the Island, 2. Mr Pauncefote having furnished me with the papers and his opinion on the subject, I enclosed transmit it because Mr. Pauncefote holds that in the narrow waters British Jurisdiction only goes to the centre where it is met by Chinese jurisdiction - each exclusive of and excluding the other. 3. I am not convinced by the arguments advanced by Mr Pauncefote in applying to Narrow Seas the rules adopted in the case of rivers - viz division of the river by a line running down the middle of the channel. That is a necessary rule followed, I believe, as a corollary from the direct ownership of the soil in the bed of the river by the proprietors of each bank. Whereas, though a partial right to the soil of the Sea is occasionally asserted in Pearl and Oyster fisheries - it is of a nature totally different, because ownership of the beach conveys no right over the soil beyond low water mark. 4. It would be very injurious to this Colony to limit the jurisdiction of its Courts to the line which Mr Pauncefote would draw - and if it be decided that his interpretation of the law be correct, I trust some arrangement may be made with the Chinese Government for
Baseline (Original)
230 3. Marine Miles of the shores of the Island, 2. Mr Pauncefote having fiercesed. these papers has favored. rw the subject, me with the and I enclosed opinion transmit it because Mr. Pauncefole holds that in the narrows waters ~ British Incisdiction only goes to tho- centre where it is met by Chinese jmisdiction- each exclusive of and excluding the other. 3. I am not convinced arguments by the advanced by cllr Pauncefote In applying to Nauno Seas the riles adopted in the case of rivers - vizs division of the river by a a line running down the middle of the channel. That a n али necessary rule followed I believe as a Corollary from the direct ownership of the Soil in the bed of the river by the perprietors of each bank. Whereas, though a partial right to the sail of the Sea is occasionally asserted in Pearl and Oyster fisheries- it is of a nature totally different, because ownership of the beach over the Soil beyond Conveys mo right low water mark.. 나. It would be this Colmy to very injurious to limit the jurisdiction of it's Courts to the line which Im Panneefoli would draw - and if it be decided that his interpretation of the law be correct, I trust some arrangement may be Made with the Chinese Government for
2026-05-19 11:46:31 · Baseline
View content

230

3. Marine Miles of the shores of the

Island,

2.

Mr Pauncefote having fiercesed.

these papers has favored.

rw

the subject,

me with the

and I

enclosed opinion transmit it because Mr. Pauncefole

holds that in the narrows waters ~

British Incisdiction only goes to tho- centre where it is met by Chinese jmisdiction- each exclusive of and excluding the other.

3.

I am not convinced

arguments

by

the

advanced by cllr Pauncefote

In applying to Nauno Seas the riles

adopted in the case of rivers - vizs

division of the river

by

a

a line running

down the middle of the channel. That

a n

али

necessary

rule followed I believe as a Corollary from the direct ownership of the Soil in the bed of the river by the perprietors of each bank. Whereas, though a partial right to the sail of the Sea is occasionally asserted in Pearl and Oyster fisheries- it is of a nature totally different, because ownership of the beach

over the Soil beyond

Conveys

mo

right

low water mark..

나.

It would be

this Colmy

to

very injurious to limit the jurisdiction of

it's Courts to the line which Im Panneefoli

would draw - and if it be decided that his interpretation of the law be correct, I trust some arrangement may be Made with the Chinese Government for

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.