CO129-297 - Governor Sir Blake - 1900 [1-3] — Page 164

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

162

Sz were burned by the soldiers on April 21. We cannot, of course, believe that the houses were burned and the money contribution levied because of the murder, so we must conjecture that these punishments were awarded because of the armed resistance to the British occupation. But we regard it as extremely unfortunate that any room for doubt should be left in the minds of the people of the New Territory as to the offences against British law that brought on this punishment. There is also this difficulty about the monetary levy. If it were in

the nature of a fine, why was it not paid into Court in the usual way? But if, as the natives allege, it was compensation to the murdered man's relatives, under what British law was it levied, and by whose authority? Even Chinese villagers do not rise in armed opposition, or, at a meeting of village elders, decide to kill men deliberately, without some motive,

and the most obvious motive in this matter was that their fears had been worked upon to such an extent that they believed their tenure of the land would be disturbed unjustly, and the effect of these fears on any Chinese rural community is similar in poking a stick into a wasp's nest. That these fears are not removed, the attack upon Mr Danby's party quite recently is sufficient proof. It may be that land jobbers and speculators are at the bottom of the trouble, but if so, it

was and is clearly the duty of Her Majesty's administrators to disabuse these people of their erroneous impressions and to remove their fears, just as much as it is the duty of the Government to put down disorder and to punish murderers. However much we may disagree with Sir Henry Blake's general policy in regard to the New Territory because it is impossible to say how far he is responsible for that policy,

as we are given to understand that he is enacting the role of the parliamentary "sand-bag" yet we must give him credit for his latest attempt to enlighten the inhabitants on their relation to the British Crown. Had he done so in the first instance, instead of making his ridiculous pilgrimage to Canton, he

Edit History

2026-05-31 17:14:22 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
162 Sz were burned by the soldiers on April 21. We cannot, of course, believe that the houses were burned and the money contribution levied because of the murder, so we must conjecture that these punishments were awarded because of the armed resistance to the British occupation. But we regard it as extremely unfortunate that any room for doubt should be left in the minds of the people of the New Territory as to the offences against British law that brought on this punishment. There is also this difficulty about the monetary levy. If it were in the nature of a fine, why was it not paid into Court in the usual way? But if, as the natives allege, it was compensation to the murdered man's relatives, under what British law was it levied, and by whose authority? Even Chinese villagers do not rise in armed opposition, or, at a meeting of village elders, decide to kill men deliberately, without some motive, and the most obvious motive in this matter was that their fears had been worked upon to such an extent that they believed their tenure of the land would be disturbed unjustly, and the effect of these fears on any Chinese rural community is similar in poking a stick into a wasp's nest. That these fears are not removed, the attack upon Mr Danby's party quite recently is sufficient proof. It may be that land jobbers and speculators are at the bottom of the trouble, but if so, it was and is clearly the duty of Her Majesty's administrators to disabuse these people of their erroneous impressions and to remove their fears, just as much as it is the duty of the Government to put down disorder and to punish murderers. However much we may disagree with Sir Henry Blake's general policy in regard to the New Territory because it is impossible to say how far he is responsible for that policy, as we are given to understand that he is enacting the role of the parliamentary "sand-bag" yet we must give him credit for his latest attempt to enlighten the inhabitants on their relation to the British Crown. Had he done so in the first instance, instead of making his ridiculous pilgrimage to Canton, he
Baseline (Original)
19. 162 Sz were burned by the soldiers on April 21. We cannot, of course, believe that the houses were burned and the money con- tribution levied because of the murder, so we must conjecture that these punishments were awarded because of the armed re- sistance to the British occupation. But we regard it as ex- tremely unfortunate that any room for doubt should be left in the minds of the poeple of the New Territory as to the offences against British law that brought on this punishment. There is also this difficulty about the monetary levy. If it were in the nature of a fine, why was it not paid into Court in the usual way? But if, as the natives allege, it was compensation to the murdered man's relatives, under what British law was it levied, and by whose authority? Even Chinese villagers do not rise in armed opposition, or, at a meeting of village el- ders, decide to kill men deliberately, without some motive, and the most obvious motive in this matter was that their fears had been worked upon to such an extent that they be- lieved their tenure of the land would be disturbed unjustly, and the effect of these fears on any Chinese rural community is similar in poking a stick into a wasp's nest. That these fears are not removed, the attack upon Mr Danby's party quite recently is sufficient proof. It may be that land jobbers and speculators are at the bottom of the trouble, but if so, it was and is clearly the duty of Her Majesty's administrators to disabuse these people of their erroneous impressions and to remove their fears, just as much as it is the duty of the Government to put down disorder and to punish murderers. However much we may disagree with Sir Henry Blake's general policy in regard to the New Territory because it is impossible to say how far he is responsible for that policy, as we are given to understand that he is enacting the role of the parliamentary "sand-bag" yet we must give him credit for his latest attempt to enlighten the inhabitants on their re- lation to the British Crown. Had he done so in the first in- stance, instead of making his ridiculous pilgrimage to Canton, he
2026-05-31 17:14:22 · Baseline
View content

19.

162

Sz were burned by the soldiers on April 21. We cannot, of course, believe that the houses were burned and the money con- tribution levied because of the murder, so we must conjecture that these punishments were awarded because of the armed re- sistance to the British occupation. But we regard it as ex- tremely unfortunate that any room for doubt should be left in the minds of the poeple of the New Territory as to the offences against British law that brought on this punishment. There is also this difficulty about the monetary levy. If it were in

the nature of a fine, why was it not paid into Court in the

usual way? But if, as the natives allege, it was compensation

to the murdered man's relatives, under what British law was

it levied, and by whose authority? Even Chinese villagers do

not rise in armed opposition, or, at a meeting of village el- ders, decide to kill men deliberately, without some motive,

and the most obvious motive in this matter was that their

fears had been worked upon to such an extent that they be-

lieved their tenure of the land would be disturbed unjustly,

and the effect of these fears on any Chinese rural community

is similar in poking a stick into a wasp's nest. That these

fears are not removed, the attack upon Mr Danby's party quite

recently is sufficient proof. It may be that land jobbers and

speculators are at the bottom of the trouble, but if so, it

was and is clearly the duty of Her Majesty's administrators

to disabuse these people of their erroneous impressions and

to remove their fears, just as much as it is the duty of the

Government to put down disorder and to punish murderers.

However much we may disagree with Sir Henry Blake's

general policy in regard to the New Territory because it is

impossible to say how far he is responsible for that policy,

as we are given to understand that he is enacting the role of

the parliamentary "sand-bag" yet we must give him credit for

his latest attempt to enlighten the inhabitants on their re-

lation to the British Crown. Had he done so in the first in-

stance, instead of making his ridiculous pilgrimage to Canton,

he

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.