CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12] — Page 58

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

Enclosure

55

13 JAN

Honourable Acting Attorney General,

Can any part of the shores of Mirs Bay be regarded as within our territory? By the convention the waters are ours.

Do the waters include the foreshore, and if so, to what distance? To high water mark or further?

(Signed) J.H.Stewart Lockhart.

Colonial Secretary.

22-7-99.

Honourable Colonial Secretary.

This is a difficult question to answer, because the circumstances are so anomalous that one can find no legal authority upon the subject, which would serve as a reliable guide.

By the common law of England, the Crown has a right to the foreshore round England, i.e. up to the high water mark of medium tides. (see the cases of A.G. v. Chambers 4 D.M. and G. 206 and per Lord Herschell in A.G. v. Emerson 1891 App. Cas. p. 653).

The circumstances, however, of the present case are so different, that I think different considerations apply.

In this case Great Britain can claim no greater rights than those conferred upon her by treaty, and I am of opinion that

Edit History

2026-05-31 08:47:09 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
Enclosure 55 13 JAN Honourable Acting Attorney General, Can any part of the shores of Mirs Bay be regarded as within our territory? By the convention the waters are ours. Do the waters include the foreshore, and if so, to what distance? To high water mark or further? (Signed) J.H.Stewart Lockhart. Colonial Secretary. 22-7-99. Honourable Colonial Secretary. This is a difficult question to answer, because the circumstances are so anomalous that one can find no legal authority upon the subject, which would serve as a reliable guide. By the common law of England, the Crown has a right to the foreshore round England, i.e. up to the high water mark of medium tides. (see the cases of A.G. v. Chambers 4 D.M. and G. 206 and per Lord Herschell in A.G. v. Emerson 1891 App. Cas. p. 653). The circumstances, however, of the present case are so different, that I think different considerations apply. In this case Great Britain can claim no greater rights than those conferred upon her by treaty, and I am of opinion that
Baseline (Original)
COPY. Enclosure 55 13 JAN Honourable Acting Attorney General, Can any part of the shores of Mirs Bay be regarded as within our territory?. By the convention the waters are ours. Do the waters include the foreshore, and if so, to what distance? To high water mark or further ? (Signed) J.H.Stewart Lockhart. Colonial Secretary. 22-7-99. Honourable Colonial Secretary. This is a difficult question to answer, because the circumstances are so anomalous that one can find no legal au- thority upon the subject, which would serve as a reliable guide. By the common law of England, the Crown has a right to the foreshore round England, i.e. up to the high water mark of medium tides. ( see the cases of A.0. v. Chambers 4 D.M.and S. 206 and per Lord Herschell in A.G. v. Îmerson 1891 app. Cos. er p. 653). at The circumstances, however, of the present case are so different, that I think different considerations apply. In this case Great Britain can claim no greater rights than those conferred upon her by reaty, and I am of opinion that }
2026-05-31 08:47:09 · Baseline
View content

COPY.

Enclosure

55

13 JAN

Honourable Acting Attorney General,

Can any part of the shores of Mirs Bay be regarded

as within our territory?. By the convention the waters are ours.

Do the waters include the foreshore, and if so, to what distance?

To high water mark or further ?

(Signed) J.H.Stewart Lockhart.

Colonial Secretary.

22-7-99.

Honourable Colonial Secretary.

This is a difficult question to answer, because the

circumstances are so anomalous that one can find no legal au-

thority upon the subject, which would serve as a reliable guide.

By the common law of England, the Crown has a right

to the foreshore round England, i.e. up to the high water mark

of medium tides. ( see the cases of A.0. v. Chambers 4 D.M.and

S. 206 and per Lord Herschell in A.G. v. Îmerson 1891 app. Cos.

er p. 653).

at

The circumstances, however, of the present case are

so different, that I think different considerations apply.

In this case Great Britain can claim no greater rights

than those conferred upon her by reaty, and I am of opinion

that

}

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.