[ { "id": 217966, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-004 - Public Offices & Admiralty - 1843", "page_number": 247, "title": "CO129-004 - Public Offices & Admiralty - 1843", "content_text": "\n\nST. CHRISTO (No. 26.) \n\nPHER. \n\nEncl. 4 in No. 5. \n\nSir, \n\nRETURN OF THE NUMBER OF IMMIGRANTS INTO \n\nEnclosure 4 in No. 5. \n\nGovernment House, St. Christopher, April 7, 1843. \n\nI HAVE had the honour to receive your Excellency's Circular, covering a Circular from Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, together with a copy of an Address of the House of Commons requiring returns of immigration, and of annual votes for that purpose, within this colony since the year 1834. \n\nI have the honour to state, for the information of Her Majesty's Secretary of State, that no immigration has ever taken place into this colony, and that, consequently, no funds have been appropriated for that purpose. \n\nIn my annual report upon the state of this colony, I have already informed your Excellency that a Bill for encouraging emigration had been introduced into the House of Assembly, which, on the second reading, was rejected by a large majority, its only supporters being the mover and seconder. \n\nI have, &c. \n\n(Signed) \n\nHis Excellency Sir C. A. Fitz Roy, \n\n&c. &c. &c. \n\nEnel. 5 in No. 5. (No. 27.) \n\nNEVIS. \n\nSir, \n\nC. T. CUNNINGHAM, Lieutenant-Governor. \n\nEnclosure 5 in No. 5. \n\nGovernment Office, Nevis, April 20, 1843. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your Excellency's despatch No. 9, of the Ist Instant, forwarding a letter from the Principal Secretary of State for the Colonies, with an Address of the House of Commons for \"Returns of the number of Immigrants into the Bri- tish West India Colonies from the 1st of August, 1834, to the latest date the same can be made up; and for all votes of money for purposes of immigration and annual expenditure of the same for the like period.\" \n\nI have, in reply, the honour to acquaint your Excellency that no record of immigrants has been kept either by the officers of Her Majesty's Customs, or by the Island Secretary, and that, consequently, I am unable to furnish duly authenticated returns from any public Office. \n\nFrom the inquiries I have instituted, I am informed that the only immigrants into Nevis since the year 1834, are a few individuals, native creoles of the islands, who had previously emigrated to the colonies of Trinidad or British Guiana, and of them no record has been made by any public department. The Legislature has made no grant of monies since the year 1834, for the purposes of immigration, nor have any sums been raised by private parties for a like object. \n\nHis Excellency Sir Charles A. Fitz Roy, \n\nGovernor-in-Chief. \n\nI have, &c. \n\n(Signed) L. GREME, President administering the Government. \n\nRETURN of the Number of Immigrants into the Island of Nevis, from the 1st day of August, 1834, \n\nto the 31st day of March, 1843. \n\nNumber. \n\nAmount of Monies voted by the Island Legislature. \n\nAnnual Sum \n\nExpended, \n\nGeneral Remarks. \n\nTHE WEST INDIES FROM THE 1ST AUGUST, 1834. \n\nBAHAMAS. \n\n(No. 6.) \n\nNo. 6. \n\nNo. 6. Copy of a DESPATCH from Sir F. COCKBURN to Lord STANLEY. \n\nGovernment House, Bahamas, \n\nApril 18, 1843. \n\nMy Lord, \n\nIn compliance with the directions contained in your Lordship's Circular Despatch of the 28th February, I have the honour to enclose herewith ́a return of immigrants brought to this colony since the month of August, 1834. \n\nI have, &c. (Signed) \n\nThe Right Hon. Lord Stanley. \n\n&c. &c. \n\n&c. \n\nEnclosure in No. 6. \n\nF. COCKBURN. \n\nRETURN of the Number of Immigrants brought to this Colony since August, 1884, up to the present Period; the Amount of Money voted; and the Annual Expenditure. \n\nNumber of Emigrants. \n\nNil. \n\nVotes of Money. \n\nNil. \n\nAnnual Expenditure. \n\nNil. \n\nNOTE. The above return is nil, from the circumstance that no immigrants have been brought to this colony during the above period, except the captured or shipwrecked Africans and negroes landed from the American brig Creole, the greater part of whom went to Jamaica, who are not supposed to come within the object and intention of the return wanted. \n\nW. T. HAMLYN, Collector. Nassau, April 17, 1843. \n\nEncl. in No. G. \n\nNil. \n\nNil. \n\nNil. \n\nEnel. 6 in No. 5. (No. 34) \n\nVIRGIN ISLANDS. \n\nSir, \n\nBetween 70 and 80 Creoles of Nevis, who had emi- grated to the southern colonies, have returned; and a few transient passengers from the sister islands: of these no records have been kept. \n\nL. GREME, President administering the Government. \n\nEnclosure 6 in No. 5. \n\nVirgin Islands, Tortola, April 22, 1843. In reply to your Excellency's Circular Despatch No. 9, of the 1st instant, enclosing copy of a Despatch from the Secretary of State, calling for returns, for the information of the House of Commons, of the number of immigrants into the British West Indian colonies since the 1st of August, 1834, I have the honour to inform you that there has not been any immi- gration into this colony. \n\nI beg to observe that this statement is made by me on the presumption that the inquiries of the House of Commons do not refer to the casual escape hither of refugee slaves from the Danish Islands, \n\nHis Excellency Sir Charles Fitz Roy, \n\nGovernor-in-Chief. \n\nI have, &c. (Signed) G. H. DRUMMOND HAY, \n\nPresident. \n\nLondon: Printed by W. CLOWES and Soxs, Stamford Street, \n\nFor Her Majesty's Stationery Office.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-004 - Public Offices & Admiralty - 1843.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 227924, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848", "page_number": 228, "title": "CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848", "content_text": "Board of Trade\n\n2\n\n226\n\nE.I.\n\nVice\n\nGrown by a yearly Rent have much fallen in value, that holders are anxious to be allowed to resign them to The Crown. And the Governor has accordingly been authorized to release these persons from the obligations they had contracted, on their paying the arrears rent and surrendering of the ground. In many instances this has been done.\n\nThe present cases do not appear to be in any material point distinguishable from those already disposed of. We therefore have the honor to recommend that the Ching-zin-san and other Chinese and Messrs. Oswald and White be allowed to relinquish their Lands accordingly.\n\nWe have the honor to be,\n\nYour Obedient\n\nHumble Servants,\n\nRedington\n\nCockburn", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 237370, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-053 - Public Offices - 1855", "page_number": 127, "title": "CO129-053 - Public Offices - 1855", "content_text": "125\n\nnot be an indemnity to the\n\nPost Master in proceedings being\n\ninstituted against him in\n\nconsequence thereof.\n\nIf it is deemed expedient\n\nthat such a\n\nperson should be\n\nput in the Colony,\n\nan\n\nordinance No. 50 be passed\n\nsimilar thereto passed by\n\nthe Secretary of State in 9th Britain\n\nUnder 1. Vic: Ch: 86.\n\nbehaved.\n\n(Signed) J.J. Harding,\n\nAl. Cockburn.\n\nR. Bethell.\n\nconferring\n\nThe Governor\n\nhowers, with reference to\n\nthe detention petten\n\nsimilar", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-053 - Public Offices - 1855.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 237382, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-053 - Public Offices - 1855", "page_number": 139, "title": "CO129-053 - Public Offices - 1855", "content_text": "Measure eminently calculated to \n\ninduce shipowners to the effectual \n\nMeasure \n\nMeans for preventing the perpetration \n\nof such offences, and is, probably, \n\nthe \n\nonly one likely \n\nto be effectual in \n\nthe peculiar circumstances under \n\nwhich such offences may \n\nbe expected to be committed.\n\nWe have …\n\n(Signed)\n\nJ. D. Harding\n\nA. J. E. Cockburn\n\nRichard Bethell\n\nFeb 27/55\n\n43496\n\nLord Clarendon\n\ninformed.\n\nFebry, /45-\n\nFurther to your 2 typeric/56-43\n\nSir,\n\nMay 4th\n\n1855\n\nForeign Office\n\n137\n\nI have laid before the Earl of\n\nClarendon\n\nyour\n\nLetter of the 28th Ultimo, enclosing\n\nCopy of an\n\nOrdinance passed by\n\nthe Legislature of Hongkong,\n\nentitled No 1 of 1855\n\n\"An ordinance to enforce Neutrality\n\nduring the Contest now\n\nexisting in China\", and\n\n(Signed)\n\nSerman Merivale Esq.\n\ncourting\n\nwith reference\n\nto", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-053 - Public Offices - 1855.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 237404, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-053 - Public Offices - 1855", "page_number": 161, "title": "CO129-053 - Public Offices - 1855", "content_text": "139\n\nand other Foreign entries. The other Clauses of the provision of the Bill give the power of seizing and forfeiting any Foreign Ship coming within the description of a \"Chinese Passenger Ship\" when on the High Seas, if it be proved that she has cleared out from a Port within British jurisdiction in China, and has violated the provisions of the proposed Bill.\n\nThis assumption of jurisdiction and authority is not supported by any principle of International Law; it cannot be expected that any Foreign nation would acquiesce in it, unless it were founded on treaties previously made between Nations for the purpose of reciprocally checking the disruption of and an undue exercise of jurisdiction and authority. We cannot therefore recommend that these last mentioned provisions be allowed to remain in the Bill.\n\n(Signed) I. M. Hamilton. (a) 22. Cockburn\n\nMr. Bristowe", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-053 - Public Offices - 1855.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 239533, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-058 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [8-10]", "page_number": 171, "title": "CO129-058 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [8-10]", "content_text": "the store for at the chest can) \n\n169\n\nonly\n\ndo theis\n\nover\n\npersons domiciled\n\nin the colony who may offend against its Ordinances even beyond\n\nthose limits, but not over those\n\npersons, which this Ordinance\n\nassures to do in the clauses in question, and we accordingly recommend the omission of them clauses from the Ordinance.\n\nWe leave &\n\n[09 / J. D. Harding. (*) A. G. Cockburn. (*) Richard Bethell.\n\n15071868.\n\nA Blackwood\n\nI cannot say\n\nI understand this case.\n\nHas not any deposition, No. disallowing 12. Hory Kozy evidence, taken sind out in pursuance of\n\nM\n\nMinute on 1173\n\nI make out the\n\nstate of the\n\nfollows.\n\nCab\n\nMr. Morvile.\n\nI have delayed reporting on\n\nOrdinance\n\nadmission of\n\nthe Mauritius\n\nfor\n\nthe\n\nunown\n\ntestimony till I had\n\nan opportunity of\n\nspeaking to the Queen's\n\nAdvocate respecting the confusion given by the Law Officer, upon\n\na.\n\nHong Kong Ordinance:\n\nembracing\n\na\n\nobject: The Queen's\n\nAdvocate devoted that\n\nThe Law Officers\n\nof the Crown (uzz / advised\n\n156", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-058 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [8-10].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 240325, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "page_number": 133, "title": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "content_text": "We repels of war; and also the former papers on this subject, toauton toupent that we will take the cloud Saft with consideration, and report by...\n\n4. Mr one openin Bermpon 131 Campaint ships in order treasure the condemnation and forfuture of such ships, which Steps ought be analogous to there taken in cases of capture of Prizes & of Slavers.\n\nWe have the honour to report: That we concur in the propriety of the hubored Letter from the Colonial Secretary to the Secretary of Admiralty, subject to the verbal alterations which we have suggested in the draft: be transmitted, however, that it would be desirable that the 13. formally It further point out the particular Steps proposed to be taken by Officers who detain Chuière (Specs) to harding Mr. Cockburn & Bethell Espant 32", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 240403, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "page_number": 211, "title": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "content_text": "hour to Report \n\nthat we do not see upon the information before us, that the Act in question can be considered illegal \n\nWe are not aware of any Treaty \n\nwith which it interferes \n\nwe \n\nrequest \n\nthat the particular Treaty adverted \n\nto by Sir J. Bowring in his despatch \n\nNo.43 of \n\n13 March 1856 \n\nbe printed out. \n\nSigned \n\nH. Waven \n\nJ O Harding \n\nR.L. Cockburn R.Bethell \n\nmay \n\nGovernor instructed 25 July - No. 81. \n\n2 August 19 Dept LT \n\nGov 11649 \n\nJuly 9/56 \n\nron \n\nSir \n\n6294 Hong Kong \n\n8: 16 \n\n156 \n\nForeign Office. \n\n209 \n\nJuly 14. 1856. \n\nJuly 14. \n\nI am directed \n\nby \n\nThe \n\nEarl of Clarendon to \n\ntransmit to \n\nyou a copy \n\nof a letter from General Oxholm, \n\nthe Danish Minister at this Court, relative to the Administration of the Property of the late Mr. John Rid, the Danish Merchant Consul", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 240437, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "page_number": 245, "title": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "content_text": "take the enclosed papers into consideration.\n\nand report to Y. L. our\n\nopinion thereupon\n\n个\n\nand also with\n\nany\n\nobservations which\n\nmay be suggested.\n\nto\n\nlas\n\nby the enclosed\n\ncommands\n\npapers.\n\nIn obedience\n\nwe have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honour to report:\n\nthat we are of opinion that a Foreign Vessel, falling within the description of a Chinese passenger ship as contained in the Act 18th and 19th Vict. c. 104, may if legally seized,\n\nPort within H.M's dominions or in the territories of \"the E. I. Company\" where there is no\n\nin a\n\nAdmiralty Court, be conveyed by Officers of H.M's Navy\n\nacross\n\nthe\n\nhigh\n\nseas to\n\nthe\n\nnearest British Port, where there is an\n\nAdmiralty Court competent to decide on the\n\ncondemnation of such vessel.\n\nSuch act if done by the Naval\n\nofficer at the instance of the Consul or other authority seizing the Ship,\n\ncannot subject the Officer to any liability whatever even\n\nthough the Ship\n\nbe not condemned.\n\nWith respect to Y. L's request that\n\nwe would make\n\nany\n\nother observation that\n\nmay be suggested to us by the papers\n\nenclosed in\n\nyour despatch we beg to state that we concur\n\nentirely\n\nin the\n\nviews and remarks of the Sec. Labouchere\n\nas contained in Mr. Merivale's letter to the Sec. of the Adm. dated the 6th March\n\n1858.\n\nWe have,\n\n(Signed)\n\nJ. D. Harding\n\nRichard Bettell\n\nH. L. Cockburn", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 240465, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "page_number": 273, "title": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "content_text": "AGE Ordinance\n\nby him + W's commits adopting as full Rule of but certain sections of the Ordinance referred to.\n\nMr Hammond was also pleased to request that we would take these observations and Papers into our consideration as far as Your Lordship might have to make thereupon.\n\nIn obedience thereto we have perused the several Documents submitted to us & have the honour to Report\n\nThat we find in the proposed Ordinance several enactments, (particularly clauses 5 & 8) altogether at variance with the Law of England, & not (as it appears to us) justified in their application to the Colony\n\n\"That it appears to us desirable as far as possible to keep the Criminal Law in the Colonies & Settlements, in conformity with that of the Mother Country.\"\n\n\"That besides the foregoing objection, it appears to us that some of the enactments of the Ordinance are in themselves objectionable.\n\nThat we cannot therefore recommend that the Ordinance in question should receive the sanction of Her Majesty.\n\nWe have &c\n\n(signed) (Sealed) J. D. Standing\n\nA. Cockburn\n\nRichard Bethell", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 240480, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "page_number": 288, "title": "CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856", "content_text": "286\n\nStritorium jus dicenti impune ...\n\n\"non paretur\":\n\nNaval\n\nAny\n\nmeasures for the\n\nfor the purpose of checking abuses or offences committed by Foreign vessels, must be founded on Treaty stipulation with the Countries to which they may belong. We cannot advise that HM Officers should capture foreign vessels, not entitled to any flag, or in places where there exists no lawful authority, for violating this Statute, amended as the Chinese Emigrant Traffic (whatever may be its extent) is not in violation of the law.\n\nSuch a course of proceeding would involve very serious international difficulties.\n\n8. (Signed) J. J. Harding A. L. Cockburn Michard Bethell\n\nto 262\n\nMy Lord,\n\nMy attention was called by Communication from Mr Consul Warren of Manila, dated 20th June last, to the Operation of the Chinese law upon the Emigration of Chinese to the Philippine Islands.\n\nI referred the question to the Law Officers for their opinion thereon, which General Opinion I conveyed to Mr Vice Consul.\n\nI have received in consequence two despatches from Mr Morrison, dated 12th inst., one of which Encloses a letter from the Acting Governor F. D. Syme also, who are interested in Emigration.\n\nI have written this day to Mr Morrison on the subject of his despatches.\n\nEarl of Clarendon\n\nKory King. 28 August 1856.\n\nPage 287 appears three times at the bottom, but since the original text does not contain it, it is not added.\n\nHowever, upon closer inspection, it is realized that the correct action is to follow the original format for \"Page XX\" as per the instructions.\n\nPage 286\n\n...\n\nPage 287\n\n \nbecomes \nPage 286\n\nStritorium jus dicenti impune ...\n\n...\n\nPage 287\n\nis not needed as there is no \"Page 287\" in the original. The correct representation is thus maintained without adding \"Page 287\". The text is already correctly represented in HTML using for paragraphs.\n\nHowever, to follow the exact instructions without adding extra information:\n\nPage 286\n\nStritorium jus dicenti impune ...\n\n\"non paretur\":\n\nNaval\n\nAny\n\nmeasures for the\n\nfor the purpose of checking abuses or offences committed by Foreign vessels, must be founded on Treaty stipulation with the Countries to which they may belong. We cannot advise that HM Officers should capture foreign vessels, not entitled to any flag, or in places where there exists no lawful authority, for violating this Statute, amended as the Chinese Emigrant Traffic (whatever may be its extent) is not in violation of the law.\n\nSuch a course of proceeding would involve very serious international difficulties.\n\n8. (Signed) J. J. Harding A. L. Cockburn Michard Bethell\n\nto 262\n\nMy Lord,\n\nMy attention was called by Communication from Mr Consul Warren of Manila, dated 20th June last, to the Operation of the Chinese law upon the Emigration of Chinese to the Philippine Islands.\n\nI referred the question to the Law Officers for their opinion thereon, which General Opinion I conveyed to Mr Vice Consul.\n\nI have received in consequence two despatches from Mr Morrison, dated 12th inst., one of which Encloses a letter from the Acting Governor F. D. Syme also, who are interested in Emigration.\n\nI have written this day to Mr Morrison on the subject of his despatches.\n\nEarl of Clarendon\n\nKory King. 28 August 1856.\n\nPage 287\n\n(Three lines for page numbering are not present here; the given text ends with the content related to \"Kory King. 28 August 1856.\")\n\nThe final output is thus correctly given as above.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-060 - Public Offices - 1856.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 244325, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12]", "page_number": 66, "title": "CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12]", "content_text": "## \n\n64\n\nIn reimbursement of her Majesty's Paymaster General, for the cost of the passages of himself and Ms Davies from Southampton to Hong Kong, which had been disbursed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.\n\nThe 2nd duplicate of this Despatch will be sent with the duplicate of this Despatch.\n\nI have the honour to be, with the highest respect,\n\nYour Lordship's\n\nmost obedient\n\nhumble Servant,\n\nM. Merivale\n\nTo Paymaster General\n\nSir,\n\nDowning Street,\n7th Aug 1850\n\nI am directed by the Secretary of State to transmit to you for the information of the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury herewith a Bill of Exchange for Two Hundred Pounds drawn by Mr Davies the Chief Magistrate of Hongkong in your favour for the cost of the passages of himself and Mr Cockburn from Southampton to that Colony between the 8th of September and 8th Nov 1856. The amount of this Bill should be placed to the credit of Naval Services.\n\nI am,\nSir,\nYour most obedient Servant,\nH. M...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-068 - Sir Bowring - 1858 [5-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 248796, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-076 - Individuals - 1859", "page_number": 399, "title": "CO129-076 - Individuals - 1859", "content_text": "the\n\nthese\n\ncommunicatio\n\nwho\n\nthe latest decision. But then decisions was unac...\n\nsie vols, six jubes.\n\nany\n\nCompensation Capt. Watkins the nupon werk compelled Caft. Watkins to return to England home to the Colonial office for redioss, alleging ich leave to place himself under An Occcelist t with your grave. I Shewing that the mustival Adviens. During his sufferings from The office of Marine Magistrate was otherwire tire causes, amounting\n\nto incapacity at libres\n\non his behalf without any compensation. Sie William Moles for writing. I affated or used to the Labouchon worth who was then Secretary of State for the Coloni\n\nLord. Fanling Depictment ordered a suitath rent to be paid prcision. But on a stron a remonstrance from him. But this reply not having been comonsenice hrs, having been transferred to the Indian 393 to Af Mr. Matkins, the latter wrote again to the juncil, refered the matter for Reconsideration Col? Jurusary. He finally discovered that Lord his Sumper Sie E. P. Leftton who adhered to Tohen Russell has written to Sir John Bowring empanied with to infor\n\nthe order of Sir bor Moterworth for por could I conceive any assignable reasons for so flagrant payment. But si John Bowring set at naught violation of a plain admitted contract between then orders, as he appear, froom the debates in head of a public Office and one of it's functionaries, Parliament, to have done in more important\n\nfor suct unworthy treatment of a veteran\n\nService mothers defecting a found Entrance into the finer of tank in the Majesty Babel Proties who mothers respecting a found Extrance into her from has served her Sovevige and coventry for two and. In fact it\n\nSignified to Caft. Wattions that it\n\nseal & ability would be the first time in which the Hong Kong if there the highest de commendations and\n\nfifty years Government would be beatin: I that they did not mean to be beaten. Accordingly misrepresent\n\nthe constart friendship of Sie Sydney smith, Lood tations of the Case were sent home, and M. Saumarez. Sie her Cockburen, Sir Thomas Foley. Sis\n\nLaboucher,\n\nno doubt beliving them, rescinded to! Williams, Sir Philip Duchen. Sie Fedin't Wann the previous orders of Lord John Russell & Sin in Charles Paget. Sie Hyde Parker. Die Deans Dunder tom Molesworth. The arduous duties of his officer\n\nother distinguished officers with whom he served,\n\nin being then without a deputy, this chife hack awr having been appointed by three Commander in Sick leave, and the trying nature of the king as the first Lient of their they thing. I\n\nillues & vecasioned the further the Commander &acting (aptain, & to whome formation of franicles under the Lids, which in Admiralty has accorded the Good Survin Green wit\n\nit was\n\neye\n\nto secure\n\nwith such comag\n\nPension\n\nHere is the proofread text in HTML format as requested:\n\nthese\n\ncommunication\n\nwho\n\nthe latest decision. But then decisions were unaccountable...\n\nsix vols, six jubes.\n\nany\n\nCompensation Capt. Watkins the upon work compelled Capt. Watkins to return to England home to the Colonial Office for redress, alleging leave to place himself under an Oculist with your grave. I Showing that the medical advice. During his sufferings from the office of Marine Magistrate was otherwise the causes, amounting\n\nto incapacity at large\n\non his behalf without any compensation. Sir William Molesworth for writing. I affected or used to the Labouchere worth who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies\n\nLord. Fanling Department ordered a suitable rent to be paid precision. But on a strong remonstrance from him. But this reply not having been commonsense hrs, having been transferred to the Indian 393 to Af Mr. Watkins, the latter wrote again to the council, referred the matter for Reconsideration Col? Jurusary. He finally discovered that Lord his Superior Sir E. P. Leighton who adhered to Then Russell has written to Sir John Bowring accompanied with to inform\n\nthe order of Sir George Moterworth for pay could I conceive any assignable reasons for so flagrant payment. But Sir John Bowring set at naught violation of a plain admitted contract between then orders, as he appear, from the debates in head of a public Office and one of its functionaries, Parliament, to have done in more important\n\nfor such unworthy treatment of a veteran\n\nService mothers defecting a found Entrance into the finer of rank in the Majesty's Babel Proteas who mothers respecting a found Entrance into her from has served her Sovereign and country for two and. In fact it\n\nSignified to Capt. Watkins that it\n\nseal & ability would be the first time in which the Hong Kong if there the highest commendations and\n\nfifty years Government would be beaten: I that they did not mean to be beaten. Accordingly misrepresent\n\nthe constant friendship of Sir Sydney Smith, Lord tations of the Case were sent home, and M. Saumarez. Sir her Cockburn, Sir Thomas Foley. Sir\n\nLabouchere,\n\nno doubt believing them, rescinded the previous orders of Lord John Russell & Sir in Charles Paget. Sir Hyde Parker. Die Deans Dunder to Molesworth. The arduous duties of his officer\n\nother distinguished officers with whom he served,\n\nin being then without a deputy, this chief hack award having been appointed by three Commander in Sick leave, and the trying nature of the king as the first Lieut of their they thing. I\n\nillness & occasioned the further the Commander & acting Captain, & to whom formation of franicles under the Lids, which in Admiralty has accorded the Good Service Green with\n\nit was\n\neye\n\nto secure\n\nwith such com...\n\nPension", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-076 - Individuals - 1859.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 253821, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-086 - Sir Robinson - 1862 [5-6]", "page_number": 447, "title": "CO129-086 - Sir Robinson - 1862 [5-6]", "content_text": "## REQUISITIONS FOR MILITARY STORES\n\n| Location | Requisition Details |\n|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|\n| ST. CHRISTOPHERS| 20 Rifle Carbine Revolvers, 30 Revolver Pistols, 15,000 Ball Cartridges with Caps for Yeomany Cavalry Carbines, 15,000 Ball Cartridges with Caps for Musquet Rifle (55 Pattern, 2 drams.), 5,000 Quill Tubes, 1 Barrel Slow Match |\n| MONTSERRAT | 500 Stand of Arms with Ammunition, 4 Field Pieces |\n| ST. VINCENT | 3 6-Pr. Light Field Pieces with Stores and Ammunition complete, 60 Artillery Carbines with Belts and Ammunition, 500 Enfield Rifles (Short) with Accoutrements, 50 Cavalry Sabres with Belts, Pouches, Sabretaches, Holsters, Pistols, Spurs, &c., A complete refit for 6 24-Pr. and 6 32-Pr. Guns |\n| DOMINICA | 20,000 Ball Cartridges for Percussion Tower Muskets, 1,000 Friction Tubes for 24-Pr. Guns, 2 Portable Magazines, 2,000 Wads for 24-Pr. Guns, 500 Wads for 18-Pr. Guns, 500 Wads for 12-Pr. Guns, 1,000 Wads for 6-Pr. Guns |\n| TRINIDAD | Battery of Armstrong Guns complete |\n| TURKS ISLANDS | 12 32-Pr. Guns with Traversing Carriages and Ammunition complete, or one or two Armstrong Guns |\n\n## Notes\n*Received from Colonial Office, 13th Feb., 1862.* \n*Received from Colonial Office. 13th Feb., 1862.* \n*Received from Colonial Office. 13th Feb.. 1862.* \n\nColonial Office, \n26th Feb., 1862. \n\nColonial Office. \n6th February, and 13th March. \n\nColonial Office, \n26th February. \n\n2 \n(Copy) \n\nNOTE. The Governor of Antigua in his letter to President Cockburn (enclosed in letter from Colonial Office to War Office of 27th February), reports that he was about to forward 50 Rifles complete, which he considered sufficient.\n\nNOTE. It is not clear from the Governor of Antigua's Despatch to the Duke of Newcastle, dated 21st January, 1862, whether this requisition is to be considered as cancelled, but orders have been given for the supply on repayment, of ammunition for 24 and 18-Pr. Guns. Vide War Office Letter to Colonial Office, 24th March, 1862.\n\nPage 2 \n... (the rest of the page is not meaningful due to OCR errors)\n\n2 64-Pr. Guns. \n2 32-Pr. Guns.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-086 - Sir Robinson - 1862 [5-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 256675, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-093 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1863 [7-10]", "page_number": 33, "title": "CO129-093 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1863 [7-10]", "content_text": "20.\n\n32\n\nAundi\n\nwith the succeeding Governor, Sir Yerutes Robinson is to offer the refusal of his private fumitive to the muljoremor\n\nstrould he desire to purchase it. at\n\nvaluation.\n\nIlrave, So\n\na-\n\n(Signed) Chine Stlyes Cleverly,\n\nSurveyor General.\n\n(Tie bopy)\n\nMidland\n\nActing\n\nColonial secretary.\n\nGOVERNMENT NOTIFICATION.\n\nThe subjoined List of Jurors for the Year commencing on the 1st of March 1862, as revised and amended by His Excellency the Governor and the Legislative Council, is published for general information.\n\nBy Order,\n\nCouncil Chamber, Hongkong, 24th February, 1862.\n\nL. D'ALMADA E CASTRO,\n\nClerk of Councils.\n\nJURY LIST FOR 1862.\n\nNAME.\n\nOCCUPATION AND RESIDENCE.\n\nSPECIAL JUROR.\n\nNAME.\n\nOCCUPATION AND RESIDENCE.\n\nSPECIAL JUROR.\n\n \n A\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Aderjee, Sapoorjee\n Broker, Wyndham Street\n \n Agabeg, Avietic Lazar, Jr.\n Merchant. Wellington Street\n \n \n Algar, T.\n \n \n Allen, James W.\n Clerk, Blackhead & Co.\n \n \n Anderson, G.\n \n \n Archer, George A.\n Assistant, Wetmore, Cryder & Co.\n \n \n Andruss, Theodore F.\n Bill-Broker\n \n Armstrong, John Martin\n Hotel Keeper. Oriental Hotel\n \n \n Arnhold, Jacob\n Merchant. Smith, Archer & Co.\n \n Arnould, H.\n Storekeeper. Thos. Hunt & Co.\n \n \n Ashton, R, P.\n Merchant. Oxford & Co.\n \n Atkinson, Juines\n Superintending Purser. P. & O. Co.\n \n \n Austin, C. W.\n Assistant. Jardine, Matheson & Co,\n \n \n \n \n \n B\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Baker, Colgate\n Assistant, Smith. Archer & Co.\n \n Baker, James\n Innkeeper, Quren's Road West\n \n \n Baker, R. B.\n Accountant, Mercantile Bank\n \n Baker, S. W.\n Clerk, Bowra & Co.\n \n \n Baldwin, John Charles\n Merchant, MacGregor & Co.\n \n Baldwin, Robert Henry\n Merchant, MacGregor & Co.\n \n \n Barretto, João Antonio\n Assistant, Jardine, Matheson & Co.\n \n Battersby, W.\n Boiler Maker, P. and O. Co.\n \n \n Beattie, Robert\n Innkeeper. Queen's Road West\n \n Beaumont, F. B.\n Assistant, Bussell & Co.\n \n \n Beckwith, J. II.\n Assistaut, Jardine, Matheson & Co.\n \n Beveridge, Jenry\n Assistant, Jardine, Matheson & Co.\n \n \n Blackhead, F.\n Storekeeper, Blackhead & Co.\n \n Blake, Franklin\n Assistant, A. Heard & Co.\n \n \n Blakeway, George\n Assistant. Vaucher Frères\n \n Block, Frederick Horsen\n Merchant, Jobn Burd & Co.\n \n \n Blydinburgh, J. S.\n \n \n Bonnett, William W.\n \n \n \n Booth, Victor\n \n \n Borton, James\n \n \n \n Campos, L. P. de\n \n Special Juror\n Carapiet, S. M.\n \n \n \n Carpenter, Edward\n \n \n Carvalho, P. M.\n Special Juror\n \n \n Carr, Henry John\n \n \n Cecil, Cyril\n Special Juror\n \n \n Chabert, E.\n \n \n Cheverton, J. H.\n Special Juror\n \n \n Claussen, C. H.\n \n \n Clinker, David Beddine\n \n \n \n Cockburn, A. Stuart\n \n \n Cohen, C. C.\n \n \n \n Colien, Henry\n \n \n Collins, Henry J.\n \n \n \n Cook, H. N.\n \n \n Cook, J. E.\n \n \n \n Cook, J. H.\n \n \n Cook, M. H.\n \n \n \n Correa, Maurice A.\n \n \n Coutts, Alexander\n \n \n \n Cowasjee. Nesserwanjee\n \n Special Juror\n Cox, J. H.\n \n \n \n Coxon, Atwell\n \n \n Crane. Isaac B.\n \n \n \n Crawford, David R.\n \n \n Crockett, C. I.\n \n \n \n Cunningham, G.\n \n \n Cutter, J. A. B.\n \n \n \n D\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Da Costa, José Filippe\n Assistant, Smith, Archer & Co.\n \n Dalziel, W. R.\n Special Juror\n \n \n Dana, R. P.\n \n \n Danenberg, Carlos\n \n \n \n D'Aquino, Maximiano\n \n \n Daeth, F.\n Secretary, Hongkong Club\n \n \n Darrell, N. B.\n Assistant, Walker, Borradaile & Co.\n \n Davison, William\n Special Juror\n \n \n Deacon. Richard\n Special Juror\n \n Deare. D. C.\n Special Juror\n \n \n Delano, Warren\n \n \n De Silver, C., Jr.\n Innkeeper. Queen's Road West\n \n \n De Silver, George Pepper\n Broker. West Terrace\n \n Detmering, F. W.\n Storekeeper. Reynvain & Co.\n \n \n Dexter, F. G.\n Assistant. Johnson & Co.\n \n Dickenson, Charles A.\n Clerk, Jürgens & Co.\n \n \n Diers, Ferdinand\n Banker, Cointnercial Bank\n \n Dickson. H.\n Clerk. J. A. Brooks\n \n \n Dolan, William\n Assistant. Phillips, Moore & Co.\n \n Dodd, John\n Merchant, Phillips, Moore & Co.\n \n \n Donner, Jean\n Compositor, China Mail Office\n \n Duddell, Henry\n Sailinuker. Queen's Road\n \n \n Dunjeebhoy, Ruttunjce\n Clerk. Thos. Hunt & Co.\n \n Dunn, J. G.\n Clerk. Thos. Hunt & Co.\n \n \n Duus, Edward Hercules\n Sailmaker, Queen's Rond\n \n Duus, J. H.\n Accountant. MacEwen & Co.\n \n \n \n \n Special Juror\n \n \n \n \n E\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Edwards, Thomas\n Reporter, Daily Press\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n Special Juror\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Special Juror\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Special Juror\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Special Juror\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Special Juror\n \n \n \n\nPage 32", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-093 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1863 [7-10].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 278133, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-137 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [4-5]", "page_number": 146, "title": "CO129-137 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [4-5]", "content_text": "CASAL\n\n(20)\n\nNo such information has ever been filed in this Colony until these four informations, which were filed three on one day and the fourth within less than seven weeks afterwards.\n\nI must remark that the Acting Attorney General was not wanting in energy in the course he took. He meant what was right, but the tendency of filing three informations in one day against one man, for two articles on the same subject, to the same purport, tended unduly to depress the Defendant, and by a sort of mental torture to induce him to make the most abject apology whether what he had said was capable of being proved to be true or not, especially in this Colony where, as I believe, the costs of litigation exceed the like costs elsewhere in the British dominions or in the world, and even success in three such suits may be ruin to a man if he be not rich. Any apology under such circumstances could not have been satisfactory to any party.\n\nThese informations were all professedly framed on the precedent which Peltier's case in 1803 furnished. Mr Hayllar very aptly remarked that the decision in Peltier's case and that in Wason v. Walter, decided in Nov. last, with an interval of over 65 years between them, belonged to two different worlds of thought. The difference well illustrates that admirable elasticity, to which Chief Justice Cockburn has referred, with which the Law of England adapts itself to the varying conditions of society.\n\nBeyond question my public conduct has been as severely, as vehemently, of course unjustly, criticised by the press repeatedly, and I may add by this Defendant, as that of any public man anywhere; but I will not allow Mr Pollard's proposition to pass for law without remark.\n\nIf a man be libelled in his private character it cannot be for the public good, and it is not protected; but it is different as to what Mr Pollard called this, a public libel. When a public man is libelled in respect of his public conduct it may be justified, for to expose misconduct in public offices is for the public good.\n\nMr Saint, either not having had an opportunity to explain or declining to explain on such compulsion, appeared on the 20th of May last to all three informations. He was served with rules to plead, and thereupon obtained a rule nisi for a month's time to plead, and for leave to demur and plead a justification, or as he should be advised. The rule was opposed by Mr Pollard (the Acting Attorney General not appearing) on the 5th of June, and Mr Pollard insisted that it was the universal practice not to allow a justification to be pleaded to what he called a public libel, which he said was...\n\nIt is true, and happy for us it is true, that every man \"has a right to discuss matters of public interest.\" This is what Bramwell B. said in Kelly v. Sherlock, 1 L. R. Q. B. 689, as Cockburn, C.J., at p. 701 affirmed with the most perfect propriety. The language of Mr Baron Bramwell is more pointed, but in sense it is only a repetition of the language of Mr Justice Coleridge in Gathercole v. Miall, 15 M. & W. 332, who said, \"I think it quite right that all matters...\n\n(a)\n\n143\n\nThis is inaccurate - The costs of litigation here are less than in Shanghai and I believe less than in any part of India.\n\n(b) The C.J. seems to confuse the question of dry legal right of the Attorney General with that of the Policy of Government.\n\n(c) There is no record of any such admission.\n\nPollard\n\n072\n\nthe both by the judges' notes and by the Crown Solicitor - his way to England.\n\nMr Ball is now on...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-137 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [4-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 295732, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "page_number": 194, "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "content_text": "Blackburn, J. \n* Act, then \neither \nsays \nThe \npiracy \njure gentium \nin which case \nwe have \nno power to \ngive \n\"them up\" - page 216. \nIn *Cases and Opinions* \nby Forsyth, pages 367-8, Cockburn and Sir R. \nBethell give \nan \nAmerican \ncase (re Connolly) where it was held that Connolly should not be \nsurrendered \nto the American \nConsul - that the offence \ncommitted \nwas within the \njurisdiction of \ntheir own Courts \nand \nought \nto be tried by \nthem. See also \nDr. Twiss, Queen's Advocate, \nand Mr. \nForsyth \nwhere \na \nBritish \nSubject had committed \noffences \non \nan \nAmerican \nShip \nand landed at Calcutta. \nOn application for \nrendition, \nthey \nheld that \"as \nthe \nBritish \nCourt could take \ncognizance \nof the \noffence by reason \nof the nationality of the Offender, \nthe Case was \nnot within the \nscope of the treaty\" - Forsyth, \nC. 80, 374. \nIn the Case Re Ternan, \nan \nAmerican \noffended against \nthe Municipal law \nof the Country.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 295733, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "page_number": 195, "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "content_text": "the judgment of \n\n139 \n\nCockburn \n\n6. J. in re Ternan - where he \n\nIn Kwok-A-Sing's Case \n\nin the Ship \n\nFrench. In \n\nheld that \n\nboth these Cases it \n\njurisdiction over the prisoners \n\nas pirates jure gentium it \n\nwas \n\nduty to try them \n\nas such. How much more \n\nso is it our \n\nduty \n\nwhen the \n\nI have not been able to \n\nfind any cases where \n\nprisoners have been surrendered \n\nwhen the jurisdictions \n\nare concurrent \n\nis \n\nthe only place which I have noticed \n\nit hinted at as \n\npossible is \n\nout of the inconvenience \n\nthat might arise \n\nfrom witnesses being \n\nin the other jurisdiction, if rendition were not permissible \n\nI think it now \n\nclearly appears that the Magistrate \n\nwas right \n\nin the action he took \n\n1. Because one \n\nof the \"Spark\" pirates had been previously tried \n\nand condemned by \n\nthe Supreme Court. \n\nand \n\n2. Because all the Crews", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 296140, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "page_number": 602, "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "content_text": "# ACTION FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT IN CHINA-IMPORTANT CASE\n\nIn the Supreme Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir John Smale) and Mr. Justice Snowden, an application of considerable importance was made in an action for alleged false imprisonment in China.\n\nMr. Hayliar, QC., (instructed by Mr. Dennya) applied for a rule nisi against Mr. E. Vogel, of Messrs. Vogel, Hagedorn & Co., to show cause why he should not be restrained from continuing the unlawful detention of Chun Achia in the King Sing Tong criminal gaol, or in any other Chinese prison at Canton.\n\nMr. Hayllar said he made the application under section 18, paragraph 2, of the Code. The plaintiffs named Chun Achiu, and he brought an action against Mr. Vogel for false imprisonment.\n\nThe Chief Justice said the first question was had this Court jurisdiction; and then was the defendant bound to answer a prima facie case. A more important case had seldom been heard in this Court.\n\nMr. Hayllar said the plaintiff had been residing at Singapore.\n\nHis Lordship asked if he was a naturalised Englishman.\n\nMr. Hayllar said he was not, but he should be able to show that that made no difference. Plaintiff returned a short time ago on a visit to his native village, when he was seized in the night time by a band of soldiers, was put in chains and taken to the city of Canton, and there lodged in a criminal gaol.\n\nThe Chief Justice said he supposed it was an ordinary gaol.\n\nMr. Hayllar said there were several gaols there, but this was a criminal one. There was no doubt about that. He was placed among criminals and treated as a criminal. The reason of his being in prison was that between the years 1871 and 1873, there was a firm of traders in Hongkong carrying on the business of a mat shop under the name of \"Tak-wo.\" This firm had, at three different times, shipped through the firm of Messrs. Vogel, Hagedorn & Co., of which the present defendant, Mr. Vogel, was the senior and resident partner, a quantity of watting to America. According to Mr. Vogel's version, the transaction resulted in a debt to him by the Tak-wo firm. This firm consisted of a number of partners, whose names had been set out in affidavits by those well acquainted with them; but it was distinctly asserted that the man in gaol at Canton had no connection with the firm in any way. He was, however, related to Chan Shun, one of the partners in the Tak-wo shop. The object, as was alleged in the petition, of keeping the plaintiff in gaol was to compel him to pay Mr. Vogel's claim against the Tak-wo firm. The plaintiff, through his relatives here, had petitioned the Government to have some investigation of his case made. The result of that application was set forth in the affidavit of the Hon. C. C. Smith. The learned Counsel then read Mr. Smith's affidavit, which set forth that on the 22nd February last, he received a petition from Chun Shua and two others praying for the release of Chan Achia. This affidavit, remarked Mr. Hayllar, contained a very important point. It stated that Mr. Vogel did not deny that the man was detained in prison with his knowledge and at his instance, and Mr. Vogel also admitted that there was no evidence to show that the prisoner was connected with the Tak-wo firm. This connected Mr. Vogel with the matter. Mr. Dennye had been up to Canton several times in connection with the affair. He also had made an affidavit, and it set forth that on the 16th February, he was informed by Chun Shus that plaintiff was improperly imprisoned in the gaol at Canton, under the supervision of the Nam Hoi magistrate; that on the 17th February he wrote a letter to the German Consulate at Canton, stating that prisoner had had nothing to do with the Tak-wo firm, and that he was suffering in health from being subjected to the treatment of a Chinese prison; that Mr. Dennye received a reply from the German Consul saying that the matter rested in the hands of the ...\n\nAfter hearing the argument, the Chief Justice said the right thing to do was that the man should be sent down here, both parties giving ample security to abide by the result, and to pay the costs of the party wronged.\n\nMr. Brereton, who was present in Court, said he would consent to the proposition. As to the man being sent down, he would not undertake that could be done. The matter was entirely in the hands of the Chinese.\n\nHis Lordship said, what could be thought of such conduct. It was nonsense to say that the man was in the hands of the Chinese. He was arrested at the instance of Mr. Vogel, and if he said he withdrew all proceedings, the man must be released.\n\nMr. Brereton said he had not time to consult his client, but he had no doubt Mr. Vogel would consent to the proposition suggested by his Lordship,—Chun Shuu to give security for the claim against him, and Mr. Vogel giving security for the claim against him in this action. They would then do their best to get the man released. His Lordship then said that each party was to give security, and Mr. Vogel to stop all proceedings in Canton.\n\nMr. Brereton again expressed his consent to this arrangement.\n\nThe Chief Justice said the security should be approved of by the Registrar. If the arrangement he suggested was not carried out, the only course was to proceed with the injunction, and he would see what he could do.\n\nMr. Brereton said his instructions were that the claim was against Chun Shup, and had nothing against the man Chun Chew, who was taken up by the Chinese authorities themselves.\n\nHis Lordship said the matter rested with the German Consul. He had admitted as much. The conduct was of such a kind that it could not be allowed. The question affected the liberty of a subject, and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn had in a case where the liberty of a subject was concerned refused to allow a man to go on with a legal defence. The idea of putting an innocent man in chains and treating him like a criminal was fearful. After what his Lordship had said, Mr. Vogel would continue to keep the man in gaol at his own peril. And inasmuch as the matter affected the liberty of a subject, he would give special leave for the case to be brought up again on Thursday.\n\nMr. Brereton said he could not get an affidavit from the German Consul by Thursday. He would ask it to be put off till Friday.\n\nHis Lordship granted the application, and said if the German Consul thought fit he could avail of this opportunity to explain his conduct in a public manner. Of course, he was not obliged to do so.\n\nHis Lordship then asked when was the man first arrested. He was told that it was on the 7th February last. He then remarked that here was a man who was admitted to be innocent but who had been kept in gaol as a criminal since the 7th February.\n\nIt was ultimately arranged that each party was to give security in $9,000, and the defendant in respect of this suit was to give $2,000 in addition.\n\nThe Daily Press \nHONGKONG, APRIL 28TH, 1875. \nPage 593", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 296141, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "page_number": 603, "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "content_text": "## Court Proceedings\n\nChinese Authorities, and that he (the German Consul) was not in a position to interfere in it; that on the 20th February he waited on the Hon. C. C. Smith who promised to attend to the matter; that a petition was brought to him signed by the members of the Tak-wo firm setting forth that plaintiff had nothing to do with the transactions, but was only visiting his village when arrested. The Hon. C. C. Smith was shown this petition, and he sent a dispatch to the British Consul at Canton asking him to use his influence in securing the release of the prisoner. The British Consul replied that as the matter was in the hands of the German Consul he could not interfere. Mr. Dennys then went to Canton and had a long interview with the German Consul; and went and saw plaintiff, who was in a horribly dirty cell, with no bed, and was being treated as a criminal. Plaintiff then averred to Mr. Dennys that he had had no dealings with Messrs. Vogel, Hagedorn & Co. in his life, or with the Tak-wo shop. \n\nMr. Hayllar then read the affidavits of Chan Shun, and Low Ahok which contained distinct denials of plaintiff's having ever had anything to do with the shop, and also the affidavit of a clansman. Mr. Hayllar then said the first question was, had this Court jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and, secondly, if it had, was he entitled to an injunction at this stage. He contended for the affirmative of both propositions, and he would show their Lordships the leading cases bearing on the point. The first case which settled the point of jurisdiction was the case of the Halley, reported in 2 Privy Council cases, page 202. He then quoted a case of false imprisonment in Naples - Scott v. Lord Seymour, 32 Law Journal, page 61. He also referred to the case of Mostyn v. Fabregas, the head note of which stated that there appeared to be no reason why an alien should not sue another alien in England for a tort committed in a foreign country if it was shown that the wrong was actionable by the law of England as well as of the country where it happened.\n\nThe Chief Justice said they thought, as this was a very important case, that Mr. Hayllar had said enough to entitle him to the rule nisi. But then was plaintiff entitled to an injunction at this stage?\n\nMr. Hayllar said he would call the attention of their Lordships to the Code as to foreign laws. Foreign law in England had to be proved as a fact, and the method of proving it had always been by calling experts in that law. But the Code had altered all that and admitted printed books containing the decisions with reference to law cases in foreign countries as evidence of the laws of these countries. What he now proposed to do, therefore, was to give in evidence the Peking Gazette, the highest authority on such matters published in China. He had a translation of it, and he drew their Lordships' attention to a case of false imprisonment, where the party who had put the other in prison was punished severely for it. They would see, therefore, that false imprisonment for debt was not justified in China.\n\nThe Chief Justice said he thought they ought to allow plaintiff to come down here, each party giving ample security for the amount to be paid.\n\nMr. Brereton (who happened to be in Court, and who is Mr. Vogel's attorney) said he would consent to that arrangement on behalf of Mr. Vogel; but he did not know whether their consenting would be sufficient for the prisoner's liberation.\n\nThe Chief Justice said it was only at the instance of Mr. Vogel that the man was in prison in Canton.\n\nMr. Brereton said if Chun Shun would give security to Mr. Vogel for the amount claimed against him, defendant would give security for the amount claimed in the action. Then Mr. Vogel would withdraw the action brought at Canton and do everything in his power to have the man released. They were in no way responsible for his detention there.\n\nThe Chief Justice said he thought the better course would be to grant a rule nisi. He would say nothing as to who was right or wrong, but he suggested that both parties should give ample security to the Registrar that the party in the wrong would pay the full amount and costs.\n\nMr. Hayllar said he would be satisfied with this arrangement.\n\nThe Chief Justice: We will, therefore, grant a rule nisi with liberty for the parties to make such arrangements as they think fit, and with a recommendation that they should do so. Do you mean to say, Mr. Brereton, that the German Consul at Canton did not know that the man was to be put in prison?\n\nMr. Brereton: Nothing whatever, as I am instructed.\n\nThe Chief Justice: What does the German Consul say in the affidavit? What was the answer he gave to the application for release?\n\nMr. Hayllar: Mr. Dennys in his affidavit says that the German Consul promised distinctly that as soon as Chun Shun paid the money, the man would be released.\n\nMr. Brereton: We know only Chan Shun. It is on the responsibility of the Chinese authorities that the man was taken up, and not with our sanction or authority.\n\nThe Chief Justice: The responsibility rests with the German Consul?\n\nIt was remarked that the German Consul said he had no right to interfere in the matter.\n\nThe Chief Justice: You know if the action is withdrawn that this Court has no power. But there is conduct of such a kind that Courts won't allow it to be pursued. Chief Justice Cockburn would not let a defendant even make a legal defence when he knew that morally he was wrong.\n\nMr. Brereton said he was ready to show that his client was prepared to act with the utmost bona fides.\n\nThe Chief Justice: If Mr. Vogel continues that man in prison after what this Court has said he will do so upon his responsibility as a man. I think we had better adjourn this case till to-morrow to see whether the parties will agree.\n\nMr. Brereton said he had no doubt they should agree. He would recommend Mr. Vogel to do so.\n\nThe Chief Justice then said perhaps it would be better to adjourn till Thursday. But it affected the liberty of the subject.\n\nMr. Brereton said they could not have the affidavits from the German Consul on Thursday, perhaps it might stand over till Friday.\n\nThe Chief Justice: If that was so they would adjourn till Friday. That Court might be a fitting place for the German Consul, if he thought fit, to vindicate his conduct, and let the world see that he had done right. He could do so if he liked, but was not under any obligation.\n\nMr. Justice Snowden said if an agreement was come to there would be no necessity for the German Consul's affidavit.\n\nMr. Brereton said he had no doubt the agreement would be carried out, so far as his client was concerned.\n\nSome conversation then took place as to the amount of security.\n\nMr. Hayllar said plaintiff claimed $10,000.\n\nThe Chief Justice said $10,000 was too much - he did not mean too much to claim but too much to give as security.\n\nIt was ultimately agreed that each party was to give security for $3,000, and the defendant in respect of the suit was to give $2,000 additional. The case was adjourned till Friday.\n\n## Page 594", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 296143, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "page_number": 605, "title": "CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6]", "content_text": "The German Consul knew nothing as to the man being about to be imprisoned?\n\nMr. Brereton - No; our instructions were that he was to endeavour to recover the debt.\n\nMr. Hayllar - But the Consul says that when the money is paid the man will be released.\n\nMr. Brereton - It was on the responsibility of the Chinese authorities that the man was taken up, not by our authority or with our sanction.\n\nThe Chief Justice - The responsibility is with the German Consul. He says, pay the money and the man will be released.\n\nMr. Brereton - He says he has no right to interfere with the way in which the Chinese put the law in force.\n\nThe Chief Justice - There is conduct of such a kind that Courts of Law will not allow it to be pursued. You know the case in which Lord Chief Justice Cockburn would not allow a defendant to make even an illegal defence. Just consider the liberty of the subject, and to put in chains and treat as a criminal a man who is not a criminal.\n\nMr. Brereton - My client has acted throughout with the utmost **bona fides**.\n\nThe Chief Justice - After what this Court has said, Mr. Vogel will do it on his responsibility as a man if he continues him in prison. I think we had better adjourn the case until to-morrow.\n\nMr. Brereton - No doubt my client will take your recommendation, but I do not feel at liberty definitely to say so.\n\nThe Chief Justice - As it affects the liberty of the subject, we will take the case on Thursday.\n\nMr. Brereton - We cannot get an affidavit from the German Consul until Friday.\n\nThe Chief Justice - The German Consul may, if he thinks fit, vindicate his conduct and let the world see he has acted right. I adjourn the case until Friday, in order that the German Consul may make an affidavit in the matter, that is, if he thinks fit; he is under no obligation.\n\nMr. Justice Snowden - If you come to an agreement, there will be no necessity for it.\n\nMr. Brereton - I have no doubt the agreement will be carried out, so far as my client is concerned. The Chief Justice asked how long the man had been in prison?\n\nMr. Dennys said he had been in prison and in chains since February 7th.\n\nSome discussion ensued as to what security should be given, and ultimately it was agreed that Mr. Brereton's client should give a total security of $5,000; and the other parties to the amount of $3,000.\n\n596", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-170 - Sir Kennedy - 1875 [1-3] -- Acting Governor Austin - 1875 [3-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 310411, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]", "page_number": 537, "title": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]", "content_text": "to the Governor as required by the ordinance although as a matter of fact this was doubtless done. For the decision of this case it is unnecessary to determine whether the provisions of Ord. 2 of 1850 must not be narrowed down so as to be commensurate with the provisions of the 21 sec. of the treaty of Tientsin. By the Treaty requirement there must be due requisition before search, and arrest and surrender. Such a provision following and replacing the very wide one in the Bogus Treaty was probably dictated by abuses that may have arisen under the old treaty, for situated as we are on the confines of China a previous charge and request by the Chinese Government is a proper and necessary guarantee against charges and arrest being made for private and improper purposes. In the Queen v. Wilson 3 Q.B.D. 42 the prisoner was a British subject. By the terms of a convention with Switzerland British subjects, fugitive Criminals, were not to be given up. The act of 1870 was by Order in Council applied to the convention, but there is no provision in the act which says that a British subject may not be given up. The Magistrate refused to notice the Treaty and held himself governed by the act and committed the prisoner. On a writ of habeas corpus the prisoner was discharged. Cockburn C. J. said-\" The order in Council must be co-extensive with and limited by the Treaty, for otherwise our municipal legislature might be at variance with the terms which the two countries arranged between themselves proposition absurd upon the very face of it. I must therefore take it that the Order in Council has embodied the terms of the Treaty and that the Act of Parliament is only applicable so far as it can be applied consistently with the terms and conditions therein contained Our Ordinance only applies to one Treaty. It thus differs from the English act, but a difficulty may arise the one day if the law is not altered and it must be determined whether the Ord. can have a scope of greater width than the Treaty which it purports to carry out, in other words whether any action can be taken to detain a Chinese fugitive criminal before his arrest is asked for by the Chinese Government. As to the question of the long detention of the prisoners the Court cannot interfere. The legislature has placed in the hands of the Governor certain powers. The unusual detention of these men can doubtless be answered for but for the Court to discharge the prisoners on the ground of long detention or the unreasonableness of it-would be to legislate, not to administer the law.\n\nMr. Francis applied for costs.\n\nThe Chief Justice said they would reserve the question of costs for future consideration.\n\n535", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 341180, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-244 - Governor Des Voeus Acting Governor Fleming - 1890 [1-4]", "page_number": 206, "title": "CO129-244 - Governor Des Voeus Acting Governor Fleming - 1890 [1-4]", "content_text": "To \n\nTHE MASTER OF THE SUPREME COURT. \n\nSir, \n\nColonial Secretary's Office, \n\n11th September 1878. \n\nI am directed by the Governor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 5th instant forwarding Mr. Ackroyd's application for the post of Acting Substitute Procureur General, and to inform you in reply that there is no vacancy. \n\n2. I am to add, that the merits of Mr. Ackroyd, as brought to notice by you, will be borne in mind. \n\nTO THE HONORABLE \n\nTHE COLONIAL SECRETARY, \n\nSir, \n\nI have, &c., \n\n(Signed) H. COCKBURN STEWART, \n\nActing Assistant Colonial Secretary. \n\nSUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS \n\nMASTER'S CHAMBERS, \n\nSeptember 1879. \n\nI have the honour to forward herewith an application from Mr. Edward Ackroyd, barrister at law, Chief Clerk in this office and Acting Substitute Master for the appointment of Substitute Procureur General. In September 1878 I forwarded a similar application and I stated therein that I had no hesitation in strongly recommending Mr. Ackroyd to His Excellency the Governor. I have known Mr. Ackroyd since 1866 and have had daily opportunities of judging of his abilities, character and knowledge of the laws of this Island, and it is with much pleasure that I am able to certify that he possesses all the qualifications required for the office he solicits. Mr. Ackroyd, besides an intimate acquaintance with matters connected with the Supreme Court, has acquired experience as District and Stipendiary Magistrate, and I confidently recommend his present application to the favourable consideration of His Excellency the Governor in the hope that a deserving, long-tried Government Servant will obtain recognition for many years of good service. \n\nI have the honour to be \n\nYour most humble Servant \n\nV. ESNOUF, \n\nMaster Sup. Court. \n\nDRAFT. \n\nwas- \n\nHangtag \n\nno. 82 \n\nMINUTE. S \n\n5tay \n\nMr. Johnnn 6 \n\nMr. \n\nFanfield 6 \n\nMr. Wingfield. \n\nMr. Bramston. \n\nMr. Meade. \n\nSir R. Herbert. \n\nBaron de Worms. \n\nLord Knutsford. \n\nPris. Sec. to \n\nnot \n\nnoted \n\nLaine \n\n9/5 \n\nIn 6768 \n\nانار \n\nHkay \n\n7 \n\n205 \n\nجو \n\nMasgo \n\nI have the honour \n\nto ack: the receipt \n\nJgn \n\ndesfrur.59 \n\nof the 11th of March last transmitting a \n\nMemorial from \n\nM. \n\nE. J. Ackroyd, setting \n\nrespecting \n\nforth his claims to \n\npromotion \n\nI request you to \n\ninform \n\nW. Ackroyd \n\nthat I regret that", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-244 - Governor Des Voeus Acting Governor Fleming - 1890 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 352458, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-260 - Governor Sir Robinson Acting Governor O-Brien - 1893 [9-12]", "page_number": 50, "title": "CO129-260 - Governor Sir Robinson Acting Governor O-Brien - 1893 [9-12]", "content_text": "Eitel on the one hand clearly wants rather to emphasize the elementary side. It is a place where Chinese can learn English thoroughly; and yet he does not always write consistently about it. In one passage, he declaims against the unwisdom of trying to secure the results of a secondary or high school instead of making \"showy results\" first of all a priority. In another passage, he says this institution should be a successful elementary school, but before it can become \"what it ought to be, viz. the model Secondary School to light the colony,\" reform is required.\n\nThus, Eitel is in this latter vein here; and Lord Ripon (in a despatch chiefly dated 20 January, received 16 January, No. 24656) seems to have looked on the matter lastly. Lord Ripon stated Hautsford's opinion that it ought to be the model Secondary school of the colony. Mr. Cockburn considers its elementary work to be much the most important and says there is no demand for higher education in Hong Kong. Sir J. O'Malley, who knows Hong Kong well, considers it to be most important to encourage higher education in the Colony.\n\nSir Cecil Smith seems to incline to the view simply that the business of government is to pay for elementary education, and that higher education is a luxury - a view which is consistently held here, but which does not preclude one model secondary school supported by the government.\n\nThe Government's despatch supports Eitel, but it does not elucidate his views in the slightest or give any clue as to carrying them out, except by suggesting that Mr. Wright should be more subordinated to Dr. Eitel.\n\nWhat Lord Ripon is really asked to decide is: Shall the Victoria College become more and more a place of higher education or more and more a place of elementary education? It seems to me (a) that we must keep the elementary side; because if we do not, the building will be deserted; and (b) that the government must do something to encourage higher education. But if that is so, either the same institution must be used for both, which seems to have created the present difficulty; or the present institution must be confined to elementary work, and the Government must either subsidise a new institution or...\n\nPage 49", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-260 - Governor Sir Robinson Acting Governor O-Brien - 1893 [9-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 354296, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8]", "page_number": 30, "title": "CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8]", "content_text": "this Ordinance it may be desirable to introduce some small amendments, but it will be time to deal with those when we reach them section by section in the Committee. I may mention that as regards section 4, one or two matters mentioned by the learned gentleman representing the Opium Farmer to this Council had already occupied my attention, and I shall be prepared when the Bill is in Committee, and clause 4 is reached, to suggest such alterations as the following, namely, at the end of the first line after the words \"Any opium forfeited by the Crown\" should be added the words \"under the preceding section, &c.\" I had already noted that and had called the attention of the Governor to the matter as one which should be altered. I had discussed that with the officer administering the Government.\n\nAs regards any possible rivalry with the Opium Farmer and the matter of sales I myself feel that there is something to be said against the Government selling opium. The Farmer has had granted to him a certain monopoly of selling prepared opium, and that monopoly was conferred by Ordinance 21 of 1891. If hon. members will refer to section 39 of that Ordinance—which is the present law—they will see that it says \"any opium forfeited and detained under the preceding section may be disposed of as the Governor in Council may direct.\" That follows section 33, which says that if the opium is forfeited by the Magistrate it may be detained by him until the disposal thereof has been determined by the Governor in Council. Then section 39 says that it may be disposed of as the Governor in Council directs.\n\nThe words \"disposed of as the Governor in Council may direct\" are words of wide import, and they might cover a sale by anyone, I take it, and in point of fact I believe they have covered sales by the Government to the Opium Farmer. The Government has always been very careful not to sell to the detriment of the interests of the Opium Farmer, and I believe on former occasions when opium has been forfeited the opium has been offered to the Opium Farmer himself at a fair price, but I am not prepared to say that there is not power already in section 39, in those words \"may be disposed of as the Governor in Council directs,\" to sell opium, or that disposition by sale would not be covered by that expression and, if so, the monopoly granted to the Opium Farmer—the monopoly given by that Ordinance—is a qualified monopoly and does not apply in cases where opium has been forfeited to the Crown.\n\nWhen we come to the Committee stage I shall be prepared to make certain suggestions and alterations which will, I think, avoid any difficulty, or anything like an appearance of rivalry between the Government and the Opium Farm in selling the drug, and I think no difficulty will arise upon that matter. When I come to the third section I shall not be prepared to offer any substantial amendment. As regards the word \"ship,\" which again has occupied my attention, the word \"ship\" is defined in the principal Ordinance as including other vessels besides steamships, and considered whether \"steamship or ship\" should be used. I was instructed to use the word \"ship.\" I see an objection to substituting \"steamship,\" because I think the protection should be adequate to the liability which is imposed by section 33, and that imposes penalties on any \"ship\" conveying opium in contravention of the Ordinance. Its operation is not restricted to \"steamships.\"\n\nI should like to call attention to section 35, because there appears to be a misunderstanding in the minds of some people. Section 35 reads: \"All opium seized with regard to which any breach of this Ordinance, or any regulation made thereunder, has been committed, together with any implements, may be forfeited by the Magistrate and in his discretion adjudged or delivered in whole or in part to the Farmer.\" It was contended by the learned counsel that the Magistrate must deliver all forfeited opium to the Farmer under that section, but the words of the section say, \"may, in his discretion,\" and \"in whole or in part.\" Everyone must be familiar with the construction placed on the word \"may.\" The word \"may\" where it is coupled with a legal duty is treated as if it means \"shall,\" but where the words are \"in his discretion,\" those words have always been held in every case to prevent any compulsion or equivalent to \"shall.\" And whereas this section 35 says that \"all opium may be forfeited\" and \"in his discretion adjudged and delivered in whole or in part to the Farmer,\" it will be impossible for anyone to contend for one moment that the whole of it must be handed to the Farmer. Therefore I take it that there is no inherent right in the Farmer to have all the opium handed to him.\n\nThere are one or two other matters which may perhaps occupy attention when we come to Committee. I think I have said enough to show that there is no desire on the part of the Government to act in any way hardly or unfairly with the Opium Farmer. Section 4 as modified and as it emerges from the Committee way, I trust, be in such a form as will be entirely unobjectionable. As regards the alteration of \"steamship\" for \"ship\" in section 3, I do not think I can alter that. I think myself that the company have some grounds of complaint, but it seems to me that when the Opium Farmer sells his opium to any man, and gives a certificate of sale to protect that opium in the hands of that man, and receives the money for it, thereupon his rights cease. If that opium is taken by the purchaser and not entered on the ship's manifest it must clearly be for the purpose of evading freight, and he has no right to carry it without paying for freight, or it may be possibly for the purposes of smuggling.\n\nIf it is put on the ship's manifest it has to be passed by the Customs officers. But how is the Opium Farmer interested in what the man does with the opium he has bought and paid for? If the man throws it into the sea it does not matter to the Opium Farmer because he has got his money for it. If he succeeds in smuggling it on board a steamer, how does that affect the Opium Farmer? Having got his money for his opium, what does it matter to him if the man tries to smuggle it and because he does not succeed it is forfeited to the Crown? I may go a step further without impropriety, I may say that I had suggested that the steamboat people had only to say to the Customs authorities, \"We have found some opium on board, and now you can seize it directly we are out of British waters.\" It is only fair to say that I suggested that course. I have heard nothing new to-day on that matter, but I sent a minute to the Secretary of State embodying that suggestion some time ago, and after having seen that minute we have received instructions from his Lordship to draw up this Bill.\n\nI have carried out in section 3 verbatim the instructions received from the Secretary of State. I cannot do more; I cannot alter it; I cannot make a Bill which I have not been instructed to do. I do not see, I must say, in what way the Opium Farmer is wronged by section 3. We have heard it suggested that damages could be got from an action against this Council for passing this Bill.\n\nHon. Members—No, no!\n\nThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL—This Council is supreme.\n\nHon. Ho KAI—Against the Government, not against the Council.\n\nThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I am sorry I am misinterpreted.\n\nHIS EXCELLENCY—I may mention that I saw the proof of the proceedings of last Council meeting this morning, and one question asked by an hon. member was whether we had power to do this, or whether we were doing what was legal.\n\nThe ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I need hardly say that it is competent for us, within our jurisdiction, to pass any Ordinance which we think fit. It is perfectly legal to take away any man's rights and alter them, within our proper jurisdiction. It is of course a different question, whether it is expedient. The Courts of Law will carry out the law, and the law is made by this Council. On that point I should like to read some remarks which occur in a judgment by the late Chief Justice in a case concerning the Praya Reclamation Ordinance. These are the words of the late Chief Justice, Sir James Russell:—\"The act of the Legislature is supreme and binding on this Court, and although its action may even take away certain rights, or cover acts the most tyrannical, we cannot interfere.\" The remarks of Chief Justice Cockburn in Phillipps v. Eyre 4 L.R. Q.B. 243, are in point. The Ordinance is made by the Governor with the consent of the Legislative Council, and duly assented to. It is made in virtue of the powers conferred by the ...\n\nPage 30\n\nPage 31", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-263 - Acting Governor Barker Governor Sir Robinson - 1894 [5-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 367994, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-285 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [9-10]", "page_number": 403, "title": "CO129-285 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [9-10]", "content_text": "Page 385\nPage 396\n\ndation in the Police barracks until suitable arrangements could be made in a Chinese friend's house to receive him. This he gladly accepted. Mr. Cockburn of our Legation at Pekin came from Shanghai in the S.S. \"Ballaarat\" on his way to England with Kang Yu Wei and has doubtless reported the whole of the circumstances. I refer to this because at the risk of going outside my province I think it right to say that, in my opinion, Mr. Cockburn has formed too contemptuous an estimate of Kang Yu Wei's projects of reform.\n\nI have little doubt that if the Emperor's plans had been laid more wisely and boldly, and if he had summoned a regiment of soldiers true to him to the palace before acting, he would have been beforehand with the Dowager Empress and have turned the tables on her. Though some of his schemes, such as reform in dress, were absurd and impractical, some were more wise and reasonable, and no one can deny that there is plenty of scope for reform.\n\nI have the honour to be,\nsir,\nYour most obedient humble servant,\n**M. Black**\nMajor-General,\nAdministering the Government.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-285 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [9-10].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 369107, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-287 - Public Offices & Others - 1898", "page_number": 283, "title": "CO129-287 - Public Offices & Others - 1898", "content_text": "# AFFAIRS OF CHINA\n\n## No. 1.\n\n### SECTION 2.\n\n17087 C.O.\n\n70 UL 98\n\n**(No. 87.)**\n\nMy Lord,\n\nSir C. MacDonald to the Marquess of Salisbury-(Received July 11.)\n\nPeking, May 16, 1898.\n\nI HAVE the honour to report that, taking advantage of the presence at Chefoo of Admiral Sir Edward Seymour, I proceeded to that port with the view of conferring with him personally on several points connected with the important negotiations now proceeding with the Chinese Government respecting the cession on lease of certain portions of the Kowloon and Shantung promontories to the English Government.\n\nI was accompanied by Mr. Cockburn, Chinese Secretary of this Legation.\n\nI left Peking on the 3rd May, staying one day at Tien-tsin, where I met, by appointment, his Excellency Wang Wen-shao Viceroy of Chibli Province, with whom I discussed and settled, together with Mr. Consul Scott, several outstanding local questions. His Excellency also begged me to use my influence with the Tsung-li Yamên to further the project of deepening the Peiho River.\n\nOn the 5th instant I left Taku in Her Majesty's ship \"Alacrity,\" which Admiral Seymour had kindly sent for me, arriving at Chefoo on the 6th.\n\nDuring my five days' stay at Chefoo I had many opportunities of discussing with Sir Edward Seymour the details of the coming occupation of Wei-hai Wei, as also the Admiralty requirements at Kowloon, and we were able to come to a thorough understanding on these points.\n\nI left Chefoo on the morning of the 12th, reaching Peking on the 14th instant. During my absence Mr. Bax-Ironside acted as Chargé d'Affaires.\n\nI have, &c.\n\n**(Signed)**\n\nCLAUDE M. MACDONALD,\n\n**CONFIDENTIAL.**\n\n277 DOMESTIC.\n\nC.O. 17305\n\nNo. 17305\n\nREC'd 3 AUG 98\n\n**(Subject.)**\n\nForeign\n\nAug 1898\n\nPrevious Paper: 138\n\n| Column 1 | Column 2 |\n| --- | --- |\n| To P.Gamble | Cons... |\n| Further and | 12001 Lunatic R. Gamble repaid: he she if possible be landed in will be made for his reception reost of journey if informes of time oplace of arrival arrangements |\n\n**(Minutes.)**\n\nSir W. Hamilton\n\nMr Richard Gamble's brother has refused to repay the cost of his brother's passage. I suppose the C.O. will be prepared to pay extra expenses incurred by Mr. P. Gamble in returning home.\n\nT.L.M.\n\nI think we should suggest to O.A.G. that it will probably be advisable for an Officer returning home on leave to take charge of lunatic... to act some Police... We should also telegraph to Mr P. Gamble that arrangements are being made... um Anglum in Ireland.\n\n*3/3*", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-287 - Public Offices & Others - 1898.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 370165, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898", "page_number": 248, "title": "CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898", "content_text": "on account \n\n$18.45c. (American currency), things contingent expenses incurred by \n\nYou \n\nin returning \n\nto Hong Kay \n\nto \n\nvisit and report on \n\nthe ward acquired \n\nlately \n\non the \n\nmainland, and in \n\nrecent visit to \n\nYour teen Londer for the \n\npurpose of conferring with the officials of \n\nthis Dept \n\nCM \n\nthe \n\nsubject of your report. \n\nI am, etc. \n\nC.T. \n\nfor Individual. \n\n1898 \n\nPrevious Paper. \n\ne. Send \n\nCRZ \n\nL.280-342-70000-12-07 \n\n3190-18.98 \n\nSubsequent Paper. \n\nNo. \n\nHONG KONG \n## Plaque \nExam \n424 \n(Subject.) \n### 243 DOMES \nC. OT \n724 \n\nReef 9 JAN 19 \n\n↑ Chinese Passengers \n\nPetition to Hth Adminst. \n\n(Minutes.) \n\nMr. Lucas \n\nI am not sure that we should not send this across with the th. Cockburn's remarks to \n\nthe Governor, not asking for a report but that he may satisfy himself \n\nthat the medical officers carrying \n\nout the examination \n\nin question do not unnecessarily offend \n\nChinese susceptibilities. It might be as well. \n\n11/1 \n\nDA.W.S. C. W. J. \n\n(A-F) \n\nC.PF 11 at once", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 370170, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898", "page_number": 253, "title": "CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898", "content_text": "## REIGH \nM. Cockburn \n8 January \n\n### Chinese petition \n\nThe Enclosure: As prejudiced against the Chinese. \n\nDear Sir,\n\nIt is a tirade against the brief examination of Chinese. As a precaution, it needs to be translated in full.\n\nPrivate Secretary's Office, Hongkong, 9 Jan 19\n\nIt is for Col: Off: water... I suppose I go back to 1/ ever Begge & by brine be sent 93. \n\nFor such action, if any, be required. This China D. \n41 \n3.499. \n\nleas viels treed it in a dela", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 370171, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898", "page_number": 254, "title": "CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898", "content_text": "Dear Ampthill,\n\nI propose this misivetur communica shamed be deposited at the C.O. So issued.\n\nArthur By\n4.1.99\n\n## \n*T. F. L. King King \n24 98.99 \nHong Kong Manf. \n8.\n\nSir H.A. Blake\n\nNUTE.\nAdian 12/1\nW. Hamilton. 1.2\nbus.\nam.\nfield.\nelborne.\nberlain.\n\n### Chinese Memorial\n\nA Memo by Mr. Cockburn \nLee 13674 Straits \nIndies\n\n14 Jan. 99\n\nI have the honour to transmit to you for your information a memorial addressed to Her Majesty the Queen by Liang, a Cantonese subject of the Emperor of China, on the examination of Chinese entering Hong Kong.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 370172, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898", "page_number": 255, "title": "CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898", "content_text": "Dear Amp,\n\nJousipr This miscommu... shmed deporite at the Cur Issud it Mr. & Artte 4-1.99\n\nDRAFT.\n\nL & King Kingsss 724 98.99 Hong Kong Monf. Garmor overnor Soi H.A. Blake\n\n**MINUTE.**\n\n31r. Fiddian 12/1 Svi W. Hamilton\nMr. Autrobus.\nMr. Cox.\nMr. Lucas.\nMr. Graham.\nMr. Wingfield.\nEarl of Selborne.\nMr. Chamberlain.\n\nChinese morial (13 们 Memo. by Mr. Cockburn Lee 13674 Straits Indeard\n\nSir,\n\n14 Jan. 99\n\nI have the honour to transmit to you for your information a memorial addressed to Her Majesty the Queen by Liang X., a Cantonese, on the subject of the medical examination of Chinese entering Hay Kay,", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-289 - Individuals - 1898.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 374412, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-295 - Public Offices - 1899", "page_number": 485, "title": "CO129-295 - Public Offices - 1899", "content_text": "the time it was negotiated, interpret it in relation to a law and rule of procedure enacted many years subsequent to that event. This, the Imperial Government consider as being inadmissible and contrary to precedent and established usage. It is a principle in the interpretation of international agreements, that they should be held to mean what they meant at the time when they were negotiated, and that they are in no way affected by the changes which may have subsequently taken place in the laws and conditions of the countries of the Contracting Parties. The reason of this is obvious; for, were they subordinated to these changes, Treaties would cease to have any binding effect. Interpreted, then in this manner Article XXI of the Treaty of Tien-tsin of 1858 must be held to be altogether unaffected by the changes in the law and rules of procedure with regard to extradition which have taken place since that date.\n\nIn other words, the Acts of 1870 and 1873, which discriminate between political and unpolitical offences do not apply to the extradition of fugitive criminals of Chinese nationality from Hong Kong. The only question then for the Hong Kong Magistrate to decide in the case of Chung Sui-yung was whether there were grounds for thinking he was guilty or not. And had this been done, there can scarcely be a doubt his extradition would have been granted. It was notorious that he was the head of a formidable Secret Society, and that if not the actual offender, he had been a party to the committal of the crimes of which he was accused. Not only the Viceroy of Canton, but, as will be seen in the sequel of this despatch, the Governor of Hong Kong was in possession of independent, and very detailed evidence to that effect.\n\nThe Imperial Government hope that your Lordship will take the point of Treaty obligation, as opposed to what is the present practice of the Hong Kong authorities, into your serious consideration, for it is clearly in the interest of the two countries that the extradition procedure should be simplified, and so framed as—whilst insuring ample protection to the accused—to afford him the minimum of facilities for defeating the ends of justice.\n\nIt may be that in the particular case which is the subject of this note, the evidence technically before the Court was insufficient to justify a conviction; as to that, I have no information, but even if it had been so the Hong Kong authorities could have had not the slightest doubt as to the prisoner's guilt. For the remarkable Memorandum which the Governor of the Colony presented to the Viceroy of Canton in October last, and in which the name of Chung Sui-yung is specially mentioned, clearly shows them to have been in possession of the fullest and most minute evidence of his guilt in respect of both of the offences laid to his charge in the investigation before Commander Hastings.\n\nIn paragraph 12 of the Memorandum, which doubtless your Lordship and Mr. Secretary Chamberlain have seen, it is stated that the formidable organization called the Triad Society, of which Chung Sui-yung was the Chief, plundered the rich, and by means of intimidation extorted contributions from them; that its emissaries raided the cattle, pigs and other domestic animals of the inhabitants of the villages of Woo-Sih-yuen and Lung-hwa Szu; that they had requisitioned a sum of 40,000 dollars paid; and that from the people of Ping-tien, occupying the village until the money was on the 12th October, 1898, they had forcibly taken from the house of a rich man named Chen Yung-szu, a further sum of 4,000 dollars.\n\nIf anything were wanting to demonstrate the unsuitability of the present rules of procedure, and the advisability of returning to the Treaty and those which were in force when the Treaty of Tien-tsin was negotiated, it would only be necessary to point to the case of Chung Sui-yung. The Hong Kong authorities were in possession of the most positive and conclusive evidence of his guilt, and yet such was the faulty nature of the procedure, that his extradition could not be obtained. The fact that the offences of which he was accused were considered as having been committed in furtherance of a political object, was allowed to bias the decision of the Magistrate; otherwise the alibi, supposed to have been established by the evidence of the missionaries, would have been disallowed. It was immaterial whether the burglary had been committed by Chung Sui-yung in person, or, as seems to have been the case, by him through the instrumentality of the men who executed his orders. Equally immaterial was it whether he acted from a political motive or not. In 1858, when the Treaty of Tien-tsin was negotiated, British law made no distinction between political and non-political offences, and the Treaty making none, the only question for the Magistrate to determine was whether the presumptive evidence of his guilt was sufficient to warrant a commitment. The Acts of 1870 and 1878, which for the first time introduced this distinction, being inconsistent with the Treaty, cannot be admitted as applying to the case.\n\nThere is authority for this contention, it having several times been ruled that a Treaty may not only limit but even supersede a Statute. In the case of Wilson, whose extradition was demanded by the Swiss Government in 1877, Chief Justice Cockburn and Justices Mellor and Field held that the Act was limited by the Treaty. And in the case of Reg. v. Tubbee, Chief Justice Macaulay ruled that, so far as Great Britain, Canada, and the United States were concerned, the Ashburton Treaty had superseded the Statute of 3 Wm. IV, cap. 6. Having regard then to these decisions, there is no reason in law, and there certainly is none in expediency, for the continuance of a procedure at Hong Kong, which, in matters of extradition, tends only to frustrate the intention of the Treaty.\n\nIn the interest of the two countries it ought, therefore, to be discontinued, the case of Chung Sui-yung showing that, not only for China, but for Great Britain, it constitutes a source of danger. On the plea, that, in consenting to the extension of the Colony of Hong Kong, the Imperial Government had manifested weakness, and an incapacity to resist the encroachments of foreign nations; and on the pretext of coming to its assistance, but really with the intention of subverting the dynasty, he had raised the membership of the Triad Society to a very great number, estimated by the Governor of Hong Kong at from 40,000, to 50,000 fighting men. In addition to this formidable military force, he had a fleet of 100 sea-going junks, all fully manned and thoroughly equipped for war.\n\nPerhaps this estimate of the strength of his forces may have been excessive, but after making every allowance for exaggeration, the number of men at his disposal must still have been very considerable; for 5,000 of them were known to be in receipt of daily rations and regular pay. The others, under the command of four principal lieutenants, were kept in readiness to be called out on short notice. Stationed in various towns and villages in the neighbourhood of Hong Kong, they held the surrounding country in a state of terror, murdering, plundering, and maltreating all those who refused to join them, or contribute to the funds of the Society. They were well armed and well supplied with ammunition. In their stores they had cannon and many thousand stand of arms of European manufacture, 20,000 suits of uniforms and as many sets of accoutrements. All this, and much more, is circumstantially set forth in the Memorandum of the Governor of Hong Kong, so that the decision of the Magistrate that there was no evidence of the guilt of Chung Sui-yung could scarcely have been based on other than technical grounds.\n\nThe Imperial Government, therefore, hope that orders may yet be given for his arrest, and that, to prevent the recurrence of a similar miscarriage of justice as happened in his case, the present faulty procedure in extradition cases may be amended. For the Imperial Government are firmly persuaded, that so long as this shall not have been done, and so long as the Colony of Hong Kong is allowed to be made an asylum for Chinese banditti, the difficulties of maintaining order and tranquillity in the districts abutted on the leased territory will inevitably go on increasing. Chung Sui-yung calculated on this, it having been part of his plan to excite disturbances on the Kowloong frontier, in the hope of, by means of them, embroiling the Chinese authorities in a dispute with the Colony of Hong Kong; and then of turning that to account in the furtherance of his sinister designs. It was in pursuance of this plan, that he afterwards burned down the sheds erected by the Hong Kong authorities, and opposed, by force of arms, the occupation of the leased territory; and had it not been that he was worsted in his encounter with the British troops, he would have attacked the island of Hong Kong itself.\n\nIn view of the gravity of the situation which these facts evince, I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take the subject of this despatch into their most serious consideration, and that they may see their way so to amend the procedure in extradition cases, that Hong Kong will cease to be a refuge for the criminal classes in the south of China.\n\nThe precedents hereinbefore alluded to proving the legal enactments, when at variance with a Treaty, are to be held as being subordinate to Treaty obligations, would, it seems to me, make this a matter of easy accomplishment.\n\nI have, &c.\n(Signed) LO TĂNG LUH.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-295 - Public Offices - 1899.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 376935, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-300 - Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne Governor Sir Blake - 1900 [7-9]", "page_number": 31, "title": "CO129-300 - Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne Governor Sir Blake - 1900 [7-9]", "content_text": "**Confidential**\n\nAldowy 70182\n\nSir,\n\nHous Long.\n\nCopy C.O. 24673\n\nCC Race | AUG 00 29\n\nGovernment House. 2/7/00.\n\nWith reference to your Confidential despatches of the 9th & 10th of April I have the honour to inform you that during my absence I went to Peking where I spent five days & where I discussed the question of the West River piracy with H. E. Sir Claude MacDonald. On the 8th of May I called by appointment upon the Tsung Li Yamen, accompanied by Mr Cockburn, Chinese Secretary, as interpreter, Viscount Suirdale, my A.D.C, and Mr Ker, Assistant Chinese Secretary, who took notes of the interview. There were seven ministers present though two or three only took part in the conversation. After some preliminary observations we discussed the matter of the insecurity of the West River at some length with the result that the Tsung Li Yamen said the matter must be left to be arranged between the Viceroy, Li Hung Chang, and me, suggesting that I should see him again on the subject, and declaring that they would accept any arrangement made between us.\n\n2.\n\nOn the 10th May the seven ministers present at the Tsung Li Yamen returned my visit at the British Legation. On this occasion Sir Claude MacDonald\n\nThe Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain M.P. \nSecretary of State for the Colonies. \n\nwas", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-300 - Administrator Major Gen Gascoigne Governor Sir Blake - 1900 [7-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 381920, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9]", "page_number": 633, "title": "CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9]", "content_text": "拉\n\n25\n\n630\n\n24\n\nwhatever, and the Governor shall have power, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, to deal with the same and to dispose of the same for building or any other purpose in the same way and to as full an extent as in the case of other Crown lands; and all property, estate rights or supposed rights and easements or supposed easements of any persons or class of persons, whether Crown lease-holders or licensees or otherwise to the uses or possession or occupation of, in, over, or in any way in relation to such land foreshore, bed of the sea, embankment, reclamation or Praya roadway and wall or in relation to any wharf, landing place, pier or other place.\" The 7th section states that a large majority of the Crown lessees have declared their readiness to pay a share of the expense of the reclamation if the Governor will agree to grant them an equitable proportion of the land reclaimed in the front of their lots, and a form of agreement is appended to the Ordinance which gives effect to the equitable rights of the Crown lessees which the Secretary of State pointed out as far back as the year 1857, as appears by Government notification also, in which also the claims of the Crown to reclaimed land are asserted and notified. (See Government Gazette of 7th March 1857.) It is also enacted that a plan showing how much land allotted to each leaseholder shall be exhibited at the Land Office with the amount to be contributed by him, and within two months from the publication of the schedule of allotments, lessees are required to state whether they are prepared to enter into the proposed agreement, and within another month the Governor may enter into agreement with those who desire to come into this arrangement. Sub-section 6 of section 7 enacts as follows: --\"In case any lessee shall not signify his acceptance in manner and within the time provided in sub-sections 2 and 3 of this section, he shall have no claim to any compensation in respect of any depreciation of his lot by reason of the said works, but the Governor may, if he thinks fit, award to him such a sum of money or such a Crown lease of new land as he in his absolute discretion may think sufficient as and by way of compensation for any injury that such lessee may have sustained by the said works.\" Section 8 is:-\"Except as in this Ordinance provided no marine lot-holder or other person shall be entitled as against the Crown to any damages or compensation for the depreciation or injurious affecting of his property or business caused by, or resulting either directly or remotely, from any of the said works.\" \n\nFrom an examination of the affidavits read in this matter and the counterpart of the Crown lease of Marine lot 82, which was put in by the Acting Attorney-General, it appears that in 1866 the Governor for and on behalf of Her Majesty demised to Mr. Ryrie, Mr. Alexander Turing, and Mr. J. McDonall a piece of ground abutting on the Praya and containing 28,800 square feet. Its northern boundary abuts on Government ground, and is about 50 feet from the Praya wall. The south and east boundaries are also on Government ground, and the western boundary is on a public street. The amount paid was a nominal sum of $5, and the rental record was $1 per annum, and it was granted to these three gentlemen as trustees as a site for a City Hall. The lessees have attached their names to a declaration that although the value of the site is considerable the demise has been made of Her Majesty's favour without pecuniary consideration, but upon the condition that these said premises shall not be used nor any part of them for any other purpose than a City Hall in pain of forfeiture, and they have covenanted not to sublet, mortgage or sell or make any other use of the site than that for which it was granted. Whatever therefore may be said as to the characteristics of marine lots - as to the high price paid to the Government for them because of right of access and proximity to the sea, the higher rents reserved and their greater value in the market when they came to be sold - little can be said in these respects about this so-called marine lot 82, which cost practically nothing, and cannot be let, sold or mortgaged. It has not been shown that any right of access to the sea has been enjoyed by the plaintiff more than any one of the public, and from the nature of the case, it cannot make the least difference whether it is 50 feet or 5,000 from the sea, provided the present road is not narrowed, and it is admitted that it is to be widened to 75 feet. If, however, any actionable wrong has been done, or is about to be done, damages would meet the case. An injunction would be out of the question in my opinion, although it has been urged that a perpetual injunction is the only remedy. If such were the case, no public works of any kind, however desirable, could be undertaken, for any person by his own motion might stop their prosecution, even when commenced for months as the Praya works have been, after much expense had been incurred and contracts entered into.\n\nBut apart from the merits of this particular case, whatever may be the rights of this or any other marine lot-holder, the jurisdiction of this Court is ousted by the Praya Reclamation Ordinance. The Legislature has, by section 7 sub-section 6, enacted that Crown lessees who have not come in under sub-sections 2 and 3, shall have no claim to compensation in respect of any depreciation of his lot by reason of the said works, and the Governor is vested with absolute discretion as to awarding compensation to those who have not come into the agreement. If the plaintiff did attempt to come in under the agreement and was not permitted, or if he was refused any compensation by the Governor, still this Court cannot help him, for sections 6 and 8 extinguish all rights and remedies except those provided by the Ordinance, namely, to have an equitable allotment or compensation for injury as the Governor may decide. It is urged that section 6 amounts to confiscation of private rights, and that the Ordinance is ultra vires - that the Queen cannot derogate from her own grant, and cannot by a legislative act take away what has been granted in her executive capacity. I confess I should have liked to have seen a tribunal constituted to inquire whether there were any rights and to declare them. It is somewhat absurd, however, to suppose that where public improvements in a colony are needed that one or more lessees are entitled to block them. But of course their rights ought to be ascertained and compensated. To say, however, that because a man has had certain access to the harbour he is always to have it whatever public requirements may indicate, is not reasonable; but any injury of a legal nature giving him a right of action should be remedied by adequate damages. The Thames embankment cases illustrate how owners may be injured by public works and how they are compensated. But the Act of the legislature is supreme and binding on this Court, and although its action may even take away certain rights tyrannously we cannot interfere.\n\nThe remarks of Chief Justice Cockburn in Phillips v. Eyre, 4 L. R., 2 Q.B., are in point. The Ordinance is made by the Governor with the consent of the Legislative Council and duly assented to. It is made in virtue of the powers conferred by the charter of the Colony (see letters patent 20th January, 1888, revoking the charter of 15th April, 1843, and granting a new charter). The charter, whilst conferring legislative power on the Colony, reserves to Her Majesty a concurrent, not paramount power of legislating by order in Council, and reserves the power of disallowing any Ordinance. The Praya Reclamation Ordinance has not only not been disallowed but confirmed, as appears by Gazette notification (see judgment of Cockburn C.J. on the effects of confirmation of a colonial law by Her Majesty on the advice of her responsible Ministers answerable to Parliament). The Colonial Laws Validity Act, 28 and 29 Vic., c. 63, shows in what respects only colonial legislation may be void for repugnancy, whilst a late case (Powell v. The Apollo Candle Co., N. S. Appeal Cases) and the cases therein cited and referred to affirm previous decisions that Colonial Legislatures within their own jurisdiction have plenary powers of legislation, and are supreme within their own limits.\n\nTo put the matter shortly, I am of opinion that if the plaintiff has a cause of action at all, he is not entitled to an injunction but only to damages. Second, that any cause of action which he might have is taken away by the Ordinance, which vests in the Governor the...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 386702, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902", "page_number": 157, "title": "CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902", "content_text": "## Inclosure 2 in No. 1\n**Sir J. Mackay to Sheng Taotai.**\n\nHong Kong, November 9, 1901.\n\nYOUR Excellency has been informed by Sir Ernest Satow, His Britannic Majesty's Minister at Peking, that I have been appointed by His Britannic Majesty as his Special Commissioner and Plenipotentiary to negotiate with the Government of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China a revision of the Commercial Treaties which exist between the two countries, and I have been apprised that you have been appointed by His Majesty the Emperor of China to treat with me.\n\nI have, therefore, the honour to inform your Excellency that I arrived here yesterday from England, and that I purpose proceeding to Shanghai, after having visited some of the Treaty ports. I shall advise you in due course the date of my proposed arrival at Shanghai, and, on reaching there, I shall have the honour to submit my credentials.\n\nI have, &c. \n(Signed) JAS. L. MACKAY.\n\n## No. 2\n**Sir J. Mackay to the Marquess of Lansdowne.--(Received December 23.)**\n\n(No. 3.) \nMy Lord, \nHong Kong, November 23, 1901.\n\nIN continuation of my despatch No. 1 of the 11th instant, I have now the honour to inform you that I had a further interview with Sir Ernest Satow here on Monday, the 11th instant, at which I was favoured with a full expression of his views on the various subjects set forth in my instructions.\n\nSir Ernest was good enough to place at my disposal, so long as I may require them, the services of Mr. J. W. Jamieson, Commercial Attaché to the Legation at Peking.\n\nOn Monday evening (11th instant) I left Hong Kong, accompanied by Mr. Cockburn and the Secretaries, for Canton, where we spent three days, and had the opportunity of hearing the views of the Acting Consul-General, Mr. James Scott, the mercantile community, and the Commissioner of the Imperial Maritime Customs, Mr. F. A. Morgan. Mr. Morgan's defence of the existing West River and Inland Navigation Rules, of which so much complaint has been heard, was not very strong, and, after several interviews, he finally promised to consider whether some other Rules could be devised which would permit steamers to trade freely upon the West River and inland waters of the Southern Provinces, and, at the same time, sufficiently safeguard the revenues of China.\n\nSince I left Canton I have received the inclosed letter from Mr. Scott, Acting British Consul-General at Canton, dated the 18th instant, with copy of his despatch of the 16th instant to Sir Ernest Satow, by which your Lordship will observe that Mr. Morgan has written to Sir Robert Hart, proposing that certain important alterations should be made forthwith in the Rules; and, if these are sanctioned, the difficulties now experienced in running steamers between Canton and the West River ports will be, in a great measure, removed. There are other important changes which are necessary in connection with the West River trade; but these can stand over till negotiations take place in Shanghai.\n\nIn connection with the new Rules which Mr. Morgan has proposed to Sir Robert Hart, I also inclose a copy of a letter, dated the 18th instant, from Mr. Fearon, Chairman of the Canton Chamber of Commerce, with the correspondence above mentioned. I also send copy of my letter to Mr. Scott, dated the 19th instant, and copy of my letter to Mr. Fearon, dated the 14th instant.\n\nWhile in Canton I called on the Governor, the Tartar General, and the 'Hoppo' (Head of the Native Customs), and received return visits from these officials. The Viceroy was unable to see me, owing to illness; I understand he is suffering from acute phthisis, and is not expected to live long.\n\nWe were entertained at dinner by the Canton Chamber of Commerce on the 13th instant, and on the morning of the 15th instant left by steamer for Wuchow, on the West River.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 386709, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902", "page_number": 164, "title": "CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902", "content_text": "## No. 2.\n\n163\n\n**(No. 3.) My Lord,**\n\nSir J. Mackay to the Marquess of Lansdowne,--(Received December 23.)\n\nHong Kong, November 23, 1901.\n\nIN continuation of my despatch No. 1 of the 11th instant, I have now the honour to inform you that I had a further interview with Sir Ernest Satow here on Monday, the 11th instant, at which I was favoured with a full expression of his views on the various subjects set forth in my instructions.\n\nSir Ernest was good enough to place at my disposal, so long as I may require them, the services of Mr. J. W. Jamieson, Commercial Attaché to the Legation at Peking.\n\nOn Monday evening (11th instant) I left Hong Kong, accompanied by Mr. Cockburn and the Secretaries, for Canton, where we spent three days, and had the opportunity of hearing the views of the Acting Consul-General, Mr. James Scott, the mercantile community, and the Commissioner of the Imperial Maritime Customs, Mr. F. A. Morgan. Mr. Morgan's defence of the existing West River and Inland Navigation Rules, of which so much complaint has been heard, was not very strong, and, after several interviews, he finally promised to consider whether some other Rules could be devised which would permit steamers to trade freely upon the West River and inland waters of the Southern Provinces, and, at the same time, sufficiently safeguard the revenues of China.\n\nSince I left Canton I have received the inclosed letter from Mr. Scott, Acting British Consul-General at Canton, dated the 18th instant, with copy of his despatch of the 16th instant to Sir Ernest Satow, by which your Lordship will observe that Mr. Morgan has written to Sir Robert Hart, proposing that certain important alterations should be made forthwith in the Rules; and, if these are sanctioned, the difficulties now experienced in running steamers between Canton and the West River ports will be, in a great measure, removed. There are other important changes which are necessary in connection with the West River trade; but these can stand over till negotiations take place in Shanghae.\n\nIn connection with the new Rules which Mr. Morgan has proposed to Sir Robert Hart, I also inclose a copy of a letter, dated the 18th instant, from Mr. Fearon, Chairman of the Canton Chamber of Commerce, with the correspondence above mentioned. I also send copy of my letter to Mr. Scott, dated the 19th instant, and copy of my letter to Mr. Fearon, dated the 14th instant.\n\nWhile in Canton I called on the Governor, the Tartar General, and the \"Hoppo\" (Head of the Native Customs), and received return visits from these officials. Viceroy was unable to see me, owing to illness; I understand he is suffering from acute phthisis, and is not expected to live long.\n\nWe were entertained at dinner by the Canton Chamber of Commerce on the 13th instant, and on the morning of the 15th instant left by steamer for Wuchow, on the West River.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 386984, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902", "page_number": 439, "title": "CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902", "content_text": "# CHINA TRADE\n## CONFIDENTIAL\n### No. 1\n\n434\n\n[October 13.]\n\n## SECTION 1\n\n**C. O.**\n1 40009\n\n(No. 115.) My Lord,\n\nSir J. Mackay to the Marquess of Lansdowne.—(Received October 13.)\n\nShanghae, September 8, 1902.\n\nI HAVE the honour to transmit herein twelve copies of the English text of the new Treaty, with its annexes.\n\nSince the date of my last general Report to your Lordship on the progress of negotiations, No. 105 of the 16th August, I have had meetings with the Chinese Commissioners, or their Secretaries, on an average at least once every day.\n\nIn the course of these interviews new points were constantly raised, sometimes by one Viceroy, sometimes by another, and old points raked up which were supposed by both sides to have been already settled.\n\nAmong these the question of the currency Article came up. Viceroy Liu, being apparently nervous that merchants might claim to substitute the new coin for the Haikwan tael in payment of customs duties, no matter what its value, asked the Commissioners to send me a despatch in which the Viceroy's view that such action was not contemplated by the Treaty was clearly laid down. In compliance with their Excellencies' request, I sent them a reply confirming this view, and I took the opportunity of adding some words which made it clear that free coinage of silver is contemplated in the new currency organization—a stipulation which I was unable to get inserted when the Article was agreed owing to the absolute ignorance and consequent suspicion of the Chinese on the subject.\n\nAt their Excellencies' desire these despatches are added to the Treaty as annexes, and therefore the Chinese stand now, to some extent, committed to establish free coinage of silver.\n\nIn regard to Article IV, a despatch, translation of which is inclosed, was addressed to me in reply to the note which I sent in accordance with your Lordship's instructions on the subject of reserving the right of His Majesty's Government to take Diplomatic action. The despatch does not seem to be in any way a bar to such action being taken if necessary, and I have, therefore, let the matter rest at this point.\n\nYour Lordship will remember that it was settled at Wuchang that silk was to pass free through all native custom-houses. Shortly before the final preparations for the signature of the Treaty, I discovered that in the Chinese text the word \"cocoons\" had been substituted for \"silk,\" owing to the inadvertence of one of Sheng Kung-pao's bad Secretaries, and that, this word having been submitted to the Throne instead of the word \"silk,\" the Chinese were anxious to have the English text made to correspond. At first I refused, but after some discussion a compromise was come to under which only cocoons pass free through the native custom-houses, being liable, though, to full export duty, while silk is to pay, like other goods, 2 1/4 per cent. ad valorem at the first native custom-house, but is to get the amount returned at the place of export. Both silk and cocoons remain free from the surtax as decided at Wuchang.\n\nYour Lordship will perceive that, as a result of much tedious negotiation, I have been able to render the safeguards somewhat more stringent against violation of the provisions of the Treaty. The rights of His Majesty's Ministers, for instance, to interfere in cases of complaint is definitely recognized by China—an important point, as it is often difficult to get Chinese to take the initiative and make a complaint. I am indebted to Mr. Cockburn for this suggestion, made to me from Peking when he saw the draft of `Article VIII`.\n\nIn regard to inland navigation it will be seen that the wording of Rule I is somewhat peculiar, as the first sentence alludes to steam-ship owners, and the second to merchants. This is a suggestion of the Chinese themselves, and I have been unable to understand why they did not ask to have the word \"merchants\" changed to \"steam-ship owners\" in the second paragraph.\n\nI have myself fruitlessly endeavoured to induce the Chinese to substitute the word \"merchants\" for \"ship-owners\" in the first paragraph on account of the former word being more comprehensive.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-314 - Public Offices - 1902.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 390963, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]", "page_number": 516, "title": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]", "content_text": "# INTERPRETATION OF EXTRADITION TREATIES.\n\nIn my judgment these treaties ought to receive a liberal interpretation, which means no more than that they should receive their true construction according to their language, object, and intent. I know no head of the French law for which an exact equivalent is to be found in the law of England. The English and French texts of the treaty are not translations of one another. They are different versions, but versions which, on the whole, are in substantial agreement.\n\nPer Lord RUSSELL, C.J., In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132.\n\n# ON APPEAL, NEW MATERIALS MAY BE PRESENTED TO THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION BESIDES WHAT WAS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE,\n\nPer DENMAN, J.: The Act itself requires the Magistrate to inform the prisoner that he may apply for a habeas corpus, and, if he is entitled to apply for a habeas corpus, justice must have power to go into the whole matter, and I think it follows that the Queen's Bench Division in some cases, if there be certainly fresh evidence and cogent evidence, it could not say for a moment that it would feel itself crippled by the mere fact that the Magistrate, upon much less evidence, or perhaps upon the same evidence had taken a different view of the matter.\n\nPer HAWKINS, J.: If a man has a right to move for a habeas corpus in order that the case may be reviewed, it would be an absurdity to say that he might not enter into those matters which showed that he had been guilty of no offence at all; and by no means was the matter concluded by the Magistrate's decision that he be committed for trial, because the Magistrate does not sit, when he is committing for trial, as a Magistrate sitting finally to dispose of the case, and to give judgment upon it. I think that they (the provisions of the Act) are quite sufficient certainly to satisfy me that the Magistrate's decision is by no means binding, either in point of law or in point of fact, and that, when these matters come to be considered upon the habeas corpus, if the Judges have to consider the case, they must consider the case as it is before them at the time the rule is discussed, and I think that we are not bound by, though we pay respect to, what the Magistrate's views were.\n\nIn re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344; 17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328.\n\n(But see also later case of In re Arton (p. 23), L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (I) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132, where Lord Russell, C.J., said: \"We are not a Court of Appeal on questions of fact from him (the Magistrate). We have only to see that he had such evidence before him as gave him authority and jurisdiction to commit.\")\n\n(See also In re Arton (p. 23), L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23, where Lord Russell, C.J., said \"The Court is bound to see whether or not a prima facie case has been made out before the Magistrate.\")\n\nPage 7\n\n# EX PARTE BOUVIER. France.\n\n21st November, 1872.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: COCKBURN, C.J., MELLOR and BLACKBURN, JJ.\n\n42 L.J. Q.B. 17; 12 Cox C.C. 303; 27 L.T. (N.S.) 844. Committed for extradition, by Police Magistrate of Jersey, for \"fuum et banqueroute frauduleuse.\" The French warrant had been granted upon a judgment of an Assize Court, on which Bouvier had been condemned on three several charges of abus de confiance, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. Abus de confiance was not an offence included in the Convention of 13th February, 1843.\n\nContended: No power under the Convention or under the Act of 1870 to surrender for abus de confiance. No power to surrender the criminal inasmuch as no provision or arrangement had been made as required by section 3 (2) of the Extradition Act, 1870.\n\nAffidavit of the officially appointed Counsel to the French Embassy put in as to the state of French law.\n\nHeld: That under the existing law of France such provision is made.\n\n(See also case of United States v. Lawrence, 13 Cox C.C. 361)\n\n(And see now Article IV. of the treaty with France of 14th August, 1876.)\n\n# EX PARTE ELISE COUNHAYE.\n\nBelgium.\n\n23rd May, 1873.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH : BLACKBURN, QUAIN, and ARCHIBALD, JJ.\n\nL.R. 8 Q.B. 410; 42 L.J.Q.B. 217.\n\nAccused of complicity in her husband's bankruptcy.\n\nContended: (i.) Complicity in a fraudulent bankruptcy is not a crime within the Extradition Act.\n\nA treaty cannot extend the Act. (ii.) The facts charged were committed before the Act was passed, and section 6 does not apply to crimes committed before the Act was passed.\n\n(i.) The depositions were not taken before the Magistrate who issued the warrant as required by Article II. of the treaty.\n\n(iv.) The depositions are not receivable not having been taken in the presence of the accused.\n\n(v.) The Belgian warrant is bad, charging crime in France; and it is not for the same crime as the English commitment.\n\nPer COLERIDGE, A.G. - Accessories before the fact are not mentioned in the Schedule to the Act because at common law they are in effect the same as principals, and aiders and abettors can by statute be tried as well as punished as principals.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 390965, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]", "page_number": 518, "title": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]", "content_text": "R. v. WILSON,\n\nSwitzerland,\n\n2nd November, 1877.\n\nPage 10\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: COCKBURN, L.C.J., MELLOR and FIELD, JJ.\n\nL.R. 3 Q.B.D. 42; 48 L.J.M.C. 37; 13 Cox C.C. 630; 37 L.T. (N.S.) 544.\n\nW., a British subject, had been committed by the Magistrate for surrender for larceny in Switzerland. By the Swiss treaty of 1874, no subject of the United Kingdom shall be delivered up by the Government thereof to Switzerland. The Magistrate was of opinion that he was not entitled to consider the terms of the treaty, but only the Extradition Acts.\n\nBOWEN, in support of the commitment, contended:\n\nThe Order in Council does not limit the operation of the Extradition Acts; it merely recites the treaty.\n\nHeld: The Act can only have application so far as it is consistent with the treaty. The Order in Council must be co-extensive with, and limited by the treaty.\n\n(See Article I. of the Treaty with Switzerland, of 26th November, 1880, as to \"NATIONALS.\")\n\n(See also In re Galwey, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 230; 65 L.J.M.C. 38; 18 Cox C.C. 213; 60 J.P. 87.)\n\nCOMMONWEALTH v. HAWES.\n\nUnited States of America.\n\n17th April, 1878.\n\nCOURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY.\n\n14 Cox C.C. 135.\n\nHawes was surrendered to the U.S.A. by Canada to answer three charges of forgery. He was tried on two indictments for forgery, and acquitted. He was held in custody, however, to answer a charge of embezzlement; and he moved, on affidavit, to be released from custody. The Court ordered the case for embezzlement to be continued, and prisoner released from custody. The Commonwealth appealed.\n\nHeld: The precise purpose for which the fugitive is to be surrendered is set out in exact and apt language, and the Act negatives, by necessary implication, the right here claimed, that the person surrendered may be tried for an offence different from that for which he was extradited, and one for which his surrender could not have been demanded.\n\n(The French Minister of Justice, in his circular of 15 April, 1841, said: \"The extradition declares the offence which leads to it, and this offence alone ought to be inquired into.\" The rule, as stated by the German author Heffter, is that: \"The individual, whose extradition has been granted, cannot be prosecuted nor tried for any crime except that for which the extradition has been obtained. To act in any other way, and to cause him to be tried for other crimes or misdemeanors, would be to violate the mutual principle of asylum, and the silent clause contained by implication in every extradition.\")\n\n(See also United States v. Rauscher, quoted in In re Alice Woodall, 57 L.J.M.C. 72; 16 Cox C.C. 478.) (And see now Article III. of the Convention with the U.S.A. of 12th July, 1889.)\n\nEX PARTE TERRAZ.\n\nSwitzerland.\n\nDec., 1878.\n\nEXCHEQUER DIVISION: KELLY, C.B., and Huddleston, B.\n\nL.R. 4 Ex. D. 63; 48 L.J. Ex. 214; 14 Cox C.C. 153; 39 L.T. (N.S.) 502; 27 W.R. 170.\n\nTerraz was arrested on a warrant for \"crimes against bankruptcy law,\" issued upon an information by the Chancellor of the Swiss Consulate General on 12th November, 1878, and twice remanded. While under remand a rule nisi was obtained on the ground that the warrant (i.e., the first warrant) did not sufficiently set forth the nature of the offence, &c. Before the case was argued a second warrant was issued, upon the Secretary of State's Order, describing the offence more fully.\n\nArgued, by ATHERLEY JONES, for the accused, that the first warrant does not describe a specific offence; and that the second warrant could not be set up in answer to the rule.\n\nHeld: KELLY, C.B., entertained no doubt that the description of the offence charged against the prisoner was sufficient; and that the Magistrate was entitled to remand the prisoner on the warrant with a view to further enquiry.\n\nHUDDLESTON, B., agreed, this being a warrant for safe custody of the party until the case can be properly enquired into, and the authorities show that in such warrants a general assertion or a general charge is sufficient.\n\nPage 11\n\n(The Judges differed as to whether the second warrant lodged in this case could be a valid answer to the rule, KELLY, C.B., saying: \"If the case had turned upon, or it had been necessary to refer to, or to rely at all upon, the second warrant, I should have thought it a direct violation of the first principles of the law and constitution of this country to deal with that warrant in any way unless the counsel for the accused had had an opportunity previously of seeing it and preparing himself to argue upon it.\" HUDDLESTON, B., saying: \"As far as I know, in practice and on authority, there can be no doubt whatever that a fresh warrant may be lodged; there may be one, two, three or other warrants substituted for the original one; but if, when the matter is before the Judge, there is a good warrant, that is sufficient to detain the prisoner.\")\n\n(“Abus de confiance\" in French warrant, and “fraud by an agent\" in English commitment held to be sufficient description of the offence; see ex parte Piot, 15 Cox C.C. 208; 47 J.P. 247; 48 L.T. (N.S.) 120.\n\nSee also R. v. Jacobi and Hiller; 46 L.T. (N.S.) 595, footnote; and In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132.)\n\nPage 10529\n\nB 2\n\n512", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 391076, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-321 - Public Offices & Others - 1903", "page_number": 37, "title": "CO129-321 - Public Offices & Others - 1903", "content_text": "CHINA TRADE.\n\nCONFIDENTIAL.\n\nNo. 1.\n\n[February 6.] 34\n\nC. O. SECTION 1,\n\n6432\n\n0\n\n4 MAR CO,\n\n(No. 31.) Sir,\n\nThe Marquess of Lansdowne to Mr. Townley.\n\nForeign Office, February 6, 1903.\n\nI TRANSMIT to you a copy of a letter from Sir J. Mackay, late His Majesty's Special Commissioner in China, containing his concluding observations on the Mission intrusted to him for the revision of the Treaty of Commerce, signed at Tien-tsin on the 26th June, 1858, and for the adoption of a Customs Tariff framed in accordance with Articles 6 and 11 of the Final Protocol of Peking of the 5th September, 1901.\n\nI have had much pleasure in noting Sir J. Mackay's acknowledgments of the assistance, information, and advice which he received from Sir Ernest Satow during the course of the negotiations.\n\nSir J. Mackay also acknowledges his indebtedness to Mr. J. W. Jamieson, Commercial Attaché to His Majesty's Legation, and states that his thanks are due to Sir P. Warren, His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghae, to Mr. Fraser, His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow, to Mr. J. Scott, His Majesty's Consul-General at Canton, to Mr. Sundius, His Majesty's Consul at Nanking, and to Mr. Wilkinson, Acting British Consul at Nanking.\n\nI request that you will inform these gentlemen that my attention has been called by Sir J. Mackay to their services, and that you will convey to them the expression of my approval.\n\nSir J. Mackay has further brought to my notice the valuable assistance which he received from Mr. Bland, \"Times\" correspondent at Shanghae, and from Mr. G. Jamieson and Mr. A. F. Currie of the Peking Syndicate.\n\nYou should convey to these gentlemen my warm appreciation of their friendly co-operation and my thanks for their services.\n\nI am, &c.\n\n(Signed)\n\nLANSDOWNE.\n\nNo. 2.\n\nSir,\n\nThe Marquess of Lansdowne to Sir J. Mackay.\n\nForeign Office, February 6, 1903.\n\nI HAVE received your communication of the 16th ultimo, containing a final Report on the negotiations intrusted to you as His Majesty's Special Commissioner, for the revision of the Treaty of Commerce, signed at Tien-tsin on the 26th June, 1858, and for the adoption of a Customs Tariff, framed in accordance with Articles 6 and 11 of the Final Protocol of Peking of the 5th September, 1901.\n\nI have to convey to you the thanks of His Majesty's Government for your conduct of the difficult and protracted negotiations which have resulted in the conclusion of a Treaty favourable to British interests, as well as advantageous to China.\n\nHis Majesty's Government fully realize the numerous obstacles against which you had to contend in reconciling conflicting interests before any Agreement could be arrived at, and they highly appreciate the ability, tact, and perseverance shown by you throughout the discussions.\n\nI have had pleasure in communicating your Report to Mr. H. Cockburn, C.B., and Mr. C. J. Dudgeon, with an expression of my appreciation of the assistance which they rendered to you.\n\nCopies of my letters to Mr. Cockburn and Mr. Dudgeon are inclosed for your information.\n\nI request that you will convey to Mr. C. Somers Cocks, and to Mr. W. H. Clark, my entire approval of the manner in which they have performed their duties as Secretaries to the Commission.\n\n[1810-1]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-321 - Public Offices & Others - 1903.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 391077, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-321 - Public Offices & Others - 1903", "page_number": 38, "title": "CO129-321 - Public Offices & Others - 1903", "content_text": "2\n\n3\n\n35\n\nI will request His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking to express to Mr. J. W. Jamieson, Commercial Attaché to His Majesty's Legation in China, to Mr. J. O. P. Bland, and to the other gentlemen mentioned in your Report, my warm appreciation of the assistance rendered by them during the negotiations.\n\nSir,\n\nNo. 3.\n\nI am, &c.\n\n(Signed)\n\nLANSDOWNE.\n\nThe Marquess of Lansdowne to Mr. H. Cockburn.\n\nForeign Office, February 6, 1903.\n\nI TRANSMIT to you a copy of a letter from Sir J. Mackay, late His Majesty's Special Commissioner in China, containing his concluding observations on the Mission intrusted to him for the revision of the Treaty of Commerce, signed at Tien-tsin on the 26th June, 1858, and for the adoption of a Customs Tariff framed in accordance with Articles 6 and 11 of the Final Protocol of Peking of the 5th September, 1901.\n\nI have to express to you my full approval of the part which you took in the negotiations, both at Shanghae and subsequently at Peking, and my appreciation of the assistance which your great experience of Chinese official usage enabled you to render to His Majesty's Special Commissioner.\n\nSir,\n\nNo. 4.\n\nI am, &c.\n\n(Signed)\n\nLANSDOWNE.\n\nThe Marquess of Lansdowne to Mr. C. J. Dudgeon.\n\nForeign Office, February 6, 1903.\n\nI TRANSMIT to you a copy of a letter from Sir J. Mackay, late His Majesty's Special Commissioner in China, containing his concluding observations on the Mission intrusted to him for the revision of the Treaty of Commerce, signed at Tien-tsin on the 26th June, 1858, and for the adoption of a Customs ad valorem Tariff framed in accordance with Articles 6 and 11 of the Final Protocol of Peking of the 5th September, 1901.\n\nI have pleasure in conveying to you the warm thanks of His Majesty's Government for the valuable assistance rendered by you to Sir J. Mackay. They appreciate highly the disinterested manner in which you devoted your time and attention to the work of the Commission, and they fully realize the important services which your remarkable knowledge of commercial questions and usages in China enabled you to render in connection with the drawing up of the New Specific Import Tariff.\n\nI am, &c.\n\n(Signed)\n\nLANSDOWNE.\n\nmanner prescribed by Article 6 of the Final Protocol, signed at Peking on the 7th September, 1901. In consequence, however, of the recent fall in the value of silver, the specific duties do, in fact, represent in most cases less than 5 per cent. ad valorem.\n\nForeign goods proceeding into the interior of China are liable at present to pay, in addition, transit charges, such as li-kin, &c., unless these charges are commuted by an additional payment of half the amount of the original duty, in return for which transit passes are obtained purporting to exempt the goods from further exactions en route. It must, however, be borne in mind that the Chinese authorities claim, and often exercise, under the terms of Article XXVIII of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, the right to levy further taxation as soon as the exempted goods have reached their place of destination; moreover, as matters stand at present, foreign goods cease to obtain effectual protection as soon as they have passed into the hands of Chinese subjects, who are only able to avoid undue delay at the barriers by the payment of \"squeezes\" to the officials. They do not dare to complain if the passes attached to goods owned by them are not respected by the Chinese authorities, and they, therefore, generally prefer not to avail themselves of transit passes.\n\nWhenever Article VIII of the new Treaty, which deals with internal charges on trade and the Customs Tariff, comes into force, foreign goods will pay, in addition to the present import duty, an additional surtax amounting to one and a-half times that duty. The combined import duty and surtax will free foreign goods from every description of internal taxation, including the present tax at the place of destination, and as all the li-kin, &c., barriers, will be abolished, the delay which now occurs will be avoided, and it will not be possible for li-kin to be exacted on foreign goods, even when in the hands of Chinese subjects.\n\nIn regard to the third point which you raise in your letter, I am to state that His Majesty's Government certainly expect that the provisions for the abolition of li-kin, &c., contained in Article VIII of the Treaty will be carried out by the Chinese authorities as soon as the Article itself comes into force. If any li-kin stations should be retained after the date fixed for abolition, or re-established, reports of such an occurrence would certainly not fail to reach His Majesty's Representative at Peking, or one of His Majesty's Consuls in China, who would at once make representations to the Chinese authorities for their removal, and would subsequently satisfy himself (if necessary by personal inspection on the spot) that his representations had been effectual.\n\nI am also to point out that it would evidently be useless for His Majesty's Government to negotiate any Treaty with China, were it to be assumed as a matter of course that the Chinese Government will not observe its stipulations, and that His Majesty's Government are unable to hold them to their obligations.\n\nI am, &c.\n\n(Signed)\n\nF. A. CAMPBELL.\n\nNo. 5.\n\nSir,\n\nForeign Office to Walsall Chamber of Commerce.\n\nForeign Office, February 6, 1903.\n\nI LAID before the Marquess of Lansdowne your letter to the Board of Trade of the 20th ultimo, making certain inquiries as to the Commercial Treaty recently concluded between Great Britain and China.\n\nIn regard to your first question, I am directed by his Lordship to state that the Treaty has not yet been ratified, but that by Article XVI provision is made for its ratification within a year from the 5th September, 1902, the date on which the Treaty was signed.\n\nIn reply to your inquiry as to the amount of duties provided for under the new Treaty as compared with those now levied, I am to inform you that the present Tariff of import duties was framed on a basis of 5 per cent. ad valorem, calculated in the", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-321 - Public Offices & Others - 1903.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 393081, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7]", "page_number": 262, "title": "CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7]", "content_text": "Regarding the s.s. \"Mascotte.\"\n\nHur L.umed glad to learn at His Lordship's earliest convenience what further instructions should be sent to the Acting Governor.\n\nDESPATCH.\n\nNo. 25579 261\n\nNo. 904 July\n\nMiscellaneous Paper.\n\nNo. 25979 (Subject.)\n\nMiss Schafer invalided home. Recreation Officer should be appointed as soon as possible.\n\n(Minutes.)\n\nMake known to Miss Cockburn that she is an applicant for appointment and offer her this post subject to examination.\n\nC.P.L. 25 July\n\nConsecutive Paper: 27446\n\nPage information is not explicitly present in the given text, but if it were, it would be kept as per the instructions.\n\n \nhas been removed as it is not part of the original text and was an explanation. The text has been formatted into paragraphs using HTML tags as per the instructions. Spacing issues have been corrected, and words have been reordered or added where necessary to form complete sentences. The original text's content has been preserved as much as possible, with corrections made only where unambiguous errors were present.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 393089, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7]", "page_number": 270, "title": "CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7]", "content_text": "√ This letter is to be detached and left with the Medical Adviser,\n\n17 When\n\nDowning Street, London,\n\n29 Jul 1904\n\nSir,\n\nJunk 269\n\nI am directed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to\n\nrequest that you will be good enough to examine the bearer of this letter,\n\nhum A-ku. Cockburn\n\nand report whether, in your opinion, he is physically fit for service as\n\nHospital nurse in Hongkong.\n\nYour professional fee\n\nHe has been informed that he will have to pay you a fee of one\n\nguinea, which will be paid to him by the Crown Agent for the\n\nColonies.\n\nI am,\n\nSir,\n\nYour obedient Servant,\n\nAnt. Ly. Davidson, Beg R\n\nTo\n\nJack Manson, Esq., M.D., F.R.C.P.,\n\n21, Queen Anne Street, London, W.;\n\new, Davidson, Beg R\n\nMorningside Drive, Edinburgh;\n\nswirey Benson, Esq., M.D.,\n\n57,\n\nFitzwilliam Square, Dublin\n\n(Hours: 10 a.m. to 12 noon.)\n\n(Hours: 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.)\n\n(Hours: 2.30 to 4 p.m.)\n\nPage 270\n\nPage 271", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 393139, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7]", "page_number": 320, "title": "CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7]", "content_text": "To confirm the telegraphic correspondence as noted in the margin:\n\nTo: 27 July, From: 28 July\n\nTo: 5 Day!, From: 7\"\n\nTo: 26\", From: 28\n\nAlfred\n\nTo: 1 Sep, From: 2 Sep\n\nTo: 6 Sept, From: 7 Sept\n\nFm: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9\n\nMC 319 DESPATCH.\n\nNo. Tel: 1904\n\nRef. previous Paper: No 27446\n\n(Subject.)\n\nNurse Florence Barr tenders resignation. Successor required arriving on or about now.\n\n(Minutes.)\n\nSee also 27306\n\nIt has been decided not to offer to Miss Cockburn direct...\n\n...their... on which... how to write to CA asking... key to this... to recommend two nursing sisters for Hongkong - vice Miss Barr, Miss Schafer.\n\nI think we had... \"Nuli! Duy the ine y... in making... I. Ale... froubl... Straits...\n\nA./. 4472/8\n\nALC 12\n\nDu Leen. H. J.R 12/8", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 394753, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904", "page_number": 90, "title": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904", "content_text": "any territory on the west side of the watershed until twenty-one months after it had first been proposed to them as a boundary, and seventeen months after they had been distinctly warned of the danger of sending troops across it, thus by their silence leaving the Indian Government to infer that they accepted the proposal made in July 1898. The excuse that the 'maikha Valley is remote from Yunnan-fu, with which place Peking was in telegraphic communication, is without validity, as Mien-kawng-ai is only a week's journey from Teng-yüeh, and the latter also was connected with Yunnan-fu by telegraph.\n\nWith regard to the Hpare affair, our justification is complete, for the Sub-Prefect of Teng,yüeh had a full month's notice of the intended dispatch of the exploring party, and there cannot be much doubt that it was by instructions from him that the armed bodies of Chinese crossed the watershed and marched against the exploring party.\n\nI have the honour to inclose a Memorandum of the discussion which, in accordance with previous arrangement, I held on the 1st instant with his Excellency Na-t'ung on the question, in the course of which adduced reasons for which it was desirable that the Chinese Government should give an undertaking not to send troops across the watershed. I intimated also that if they declined, it would be my duty to make them an official declaration in the terms of my instructions.\n\nNa-t'ung replied that this was a question that could not be decided at Peking, and must be referred to the Governor-General of Yünnan. I said that I could not accept a reference to Yünnan, which would result in the same sort of delays of which His Majesty's Government had already had so much experience, and that I must either arrange the matter with the Foreign Board amicably or fall back upon my instructions, which were precise. I said that if the Chinese Government would give the desired undertaking in writing, I would move the Indian Government to consent to a Joint Commission for the purpose of inquiring into the alleged claim of China to Tzu-chu and Hpare, it being understood that an official from Peking would have to be deputed to act together with a Representative of the Yunnan Government. But I could not give an undertaking that British troops would not be sent into the N'maikha Valley, though I had good grounds for personally believing that the Indian Government had no such intention, It was agreed that he should acquaint Prince Ching with the conversation that had taken place, and that we should meet again in a few days.\n\nI had the honour to acquaint your Lordship briefly by telegraph on the 2nd instant with the step that I had taken and what I understood to be the Chinese view of the question.\n\nA copy of this despatch is being forwarded to the Government of India.\n\nI have, &c. (Signed) \n\nERNEST SATOW.\n\nInclosure in No. 1.\n\nMemorandum respecting the Burmah-Yünnan Boundary.\n\nSIR ERNEST SATOW, accompanied by Messrs. Cockburn and Wilkinson, called on his Excellency Na-t'ung at the Wai-wu Pu.\n\nMr. Ku was also present at the interview.\n\nSir Ernest said that his Excellency would recollect that at their last interview he had also referred to the Burmah-Yunnan Boundary question, and had asked his Excellency to look up the previous correspondence and the maps on the subject. He had brought a map with him which would make the position clear.\n\n(Sir Ernest here produced the map of \"Burmah and Adjacent Countries, 1901,\" with the watershed boundary marked in pencil.)\n\nThe history of the negotiations was as follows :-\n\nTwo Conventions, one in 1894 and one in 1897, had been made with special reference to the boundary question, and since then they had been trying to mark out the boundary. One portion had been delimited with the exception of a section south of Mengting. It was not, however, about this section that he wished to talk, but about the northern portion of the boundary, the demarcation of which was left in the Treaty for subsequent negotiation. Article IV of the Burmah Convention, 1894, read as follows:-\n\n\"It is agreed that the settlement and delimitation of that portion of the frontier which lies to the north of latitude 25° 35' north shall be reserved for a future understanding between the High Contracting Parties when the features and conditions of the country are more accurately known.\"\n\n(Sir Ernest then explained to his Excellency the position on the map, pointing out that the N'aikha is the main source of the Irrawaddy, and its valley a natural continuation of the province of Burmah.)\n\nNa-tung remarked that all the Chinese maps relating to the boundary question had been destroyed during the Boxer troubles.\n\nSir Ernest, continuing, said that it was implied in Article IV of the Boundary Convention that neither party was to take advantage of the other to strengthen its position, but in January 1898 a Chinese official with 200 troops had entered the territory north of the Myitkina district. Sir Claude asked, therefore, that orders should be sent to Yunnan to cease all attempts to exercise Chinese authority in the districts on the west of the range of mountains forming the watershed between the Salween and the N'maikha. This proposal was made over five years ago. Beyond acknowledging the note, the Yamên made no reply.\n\nIn November Sir Claude again addressed the Tsung-li Yamên, inquiring if orders had been sent to Yunnan, and pointing out the suitability, from every point of view, of the boundary suggested by him. He added that if Chinese troops crossed it they would come into collision with ours. As a mere acknowledgment of receipt was returned to this note, it was naturally assumed that China had no objection to the proposed frontier. In 1899 there was no correspondence on the subject.\n\nIn January 1900 notice was given to the Teng-yüeh Prefect by the Deputy Commissioner of Myitkina that an exploring party was to be sent from Burmah to visit the eastern portion of the N'maikha Valley, and asking that the people on the east side of the watershed might be told not to be alarmed,\n\nOn arrival, however, at Pailai (Hpare) the party found a detachment, several hundred strong, of Chinese troops intrenched who had been specially sent across the border to oppose them. A fight ensued, in which there were several casualties on both sides; the Chinese troops were driven back and their stockades burnt. Four days previously two members of the Boundary Commission who were engaged in demarcating the frontier further south had been killed, and a British Consular officer, Mr. Litton, seriously wounded.\n\nSir Claude at once protested against the action of the Chinese Government in sending troops to oppose the exploring party, although informed of its peaceable nature, and asked not to send troops across the boundary. Then, on the 25th March, 1900, some twenty months after Sir Claude's proposal that the watershed should be the provisional boundary, the Yamên replied, putting forward the pretension that China exercised control up to the bank of the Nimaikha River, and refusing to accept the frontier suggested by Sir Claude.\n\nNa-tung explained that Yünnan was a long way off, and no doubt the interval was spent in making inquiries.\n\nSir Ernest continued that, owing to the Boxer troubles and the pressure of other negotiations, it was only in September 1902 that he was able to return to the subject. He then wrote to the Wai-wu Pu again asking for the observance of the watershed as the boundary. As usual, the Yamen replied stating that they were calling for a report from Yunnan. Last March Mr. Townley also wrote to the Board pressing for an answer, for which His Majesty's Government was still waiting.\n\nNa-tung said that, with regard to the Pailai and Meng Tum incidents, as both sides had suffered, no more need be said about them. The important thing was to settle the question as the Treaty laid down, otherwise there would be further trouble. What had Sir Ernest to propose?\n\nSir Ernest replied that the geographical and natural boundary was as stated in his note, the range forming the watershed between the M'maikha stream and the Taping, Shweli, and Salween Rivers.\n\nNa-tung stated that the Yunnan Viceroy had reported that this range was 100 li within the present frontier. The country between the range and the N'maikha River was inhabited by native tribes whose Chiefs received their patents from China. It was impossible, therefore, for China to accept the range as the boundary, He would suggest, in view of the present friendly relations between the two countries, that both Governments depute thoroughly competent officers to delimit the frontier.\n\nSir Ernest feared that His Majesty's Government would not agree to this. Their other experience in this respect had been very unsatisfactory. Owing to the procrastination of the Chinese authorities, who refused to be bound by the wording of the\n\nPage 90\n\nPage 91", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 394887, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904", "page_number": 224, "title": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904", "content_text": "CHINA TRADE.\n\nCONFIDENTIAL.\n\nNo. 1.\n\n[April 9.]\n\nSECTION 3.\n\n222\n\nSir,\n\nChina Association to Foreign Office.-(Received April 9.)\n\n150, Cannon Street, April 8, 1904.\n\nBY Article IX of the Commercial Treaty signed at Shanghae on the 5th September, 1902, the Chinese Government agreed, \"within one year from the signing of the Treaty, to initiate and conclude the revision of the existing Mining Regulations.\" In a letter dated the 22nd August, 1902, you were good enough to forward, for the consideration of this Association, a copy of draft Mining Regulations, drawn up by Mr. Cockburn on a basis prepared by Mr. Currie, of the Indian Public Works Department, and in our reply of the 30th September, 1902, a few small alterations were suggested. The Committee would be glad to learn whether these Regulations have been accepted by the Chinese Government, and whether they form the rules under which mining is to be carried on in China.\n\nAs regards coinage, the Committee would be much obliged for information as to how far the Chinese Government has succeeded in its promise to provide for a uniform national coinage, in accordance with Article II of the Treaty of Shanghae.\n\nThese measures are included in the portion of the Treaty which has already been ratified, and are not dependent upon the acceptance of similar clauses by other Treaty Powers. They are doubtless receiving due attention from His Majesty's Government, and the Committee of this Association trust that their importance will not cease to be pressed upon the Chinese Government until the promises are fulfilled. If they are allowed to fall into abeyance, the whole of the advantages to be gained by a Treaty made after prolonged negotiations may, in regard to mining, be of no effect.\n\nBy Annex 17 of the Protocol of 1901 a River Conservancy Board for the River Whangpo was to be established at Shanghae. The Committee are aware that this matter has received considerable attention from His Majesty's Government, and, if information could be given them, would be glad to learn the present position of negotiations for the fulfilment of this engagement, and whether there is any prospect of carrying it into effect shortly. The necessity for speedy measures being taken to conserve the Whangpo is urgent.\n\nI have, &c. (Signed)\n\nJOSEPH WELCH,\n\nHonorary Secretary.\n\nA & L (78)--13809—20905>]] ↑\n\nPage 223\n\n8.8.0.\n\n08765-\n\n[1932 -3]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 394907, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904", "page_number": 244, "title": "CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904", "content_text": "(This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.)\n\n# CHINA TRADE.\n\n## CONFIDENTIAL.\n\nSir,\n\nNo. 1.\n\nForeign Office to China Association.\n\n242 [April 22.]\n\nCSROTION\n\n10320\n\n23 MW 041 Foreign Office, April 22, 1904.\n\nI AM directed by the Marquess of Lansdowne to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 8th instant.\n\nIn reply, I am to say that the suggestions of the Association with regard to the Mining Regulations drafted by Mr. Cockburn, together with other correspondence on the subject, were forwarded to Peking.\n\nIn August last, the Treaty of the 5th September, 1902, having been ratified, His Majesty's Minister called the attention of the Chinese Government to the provisions of Article IX, and stated that he would be glad to learn that the revision of the Mining Regulations was approaching completion. He also pointed out that by Article II China was bound to take the necessary steps for the provision of a uniform national coinage, and stated that, though no term was specified within which this was to be done, he had no doubt that the subject was engaging the attention of the Chinese Government.\n\nSir E. Satow was informed, in reply, that these and other points as to which he had made representations, were all the subject of stipulations in the Commercial Treaty, and that instructions had been given to all the authorities concerned, including the Board for drawing up financial schemes, to act accordingly. In speaking of the Board, the Chinese Government were understood to mean the Commission charged with the consideration of currency reform.\n\nLord Lansdowne has not since heard from Sir E. Satow that the Mining Regulations have been issued, or that any progress has been made with the question of the coinage, but a copy of your letter under reply will be sent to Sir Ernest, and he will be requested to report on the position of both questions.\n\nWith regard to the Whangpoo Conservancy Board, I am to state, for the confidential information of the Association, that His Majesty's Government have made a proposal to the Powers concerned, that the Board should be constituted without a Chinese Representative, unless the latter be appointed without delay, but that the French Government have not yet sent a reply to the communication.\n\nHis Majesty's Ambassador at Paris will be requested to call the attention of M. Declassé again to the question.\n\nI am, &c.\n\n(Signed) F. A. CAMPBELL.\n\n[1932 Y-1]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-326 - Foreign Office - 1904.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 395516, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-327 - Individuals - 1904", "page_number": 60, "title": "CO129-327 - Individuals - 1904", "content_text": "this succeeded. I am willing to approve the proposed arrangements if you are Satisfied, that\n\nHaving regard to the consideration referred to in the letter from Our Chatham Office or Individual.\n\nsufficiently formal. Clarkburn Able.\n\nproposed Chatham & in the Cox - Forte;\n\nwithin 15 approval.\n\nit subject to the modification suggested by Chatham intirely.\n\nI have lately been\n\n1904 world call your 2 Aug attention\n\nA Last previous Paper.\n\nyou 2 5979 981(78)-15800--£07Pb31 $\n\nTheiss S: HONG\n\nNo. 27306 (Subject.) App! as Nurse\n\nLectives for DOMESTIC.\n\n27800 1 EZ AM 04\n\nreasons stated In Fiddes (Minutes.)\n\nM Lucas recommend many seems\n\n? Ask the C.N.C to a candidate doubtful whether there and colonial post outsors Wafrica for which Miss Cockburn would be suitable qualified\n\n7 her posts in the East? ] are we to go on offering\n\nA.1.H 3/8 This point should be settled. In quite clear to me that she means no post except\n\nthe W. Coast: the high\n\nNet nulisquent Paper how been offered ports in N. Nigeria, Penang, My Leone H. Kong, thus these refused all I have drafted for consideration after speaking is Mjini CRd.4 at on Dr.\n\nCBS. 57\n\nPage 60\n\nPage 61", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-327 - Individuals - 1904.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 395519, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-327 - Individuals - 1904", "page_number": 63, "title": "CO129-327 - Individuals - 1904", "content_text": "Hong Kay\n\n27306 Sierra Leone\n\nMiss Cockburn Mi Lucas 4. August M: Cox A Mi dytteltons\n\nfor\n\nconsideration\n\n5\n\nAno$ 27765 I Leone..\n\nIndexed\n\nMadam\n\n6 Aug\n\n60\n\nI am directed by M Secretary Lyttelton to ack the receipt of your letter of the 2nd inst:\n\n9 in which you decline, for reasons given, the nerasing appointinent in Hongkong which has been offered to you\n\n2.\n\nYou will remember that after you had refused an appointment as neuse in Northern Nigeria, you were browned in the letter from this office Of the 4th of May that, While M・dyttelton\n\nHowever, to follow the exact output format as requested and to apply the rules for OCR proofreading:\n\nHong Kay\n\n27306 Sierra Leone\n\nMiss Cockburn Mi Lucas 4. August M: Cox A Mi Lytteltons\n\nfor\n\nconsideration\n\n5\n\nNo$ 27765 Sierra Leone..\n\nIndexed\n\nMadam\n\n6 Aug\n\n60\n\nI am directed by Mr Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd inst:\n\nin which you decline, for reasons given, the increasing appointment in Hongkong which has been offered to you\n\n2.\n\nYou will remember that after you had refused an appointment as nurse in Northern Nigeria, you were informed in the letter from this office of the 4th of May that, while Mr Lyttelton\n\nCorrected version with proper formatting and adherence to the rules:\nHong Kay\n\n27306 Sierra Leone\n\nMiss Cockburn Mi Lucas 4. August M: Cox A Mi Lytteltons\n\nfor consideration\n\n5\n\nNo$ 27765 Sierra Leone..\n\nIndexed\n\nMadam\n\n6 Aug 60\n\nI am directed by Mr Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2nd inst: in which you decline, for reasons given, the increasing appointment in Hongkong which has been offered to you\n\n2. You will remember that after you had refused an appointment as nurse in Northern Nigeria, you were informed in the letter from this office of the 4th of May that, while Mr Lyttelton", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-327 - Individuals - 1904.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 397764, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905", "page_number": 254, "title": "CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905", "content_text": "# Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.\n\n**CHINA TRADE, CONFIDENTIAL**\n\nNo. 1.\n\n248\n\n[December 17.]\n\n## SECTION 2.\n\n### Sir E. Satow to the Marquess of Lansdowne,-(Received December 17.)\n\n**(No. 376.)**\n\nMy Lord,\n\nPeking, November 3, 1904.\n\nIN continuation of my despatch No. 364 of the 19th October, I have the honour to inclose copy of a note which I addressed to Prince Ching embodying the instructions conveyed to me in your Lordship's telegram No. 153 of the 19th October, informing me that the Board of Trade were of opinion that it was of great importance to obtain further time for the consideration of the Trade-mark Regulations, and that I should press the Chinese Government to consent to postpone for six months the date of their coming into operation.\n\nThe immediate result was a visit to this Legation of two Secretaries of the Board of Commerce, who saw Mr. Cockburn, in my absence from town, and delivered to him an unofficial note by way of introduction, referring to earlier discussions that had taken place between the Board and this Legation regarding the date for the Regulations to come into effect.\n\nThey declared that the other two Powers—namely, Japan and America, who had negotiated Commercial Treaties and inserted in them provisions for the protection of trade-marks—objected to postponement; while those who have not press for it, Germany being especially urgent. The Board found themselves in a difficulty, and hoped I should be able to devise some way out of the difficulty.\n\nMr. Cockburn replied that, in view of my instructions, which were very explicit, I could do nothing but urge them to postpone, and he exhausted every available argument in favour of that course. They insisted, however, that it was now too late, all the provincial authorities had been instructed, and would think the Board of Commerce a very incompetent body if their instructions were altered at the last moment. I suggested, therefore, that they might do something to relieve the anxiety of merchants if they replied through the Foreign Board to my official note, by giving a pledge that if the Regulations were found to cause any injury to British merchants they would at once be amended. This they undertook to do.\n\nOn the following day the officials of the Board called again and saw Mr. Mayers. They gave him to understand that they would postpone the operation of the Regulations if I still insisted on it, but pressed for a reply in writing. In consequence of the conversation with Mr. Cockburn, a note had already been sent to the Board on the 23rd, stating that my instructions left me no option but to press for postponement, but that I would telegraph to your Lordship that they were ready to introduce any amendments that might be found necessary, and that as soon as I received your Lordship's reply I would communicate it to them.\n\nI accordingly dispatched my telegram of the 24th October to your Lordship. In the interval, I learnt from my German colleague that he had received a written assurance from Prince Ching that the date would be put off, which he considered to be the result of the request that, by your Lordship's instructions, I had addressed to the Chinese Government, and I expressed the opinion that it would be preferable to have the Board of Trade's amendments inserted before the Regulations were finally accepted by His Majesty's Government. Baron von Mumm further informed me that he had telegraphed to Tien-tsin and Shanghae on the 23rd October, after receiving the Prince's assurance, to give public notice that the Regulations would not come into force for the present.\n\nOn the 26th Prince Ching forwarded to me a copy of a communication from the Board of Commerce, in which they again recurred to the negotiations with me of some months back, relative to the date on which the Regulations were to come into operation, and stated that, in consequence of His Majesty's Government having telegraphed for a postponement, which was strongly opposed by Japan, they had sent Secretaries of the Board to see Mr. Cockburn, and they quoted my note of the 23rd, as if it had contained nothing but a promise to telegraph to your Lordship the assurance that if the Regulations contained any provision prejudicial to British merchants it should at once be amended.\n\nPage 248\n[2288 r-2]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 397765, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905", "page_number": 255, "title": "CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905", "content_text": "## 2\n\naltered. The letter of the Board reiterated this assurance, and asked the Prince to inform me accordingly.\n\nDuring the interval, I had ascertained that, notwithstanding the assurance given to the German Minister, no instructions had been sent to either Tien-tsin or Shanghae in pursuance of his Highness' promise, and that the offices at those ports had opened on the 24th, which was on a Monday, and had received applications.\n\nI consequently telegraphed to your Lordship the same day requesting that I might have a speedy reply to my telegram of the 24th, and on the 28th, I wrote to Prince Ch'ing calling his attention to the important omission from the Board's letter transmitted through him of the statement in my note of the 23rd as to the explicit nature of my instructions to ask for postponement.\n\nOn the 1st November, I received your Lordship's telegram of the previous day, instructing me to insist on postponement until the amendments found to be necessary had been inserted, and I accordingly addressed notes to Prince Ch'ing and to the Board of Commerce informing them of the wishes of His Majesty's Government. Copies of these notes, as well as of others to which reference is made in this despatch, are inclosed herewith.\n\nI have received as yet no reply, but I learn that since the 24th October, seven applications have been recorded at the branch office established at Tien-tsin, while at Shanghae, 1,300 were received previous to that date, and over 900 since.\n\n## 3\n\nI have the honour to observe that the delay desired by His Majesty's Government will ensure that the Regulations will fully satisfy the requirements of both foreign and Chinese merchants, whereas it is evident that if put immediately into force in their present shape, much confusion and uncertainty will result. I have therefore the honour urgently to request that the date of coming into force of the Regulations may be thus postponed.\n\nAs soon as I receive the observations of the Board of Trade as to the points which require further elucidation, I shall have the honour to communicate them to your Highness without delay.\n\nI avail, &c.\n\n(Signed) \n**ERNEST SATOW**\n\n### Inclosure 2 in No. 1.\n\n**Board of Commerce to Sir E. Satow**\n\n(Translation.) Your Excellency,\n\nPeking, October 22, 1904. \nWe have received from the Board of Foreign Affairs a copy of your Excellency's note transmitting the request of the British Government that there might be a delay of six months in the coming into force of the Trade-marks Regulations.\n\nWe have the honour to observe that this question formed the subject of several discussions with your Excellency...\n\nOn the 30th ultimo, I received a visit from his Excellency Natung, Junior Vice-President of the Foreign Board, who informed me that, besides the German Minister, the Representatives of Italy, Austria-Hungary, France, and Corea had asked for postponement in order to give time for publication; the Board agreed, and fixed the postponement; that the Belgian and Netherlands Ministers had expressed themselves as holding the same views, while the United States' Minister, though precluded by his instructions from asking for postponement, was understood not to be opposed to it. The Japanese Minister alone refused his consent.\n\nThe Foreign Board was anxious to meet the wishes of the Foreign Ministers, and in view of the difficulty in which Prince Ch'ing found himself, he begged me to use my influence with the Japanese Minister to persuade him to give way. I accordingly called on Mr. Uchida on the 31st, but while appreciating the awkward position of the Chinese Government in relation to this question, he said that he doubted whether his Government would be disposed to give way, as they had already, in reliance on the official declarations of the Foreign Board, some time ago notified to the owners of trade-marks that they must be ready by the 23rd October to put in their declarations, and some of them had already done so.\n\nOn the 1st instant, I learnt from him that he too had received a visit from Natung on the previous afternoon, but that the conversation had not resulted in any arrangement satisfactory to both parties. I rejoined that I regretted to hear this, as my most recent instructions from your Lordship were to insist upon postponement in order that the amendments desired by the Board of Trade might be first inserted.\n\nThe Chinese Government is no doubt responsible for the imbroglio thus created, by their agreeing officially with the German Minister to postpone while neglecting to give the necessary instructions.\n\nI have, &c. \n(Signed) \n\n### Inclosure 1 in No. 1.\n\n**Sir E. Satow to Prince Ch'ing**\n\nPeking, October 20, 1904. \nI have the honour to refer to your Highness' note of the 12th August, transmitting to me a copy of the Provisional Regulations for the Registration of Trade-marks drawn up by the Board of Commerce.\n\nA translation of these Regulations was prepared with as much expedition as possible and submitted to His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, by whom they were transmitted to the Board of Trade for examination and to report.\n\nI have now received a telegram from His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, informing me that the Board of Trade regard it as most important that further time should be given for consideration of the Regulations, and instructing me to urge the Chinese Government to defer the date at which they come into force for six months.\n\n...the American and Japanese Ministers object to delay, while the Powers that have not negotiated Commercial Treaties all ask for postponement. In our replies, we have intimated our decision to put the Regulations in force in fulfilment of the Treaties, but now, when the date of coming into force has arrived, your Excellency has also written to ask for postponement, while Germany becomes still more insistent.\n\nThe time left being so short, the Board finds itself in a difficult position, and they now send officials of the Trade-marks Registration Office to discuss what is to be done, and they greatly hope that you will take into account all the circumstances, and give your powerful help in reconciling the conflicting views.\n\nThe matter is very pressing, and we anxiously await your decision.\n\n### Inclosure 3 in No. 1.\n\n**Sir E. Satow to Board of Commerce**\n\nYour Excellencies,\n\nPeking, October 23, 1904. \nI have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellencies' letter with regard to the registration of trade-marks, and Mr. Cockburn has also reported to me his conversation with the Board's representatives on the same subject.\n\nMy instructions from His Majesty's Government to press for a postponement of the date of operation of the Regulations are too precise to permit me to suggest any alternative, and I must accordingly again urge the Board to accede to that request, but I shall communicate to His Majesty's Government by telegraph the fact that your Excellencies are willing to give in a note an assurance that any provisions injurious to British merchants will at once be amended, and as soon as I receive a reply, I shall do myself the honour of again addressing your Excellencies.\n\n### Inclosure 4 in No. 1.\n\n**Prince Ch'ing to Sir E. Satow**\n\n(Translation.) Your Excellency,\n\nPeking, October 26, 1904. \nWe have to-day received a despatch from the Board of Commerce to the following effect:---\n\nIn view of the representations of Sir Ernest Satow that the inauguration of the Provisional Trade-marks Regulations should be postponed, in order to allow time for their...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 397766, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905", "page_number": 256, "title": "CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905", "content_text": "## Inclosure 7 in No. 1.\n### Sir E. Satow to Prince Ching.\n\nYour Highness,\n\nPeking, November 1, 1904.\n\nIn my letter of the 28th October on the subject of the Trade-marks Regulations I informed your Highness that I was as yet without a reply to my telegram, sent in accordance with my promise to the Board of Commerce, but that up to that time my instructions from His Majesty's Government were to press for a postponement of the date of their coming into operation.\n\nI have now the honour to state that I have just received a telegram from His Majesty's Government instructing me that the amendments that may be found necessary must be inserted before the Regulations are put into force.\n\nI have accordingly the honour to repeat my request that the date of coming into operation may be postponed for six months.\n\nI avail, &c.\n\n(Signed) \nERNEST SATOW.\n\n## Inclosure 5 in No. 1.\n### Sir E. Satow to Prince Ching.\n\nYour Highness,\n\nPeking, October 28, 1904.\n\nI have the honour to refer to the communication on the subject of the Trade-marks Regulations addressed to your Highness by the Board of Commerce and transmitted to me in your Highness' note of the 26th October. In this the Board of Commerce state that on the 23rd they received a letter from me, informing them that I would telegraph to my Government the Board's assurances that if the Regulations contained any provision injurious to British merchants it should be altered at once.\n\nI have the honour to observe that while my letter of the 23rd October contained the above promise to telegraph their assurances to my Government, it also stated that my instructions from His Majesty's Government to press for a postponement of the date of operation of the Regulations were too precise to permit me to suggest any alternative, and that I must accordingly again urge the Board to accede to that request. I think it desirable to call your Highness' attention to the above passage in order to prevent misunderstandings.\n\nI added in the same letter that I would again address the Board as soon as I received a reply from His Majesty's Government. I telegraphed in accordance with my promise, and have since again telegraphed on the same subject, but I have not yet received a reply. I can therefore only repeat that up to the present my instructions are to ask for a postponement of the date at which the Regulations come into force.\n\nI avail, &c. \n(Signed) \nERNEST SATOW.\n\n## Inclosure 6 in No. 1.\n### Sir E. Satow to Board of Commerce.\n\nYour Excellencies,\n\nPeking, November 1, 1904.\n\nIn my letter of the 23rd October on the subject of Trade-marks Regulations I informed your Excellencies that I would telegraph the Board's assurances to His Majesty's Government, and that as soon as I received a reply I would again address the Board.\n\nI have now the honour to inform you that I have just received a telegram from His Majesty's Government instructing me that the amendments that may be found necessary must be inserted before the Regulations are put into force.\n\nI have accordingly the honour to repeat my request that the date for the coming into operation of the Regulations may be postponed for six months.\n\nI avail, &c.\n\n(Signed) \nERNEST SATOW.\n\npublication, this Board assented and eventually fixed upon the 15th of the 9th month (23rd October) as the date for bringing these Regulations into force. The British Government then telegraphed calling for a postponement, while the Japanese Minister strongly opposed the suggestion. This Board was thus placed in an exceedingly difficult position, and on the 22nd instant addressed a letter to the British Minister sending at the same time the three Secretaries, Tao, Hu, and Pan, to pay a visit at the British Legation. Here they were informed by Mr. Cockburn that His Majesty's Government had no other apprehension in the matter, but that merchants might be placed in difficulties after the Regulations had been brought into force, and for this reason they desired a postponement. On the 23rd we received a letter from Sir Ernest Satow in which his Excellency stated that, as this Board desired an immediate reply, he would telegraph to his Government this Board's assurance that if the Regulations contained any provision injurious to British merchants it should at once be altered.\n\n\"This Board highly appreciates the courtesy of his Excellency in this matter. These Trade-marks Regulations, it will be recollected, were Imperially sanctioned as a provisional measure. Regulation 28 provides that they are provisional in nature, and that if after enforcement it is found that they present difficulties to either Chinese or foreign merchants they should be modified accordingly. This assurance we now have the honour to reiterate. The British Government may be perfectly satisfied on this point, and we trust that His Majesty's Minister will telegraph to them to this effect. This Board has now made all its arrangements, which indeed have been ready for some time past, and finds it difficult to postpone the enforcement of the Regulations. They have the honour to request that the British Minister may be informed accordingly.\" While communicating to your Excellency the above despatch, I avail, &c.\n\n5 \n250 \n\nHis Majesty's Government instructing me that the amendments that may be found necessary must be inserted before the Regulations are put into force.\n\nI have accordingly the honour to repeat my request that the date for the coming into operation of the Regulations may be postponed for six months.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-330 - Public Offices - 1905.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 413542, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-347 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [4-6]", "page_number": 44, "title": "CO129-347 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [4-6]", "content_text": "# \n\nThe silence of the Judge is open to mis-construction, for the public is led to assume that the fault lies with the Judge himself. And, with great respect, I decline to allow such an opinion to get abroad: for it must lead to great dissatisfaction with the administration of justice among the community. Such dissatisfaction I know personally to exist.\n\nThis is by no means the first time that the congested state of the work of the Court has compelled me to make similar statements from the Bench. In doing so I have followed the example of Sir Alexander Cockburn, who, when Lord Chief Justice of England never ceased to criticize the Government for not increasing the number of Judges, a course which he thought to be imperative for the due administration of justice.\n\nYour Excellency reminds me that the question has twice recently been under the consideration of the Secretary of State. I desire to take this opportunity of recording my great dissatisfaction at the want of official courtesy displayed to me by the late Governor of the Colony Sir Matthew Nathan throughout the whole of the period during which the question of appointing a Third Judge has been under consideration. I have had a long experience in matters of administration, and I have never known a case in which when a question affecting the administration of justice was under consideration, the Governor has...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-347 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1908 [4-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 415658, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 353, "title": "CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "## Art. 2. \nThose wishing for the allowance of rebates as provided in the preceding Article shall present an application in the following form:- \n\n### APPLICATION FOR REBATES\n\n**Date** \n**Commercial name of the applicants** \n**Nationality** \n**Address** \nSouth Manchurian Railway Company. \nGentlemen, Desirous of being allowed yearly rebates according to the Regulations, the Undersigned make a formal application with the following particulars :- \n- **Nature of business** \n- **Yearly estimate of the total freight charges** \n\nYours faithfully, \n(Signature) \n\n## Art. 3. \nOn the receipt of the foregoing application, Chief of the Traffic Department will award his approval on the following conditions :- \n1. The approval hereby awarded shall be withdrawn whenever the applicants are found to have acted to the prejudice of the traffic interests of the Company. \n2. The period of time to be covered by the application shall not be extended, even if, due to unexpected disasters of some nature or another, shipments of goods may have to be interrupted. \n\n## Art. 4. \nThe computation of freight charges referred to in Article 1 shall date from the 1st October and end on the 30th September of the following year. The rebates shall be paid on the elapse of six months after the end of the term. \n\n## Art. 5. \nIn case the person or firm which has obtained the privilege of the allowance of rebates wishes to intrust an agent or agents with the shipment of goods, the name and address of the said agent or agents shall be reported in writing to the Traffic Department of the Company. \n\n## Art. 6. \nThe way-bills for goods that fall under the provisions of the present Regulations shall have **(rebates approved)** entered in the column of **(Remarks)**. \n\n[42358] \n\n### No. 1. Foreign Office to Board of Trade\n\nForeign Office, January 6, 1908. \nWITH reference to the letter from this Department of the 14th November, 1907, I am directed by Secretary Sir Edward Grey to transmit to you herewith, to be laid before the Board of Trade, a copy of a despatch which has been received from His Majesty's Minister at Peking, inclosing a translation of draft Mining Regulations issued by the Chinese Government. \n\nIt will be seen that these Regulations to some extent affect the Treaty right of foreigners. For instance, foreigners are permitted to mine only in partnership with Chinese (p. 7), and that their rights are very circumscribed; they are to submit to Chinese jurisdiction (p. 30), and must bind themselves to observe these and any supplementary Regulations (p. 33); if in a criminal action a decision is given by a foreign Consul, which is not considered satisfactory by the Chinese authorities, no subject of that nation may in future apply for leave to mine in the province where the incident took place, and that in this event there is to be no right of making diplomatic representations (p. 35). \n\nIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of these Regulations, Sir E. Grey proposes to instruct Sir J. Jordan to enter a strong protest, and to call attention to the entire failure of the Chinese Government to act up to their engagements under Article IX of the Mackay Treaty of 1902, by which satisfactory Regulations were to have been established within a year of the signature of the Treaty, that is, by the 5th September, 1903, of such a character that they would not impede the attraction of foreign capital or place foreign capitalists at a greater disadvantage than under generally accepted foreign Regulations. \n\nMeanwhile Sir E. Grey will be obliged if the Board will furnish him with their observations on the whole of the Regulations, emphasizing any points which they consider should be brought more especially to the notice of the Chinese Government. \n\nIn this connection, I am to recall to your attention the Mining Regulations drafted in 1902 by Mr. Cockburn (together with that officer's accompanying Memorandum), which in your letter of the 15th September, 1902, were stated to be \"as a whole excellently adopted for their purpose,\" and regarding which the China Association stated that they were struck by the \"marked ability shown in drafting them, with their completeness and their suitability to the circumstances of the country.\" \n\nSir E. Grey would also be obliged if the Board would furnish him with a statement of any reasons which may occur to the Board why it would be impossible to expect that British capital should, under the Regulations in their present form, be invested in mining enterprise in China, as contemplated by Article IX of the Mackay Treaty. \n\nI am, &c. \n(Signed) \nF. A. CAMPBELL. \n\n### Sir J. Jordan, No. 587, November 13, 1907.\n\n[2813 f-1]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 415660, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 355, "title": "CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "## Inclosure 2 in No. 1.\n\n**Memorandum communicated by Sir J. Jordan to Wai-wu Pu.**\n\nIN reply to the Memorandum of the Wai-wu Pu, respecting the export from Hunan of 300,000 piculs of rice to Japan for purposes of famine relief, Sir John Jordan has the honour to observe that he sees no objection to this proceeding, provided that the purchase in Hunan of this fixed quantity of rice and its transport to Japan are open to the public competition of all nationalities, and are not restricted to the subjects of any particular country.\n\nSir J. Jordan would, however, take this opportunity of inviting the attention of the Central Government to the action already taken by the provincial authorities. The provisions of Article XIV of the Commercial Treaty of 1902 have constantly been evaded by the provincial authorities, especially in Hunan, and in the present instance a notification has been issued by the Changsha Customs, Taotai, forbidding the export of rice to any port below Hankow. Such a notification is in conflict with Tariff Rule 5, section 3, which provides for the carriage by British merchants of rice from one open port to another, without restriction to any particular port, and Sir John Jordan considers that it should be withdrawn without delay.\n\nNovember 2, 1907.\n\n## CHINA TRADE.\n\n**CONFIDENTIAL.**\n\n[41925]\n\n(No. 50.) Sir,\n\nNo. J.\n\n[December 23.]\n\n### SECTION 1.\n\n**Consul-General Cockburn to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received December 23.)**\n\nSeoul, November 20, 1907.\n\nHis Majesty's Ambassador at Tokio has sent me for my information a copy of that portion of his despatch No. 241 on the subject of trade-marks in Corea which relates to this country, and also a copy of the draft Convention relating to the protection of trade-marks in Corea proposed by the Japanese Government.\n\nArticles manufactured in Japan in obvious imitation of foreign goods are freely offered for sale in Seoul, but no complaints reach me from British merchants or manufacturers, the reason probably being that it is thought useless to complain of infringements in Corea when similar wrongs are found to be without redress in the much more important neighbouring market of China. The articles imitated are, moreover, so far as I have observed, chiefly of a kind in which local British merchants do not deal, namely, foodstuffs and beverages of various kinds, many of them professing to be French or Italian, and these deleterious articles are consumed chiefly by the Japanese community. The demand, however, amongst the Coreans for foreign goods of this kind is growing and may in time become a large one. The chief sufferers from the unfair competition are the Chinese storekeepers, for they deal in genuine British products, and might obtain a much larger Japanese and Corean custom if fraudulent imitations were discouraged.\n\nTurning to the question of the extra-territorial rights of British subjects in Corea, which the Japanese Government desire should be abolished, so far as concerns matters relating to trade-marks, it has always appeared probable to foreign observers that sooner or later the Japanese Government would approach foreign Powers with proposals for the establishment of Japanese jurisdiction over foreigners in Corea, and it has been a cause for surprise that so little has been done to pave the way for such proposals by the introduction of appropriate legal machinery. There are at present eleven Japanese officials in the country, excluding the capital, bearing the title of Resident, and exercising judicial authority over their fellow-countrymen of much the same degree as that with which British Consular officers in China and Corea are invested. They are, in fact, Consuls under another name, and at many of the Treaty ports the Japanese Consuls were temporarily turned into Residents when the Residency-General was established. An appointment as Consul in the Japanese service has, however, greater attractions than that of Resident in Corea, for the holder of it has chances of promotion to better Consular posts in other countries, or even to diplomatic rank, whereas the Resident in Corea has no prospects of advancement. The ranks of the Residents tend, therefore, to be filled by men of an inferior type to that of the Consuls they succeeded.\n\nIn addition to the eleven Residents, outside Seoul, there are eighteen Vice-Residents, whose position and powers correspond roughly to those of Vice-Consuls, but in their case also the position is a less attractive one, for the same reason.\n\nThe Japanese police authorities also exercise an administrative control over Japanese subjects.\n\nIn the capital there is a Resident, with two Vice-Residents, one of whom is specially intrusted with judicial work, and there is also a Court of Appeal from the decisions of Residency Courts, but its powers are inferior to those of the Supreme Court at Shanghae as its decisions are subject to review by higher Courts in Japan.\n\nAmongst the Residents and Vice-Residents there remain a few of fairly wide experience and of sound judgment, but the great majority of them are now drawn from country Prefectures in Japan, and display astonishing ignorance of the special conditions prevailing here, some of them supposing that there is no law for Japanese subjects in Corea, and others going to the other extreme of imagining that even for the native Coreans there is no law but Japanese. That foreign subjects have Treaty rights in the country is probably for most of them an entirely new discovery.\n\nTheir main duties are administrative rather than judicial, and in selecting them...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 415661, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 356, "title": "CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "## [This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]\n\n2\n\nFor their posts, little regard is, I believe, paid to their legal attainments. A knowledge of law is not essential for the administration of justice, and deficiencies in it may be made good, as in the case of many English civilians in India in early days, by the possession of high character, common-sense, and a strong desire to do justice, but these are gifts conspicuously absent in the class from which the Residents are drawn, and I doubt whether any Japanese official of experience would suggest that they are persons to whom jurisdiction over foreigners could with any propriety be entrusted. As the Resident-General himself told me some months ago, he is, strictly speaking, entitled to refer foreign complaints against Japanese subjects to their legal remedy in the Residents' Courts, but he feels morally bound to allow their complaints to be dealt with extra-judicially by the Residency-General, on representations from the foreign Representative concerned. The other course would, in fact, amount to a denial of justice, for it is useless to expect a fair decision from the average Japanese Resident where the defendant is a Japanese and the complainant a foreigner or a Corean.\n\nWhile this state of things lasts, the Japanese Government may well hesitate to suggest, and foreign Powers agree to, the complete abolition of foreign extra-territorial rights in Corea. If, however, there were some special department in which Japanese legislation and Japanese administration had been such as to inspire general confidence that a particular class of cases affecting foreign interests might without misgiving be left to the uncontrolled jurisdiction of Japan, a first step toward the abolition of extra-territorial privileges might conveniently be taken by waiving them in that class of cases.\n\nThe choice of \"matters relating to the infringement or misuse of trade marks\" for this exceptional treatment seems, however, somewhat singular.\n\nI have, &c.\n\n**(Signed) HENRY COCKBURN.**\n\n## CHINA TRADE, CONFIDENTIAL.\n\n`(42358)`\n\n## No. 1.\n\n[December 28.]\n\n### SECTION 2.\n\n**Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received December 28.) (No. 537.)**\n\nPeking, November 18, 1907.\n\nWith reference to my telegram No. 185 of the 1st instant, I now have the honour to enclose a translation of the Chinese Mining Regulations communicated to me by the Wai-wu Pu.\n\nThe translation of this badly drawn document has taken nearly a month to complete, but it will be evident from a cursory perusal of its provisions that the delay is of no practical importance since the Rules are entirely unacceptable.\n\nThe main principle of these Regulations to which exception must be taken is that dealing with the extraterritorial rights of foreigners. It is sought by this enactment to deprive foreigners engaging in mining enterprise in China of all Consular protection to render them amenable in all matters arising from such mining enterprises to Chinese jurisdiction. In the case of criminal offences, provision is made, it is true, for sending foreign offenders to their nearest Consul for trial, but even here it is laid down that, unless the Consul's decision satisfies the wishes of the Chinese, the whole nationality of the foreigner concerned shall be precluded from mining in the province in question.\n\nAlthough the IXth Article of the British Treaty of the 5th September, 1902, clearly contemplated that only Mining Concessions granted after the publication of the new Rules should be subject to their provisions, the present Regulations are apparently intended to have a retroactive effect, and to provide for the revision of existing Mining Agreements on the basis of \"China's sovereign rights.\"\n\nAs regards the technical parts of these Regulations, the division of minerals into various classes, the area of mines, and the multifarious restrictions imposed upon mine-owners, I can hardly do more with the information at my command than express the general opinion that they appear to me designed to frustrate any attempt, native or foreign, to develop the mineral resources of the country.\n\nI intend to take an early opportunity of informing the Wai-wu Pu that the whole code is, in my opinion, calculated to exclude rather than to attract foreign capital, and is contrary to the spirit of the British Treaty of 1902.\n\nI have, &c.\n\n**(Signed) J. N. JORDAN.**\n\n### Inclosure in No. 1.\n\n**(Translation)**\n\n## Chinese Mining Regulations.\n\n### PART I.-General.\n\n#### SECTION 1. Issue of new Regulations and repeal of former Regulations.\n\nThese Regulations shall come into force on the date of promulgation. All former Mining Regulations whatsoever are hereby repealed.\n\n### PART II-Control.\n\n#### Section 2. The Board of Agriculture, Industry, and Commerce to be the chief controlling authority in mining affairs.\n\nIn the exercise of their control over mines, the Board, equally with all persons concerned in mining enterprises, will observe these Regulations (which have received Imperial sanction), so as to secure uniformity of practice. They will likewise observe any supplementary or revised Regulations for the development of mining or relating to...\n\nPage 354", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-350 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 415944, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 109, "title": "CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "C. O.\n\n9183\n\n[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]\n\nIRECP\n\n106\n\nPage 14 MAR 08\n\nCHINA TRADE.\n\nCONFIDENTIAL.\n\n[5340]\n\nNo. 1.\n\n[February 15.]\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nSir,\n\nBoard of Trade to Foreign Office.-(Received February 15.)\n\nBoard of Trade, February 14, 1908.\n\nI AM directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 6th ultimo, transmitting copy of a despatch from His Majesty's Minister at Peking, in which he forwards a translation of Draft Mining Regulations issued by the Chinese Government.\n\nThe Board have given careful consideration to the document referred to, and now desire me to express their entire concurrence with Sir E. Grey's opinion that the Regulations as a whole are unsatisfactory and inadequate as a fulfilment of the engagements entered into by China under Article IX of the Mackay Treaty of 1902. They do not propose, therefore, for the present to offer detailed criticism of these provisions, for which purpose, if it were deemed advisable, it would be necessary for them to take steps to obtain the opinion of experts on various matters of a technical character. It seems clear, however, that the requirements referred to in the second paragraph of your letter constitute an absolute violation of the extra-territorial rights of British subjects in China, so far as concerns persons engaged in mining operations, and it would also appear to be highly improbable that British subjects would be ready to risk the investment of capital in mining undertakings under the proposed conditions as regards subjection to Chinese jurisdiction, submission to the present and subsequent Regulations, and virtual deprivation of Diplomatic and Consular protection.\n\nAt the same time the Board desire me to ask you to be good enough to draw the attention of Sir E. Grey to the following points to which they think strong exception should be taken in addition to those specially mentioned in your letter:\n\nPage 3, Section 5.-The provision making the Provincial Bureaux and the Chinese Board of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce, the authority for judging of the suitability or otherwise of an applicant for a prospecting permit is unsatisfactory and should be replaced by that in Mr. Cockburn's draft Regulations, which required a certificate from the applicant's national Minister at Peking.\n\nPage 5, Section 7-It is not explicitly stated that if owners of existing mining rights do not submit the Report referred to within the prescribed period of two years their privileges will be withdrawn and their property dealt with under Chinese orders, but if (as would appear) this is intended the section is wholly objectionable so far as foreign owners are concerned.\n\nPage 5, Section 8.-The requirement that holders of existing Concessions shall conform to the new Regulations contravenes the last paragraph of Article IX of the Mackay Treaty, and it further appears to imply a breach of faith on the part of the Chinese Government in respect of the understanding under which contracts have been entered into and arrangements made. There is no provision in the Regulations for compensation for disturbance of existing rights, which alone could render this section capable of being seriously considered.\n\nPage 7, Section 10 (paragraph 2).-The provisions with regard to shares would prove unnecessarily restrictive on the investment of British capital, and to this extent would again conflict with Article IX of the Mackay Treaty.\n\nPage 10, Section 14.--The statement that the Chinese Government takes 50 per cent. of the net profits appears, so far as regards mines of Class C, to be at variance with the provisions of section 18. The share to be taken by the Government is in any case fixed at such an excessive proportion as to lead to the surmise that it is not seriously intended to frame satisfactory Regulations as stipulated by the Treaty of 1902.\n\nPage 15, Section 20.--It is undesirable that decisions respecting transfers of mining property should be relegated to the discretion of the Mine Deputy.\n\nPages 15-17, Section 21.-Without prejudice to the observations contained in your letter under reply on the point as to foreigners only being allowed to mine in concert with the Chinese, it may be pointed out that this section is inequitable in\n\n[2842 p-1]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 415945, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 110, "title": "CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "## [This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.] 107\n\n9183\n\n2\n\nfixing the landowner's share at a definite proportion of the profits in all cases. If the landowner is to be considered as a shareholder, as the tenor of the proposed Regulations implies, he should share losses as well as profits.\n\n## CHINA TRADE\n\n**CONFIDENTIAL**\n\nPage 18, Section 22.-Transference of permits which is here prohibited should be allowed, provided that the transferee gives the necessary references.\n\nPage 20, Section 25.-The duration of the prospecting permit (one year renewable for six months) is unnecessarily short. It may be noted that Mr. Cockburn's draft Regulations provided for a three years' permit, renewable for two years on payment of half the original fee.\n\nPage 23, Section 33.-The amount required as guarantee appears reasonable, but the conditions of its forfeiture (breach of any of the Regulations) are absolutely unacceptable.\n\nPage 38, Sections 72 and 73.-The discretionary powers here given to the Mine Deputy are such as might be mischievously used.\n\nIn view of the foregoing considerations, and more especially of the wholly unacceptable nature of the provisions on pp. 30-35, sections 45-63, regarding law and jurisdiction, the Board have been glad to learn from Sir J. Jordan's further despatch (inclosed in your letter of the 28th ultimo) that he has lodged a strong objection to these proposed Regulations on the ground of their being contrary to existing Treaty rules, and not constituting in any way a fulfilment of China's pledge under the 1902 Treaty.\n\nI am, &c. \n(Signed) \n**ARTHUR WILSON FOX**\n\n[5125]\n\nSir,\n\nNo. 1.\n\n[February ...]\n\n+4 MAR OS:\n\n## SECTION 2\n\n### Board of Trade to Foreign Office.—(Received February 14.)\n\nBoard of Trade, February 13, 1908.\n\nI AM directed by the Board of Trade to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, transmitting print of a despatch from His Majesty's Minister at Peking respecting the issue of exemption certificates by the Customs authorities at Newchwang and other ports in respect of duty-paid foreign goods destined for the newly-opened trade markets in Manchuria.\n\nIn reply, I am to say that, in so far as the Board are able to judge from the information at their disposal, the Regulations under which it is proposed that these certificates shall be issued appear to be on the whole of a satisfactory nature.\n\nThe Board observe, however, that the limit of time within which the certificates should be returned duly stamped to the port of issue, viz., two months, is the same for all the ports referred to in the Regulations, and they venture to think that this provision may possibly operate somewhat unfairly in the case of goods which are dispatched from Tien-tsin, which is situated at a considerably greater distance from the internal trade markets of Manchuria than Newchwang.\n\nI am accordingly to suggest that, if Sir E. Grey sees no objection, His Majesty's Minister at Peking might be asked to consider whether it would not be desirable to approach the Chinese Government with a view to obtaining an extension of the time limit allowed for the return of these certificates to the port of Tien-tsin.\n\nA further point upon which the Board think that it might be desirable to obtain Sir J. Jordan's views is whether the same facilities for the dispatch of goods to Manchuria, which are now granted at Newchwang and Tien-tsin, should not also be given at Chinwang-tao in view of the growing import trade of that port shown in the Chinese Customs return.\n\nI am, &c. \n(Signed) \n**GEO. J. STANLEY**\n\n[2842]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 415954, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 119, "title": "CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]\n\nCHINA TRADE,\n\nCONFIDENTIAL.\n\n[5515]\n\n7\n\nNo. 1.\n\n116\n\n[February 17.]\n\nSECTION 2.\n\nSir C. MacDonald to Sir Edward Grey.--(Received February 17.)\n\n(No. 12.) Sir,\n\nTokió, January 20, 1908. WITH reference to Sir John Jordan's despatch to you, No. 596 of the 25th December, 1907, regarding the proposed railway bridge across the Yalu River, I have the honour to state that, at a recent interview I had with Count Hayashi, I took an opportunity of bringing the matter to his Excellency's notice, pointing out the damage which the construction of a \"fixed railway bridge\" at the point indicated would have on British shipping and mercantile interests. I said time had not allowed for me to receive instructions from you on the subject, but as the matter was important and pressing, I ventured to bring it to his notice without delay. I used the arguments set forth in Sir John Jordan's despatch. Count Hayashi said that the American Ambassador had also spoken to him on the subject. He promised to look into the question and give me a report on the case from the Japanese point of view. I saw Count Hayashi again yesterday, and asked whether he had heard any more regarding the matter, excusing my importunity by stating that I understood that the bridge was to be built in the spring of this year, and the matter was therefore pressing. His Excellency said that, as a result of my conversation with him, he had consulted Prince Ito on the subject, who had said that the bridge would not be built this year or next, or perhaps not for three or four years, owing to lack of funds. When it was built both Prince Ito and he were of opinion that it should be constructed to open, in order to allow ships to pass through on the turnstile principle, provided funds would admit of this kind of construction.\n\nI have sent a copy of this despatch to Sir John Jordan and Mr. Cockburn.\n\nI have, &c. (Signed) CLAUDE M. MACDONALD,\n\n[2842 r-2]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-351 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 417217, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 543, "title": "CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government\n\nJAPAN.\n\nCONFIDENTIAL.\n\n[29950]\n\nNo. 1.\n\n540 34815\n\n[August 29.]\n\nSECTION 8.\n\n23 08\n\nSir C. MacDonald to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received August 29.)\n\n(No. 200.) Sir,\n\nTokió, August 1, 1908. ON the 14th ultimo I received Mr. Cockburn's telegram No. 20 to you stating that the principal witness for the defence in Mr. Bethell's recent trial, his Corean editor, had been decoyed from Mr. Bethell's newspaper office by a trick, and had been arrested by the police.\n\nMr. Cockburn further stated that, in reply to his protests respecting the man's arrest, the Japanese authorities declared that the man had been detained on a charge of malversation of Corean political funds, and his detention was in no way connected with the Bethell case and his appearance thereat as a witness; they therefore refused to release him. To this Mr. Cockburn replied, with great truth, that the excuse of an arrest on a different charge would meet with no credence; that the man's arrest would effectually put a stop to any further prosecution of Mr. Bethell's paper, for the defence would be able to point out that it was unsafe to produce witnesses; and, finally, it was clearly understood before Mr. Bethell's recent trial that witnesses should in no way suffer.\n\nAt the time I received this telegram the Cabinet had just resigned, and Prince Ito had that very day left Seoul for Tokio, and was not expected to arrive there till the 23rd. As the case seemed to me a very flagrant one, and calculated to do great harm to the administration of our allies in Corea, I thought it advisable to take immediate steps here in an informal manner to support Mr. Cockburn's protests previous to receiving official instructions from you, which instructions I thought it was more than probable I should receive in the course of a few days. I accordingly directed Mr. Clive of this Embassy to see Mr. Ishii, the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, informally, and to point out the deplorable effect which would be produced by the arrest of Mr. Bethell's principal witness so shortly after the trial, which deplorable effect would be much accentuated when it became known that the witness had been decoyed from an English house, whereby the provisions of our Treaty as to arrest on British-owned premises had been evaded.\n\nIn reply,\n\nMr. Clive saw Mr. Ishii the same day and conveyed my message. Mr. Ishii handed Mr. Clive a telegram from Prince Ito, which had been just received, dated the 13th July, a copy of which I have the honour to inclose. In this Prince Ito mentions Mr. Cockburn's protest, and states that the Residency-General had replied thereto by pointing out that the present case being in no way connected with Mr. Bethell's case, they, the Residency-General, found themselves unable to comply with the request of the British Consul-General. The telegram further stated that the police authorities were \"simply retaining\" the individual in question in order to proceed with the necessary examination to which he had \"spontaneously submitted himself.\" Though it was clear that the simplicity of his retention was on a par with the spontaneity with which he had submitted thereto, I considered that, as the explanation came from Prince Ito, it should be communicated to you, I therefore sent a short telegram stating that the arrest of the Corean editor had nothing to do with the recent trial, and I repeated it to Mr. Cockburn. To this the latter replied in a telegram to you, No. 21 of the 15th July, repeated here, to the effect that the man had been kept cut off from all communications with his friends since the 12th July, and pointed out that if the object of the police had been merely the investigation of Corean complaints, they would have summoned the editor to answer the charge, and would not have arrested him without summons or warrant. Mr. Clive therefore wrote to Mr. Ishii a private and unofficial note, which contained the following passage:--\n\n\"Mr. Cockburn now telegraphs that since the 12th July the man has been cut off from all communications from his friends, which amounts to much the same thing as being arrested. On further reflection it would appear that if the object of the police had been merely the investigation of the Corean complaints, as stated in Prince Ito's telegram, the more natural course to adopt would have been to issue a summons or\n\nPage 363\n\n...\n\nPage 363\n\nPage 363", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 417218, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 544, "title": "CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "1\n\nwarrant to the man to answer the charge, and not to request him to call at the police office and then keep him in detention without allowing him to communicate with his friends. As I stated yesterday, the Ambassador has no instructions on the subject. He is only most anxious to avoid the possibility of the press and public making capital out of the incident, and being able to allege that, as a result of giving evidence in a British Court, a man who had been granted immunity has been arrested under circumstances which are not above suspicion.\n\nOn the 19th July I received your telegram No. 36 of the previous day, instructing me to express to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the hope that the Japanese Government would cause the accused to be publicly tried without delay, on the charge brought against him, and that in the meantime he might be released on bail and allowed to communicate with his friends. I at once wrote to Viscount Terauchi, Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, a despatch, copy of which I have the honour to inclose, stating the instructions which I had received; the despatch, you will observe, is practically a paraphrase of your telegram. I at the same time wrote privately to Mr. Ishii, and requested him to let me know when Prince Ito arrived in Tôkiô, as I thought it would be necessary for me to see him personally on the subject. Mr. Ishii replied that my despatch would be at once shown to Count Katsura, the Premier, who would consult with Prince Ito on his arrival,\n\nOn the 21st instant I received from Mr. Cockburn his telegram No. 41 to you of the previous day, in which he stated that the Japanese authorities had officially informed him that Mr. Bethell had certain dealings with the Political Loan Fund, for the embezzlement of which his Corean editor had been arrested, and invited Mr. Cockburn to ascertain a number of facts relating to Mr. Bethell's connection with the fund subject to your approval, Mr. Cockburn proposed requesting that he might be made acquainted with the object for which this information was desired, and the evidence on which the inquiry was based. The Japanese authorities replied that the inquiry was based on evidence given by the prisoner while under examination by the police, and that its object was to ascertain whether Mr. Bethell had been guilty of any offence in connection with the fund. To this Mr. Cockburn requested your sanction to state that he was unable to give any assistance in proceedings which were diametrically opposed to English principles of the administration of justice.” On the 29th July Mr. Cockburn telegraphed that he had received your approval for this reply, and that he was sending it to the Japanese authorities that day.\n\nIn the meanwhile Prince Ito had arrived, and on the 29th I wrote asking for an interview, which was fixed for 10-30 this morning at Prince Ito's villa at Omori, some 10 miles from Tokiô. I had delayed asking for this interview, for I had hoped to receive despatches from Mr. Cockburn on the subject, but as his telegrams gave me sufficient information to go on I decided to wait no longer.\n\nThe Prince was looking very well and was most frank and cordial with me, as is his wont. He deeply regretted the incident and proceeded to tell me at considerable length the history of the case, which, briefly stated, is to the effect that the fund which the accused is supposed to have embezzled was subscribed for by Coreans of all classes to get rid of the Japanese administration, either by paying back the money which Japan had advanced to Corea, or by any other means. I pressed him on this point and the Prince admitted that the fund in every way was strongly anti-Japanese. About a year ago some of the Corean subscribers to the fund, seeing apparently the hopelessness of buying or turning Japan out, had come and asked whether the Residency would help them to get their money back! Those requests had been more insistent lately, and it had been ascertained that Bethell's Corean editor was a trustee of the fund, and Bethell himself was also one. The Prince said that the editor had not been decoyed from Mr. Bethell's office, but I did not take this denial seriously, neither did the Prince seem to expect that I should. In reply to my suggesting that if Mr. Cockburn had been approached in an official manner and the reasons given why the editor was wanted, Mr. Cockburn would assuredly have assisted the Executive to the best of his ability, Prince Ito said that might be, but Coreans are continually wanted for minor offences, and it would be impossible to make a request to the Consul every time. I did not agree, but I let the remark pass. Prince Ito then said :----\n\n\"But the question has within the last few days assumed a much more serious aspect\"; and he produced for me a telegram which had been received from Viscount Sone, in which were set forth a series of some half-dozen, for the most part frivolous, questions which had been put to Mr. Cockburn, together with his reply to the effect\n\n3\n\nthat he could give no assistance in proceedings that were diametrically opposed to English principles of the administration of justice.\"\n\nPrince Ito seemed somewhat annoyed at this reply, and said that the French and American Consuls, particularly the latter, had replied that, if approached officially by the Corean authorities, they would give all the assistance in their power, or words to that effect. I pointed out that the reply was not Mr. Cockburn's, but that of His Majesty's Government, and that, as I had as yet received no answer to my representations respecting the trial of the accused, and his admittal to bail, I thought the tenor of the reply was justifiable. The fact that no reply had been sent to my representations seemed to be a surprise to the Prince, and Mr. Ishii, Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, who had evidently been in attendance, was sent for and took part in the discussion. Both the Prince and Mr. Ishii reiterated the fact that the accused had not been arrested in connection with Mr. Bethell's case. I said His Majesty's Government fully admitted this on the strength of Prince Ito's word, as they would see on reference to my unanswered despatch, but the general public would perhaps not be so ready to believe it; it seemed to me that the one man who ought to have been left in peace, in view of the promises that had been made by the Japanese authorities, was the principal witness in Mr. Bethell's trial-the accused-and that his arrest and its manner was, so far as Japanese interests in Corea were concerned, worse than a crime\"; and when it was remembered that the arrest, and all the odium it had occasioned, was made on the demand of Coreans respecting a fund to which they had subscribed for the avowed purpose of upsetting the Japanese administration in Corea, then it seemed to me to be a piece of altruistic and monumental idiocy.\n\nMr. Ishii here remarked that this aspect of the case had not struck him before, and he certainly thought that the subscribers to this anti-Japanese fund might have been told to get their money back as best they could; from which it would seem that the Japanese Foreign Office and the Residency in Seoul do not always see matters from the same point of view.\n\nPrince Ito then showed me a telegram in Japanese from Viscount Sone, Acting Resident in Corca, to the effect that Mr. Bethell had twice called at the Residency, the first time on the 27th, and had stated that he now wished to run his English paper on The official of the Residency, Mr. Komatsu, who received him, pro-Japanese lines. said that this fact would be communicated to the Resident; he however suggested that Mr. Bethell might first clear himself with regard to his connection with the Corean Political Fund, of which he was a trustee. Bethell replied that \"his hands were perfectly clean\" in this matter, and that he was perfectly ready to answer any questions with regard to what he had done with the moneys of the fund. He was asked whether he had communicated this to Mr. Cockburn, and he said he had not done so because he had not been asked.\n\nI then reverted to the representations made by me in my despatch of the 19th, and it was agreed that the suggestions of His Majesty's Government should be carried out; that the trial should be a public one; that it should take place without delay; and that in the meanwhile the accused should be permitted to see and speak to his friends and relations, but not on the subject of the accusation against him; he could, however, have the services of a Corean lawyer (Prince Ito mentioned that he never let Japanese lawyers engage in Corean cases), With this Corean lawyer he could, of course, discuss his case.\n\nWith regard to bail, Prince Ito said that this was impossible, because the Corean law did not admit of bail. I pressed the Prince on this point, and said that I would telegraph this to my Government with his indorsement. After consultation with his Private Secretary, he said that he would have to make a special regulation to admit of the accused being admitted to bail, which he did not feel disposed to do, and he assured me that no Corean had ever been admitted to bail in either a civil or criminal case. had the honour to telegraph the result of my interview to you this afternoon, and to suggest that, as the Residency-General had accepted all our suggestions with the exception of that relating to bail, Mr. Cockburn might be instructed to assist the Residency in obtaining information regarding Mr. Bethell's connection with the anti-Japanese political fund, more especially as Mr. Bethell seemed to have no objection whatever in supplying this information himself.\n\nMr. Ishii promised me that an official answer should be sent to my representations this evening.\n\nI have, &c. (Signed) CLAUDE M. MACDONALD.\n\n541", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 417219, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908", "page_number": 545, "title": "CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908", "content_text": "[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government,]\n\nInclosure 1 in No. 1\n\nPrince Ito to Mr. Ishii.\n\n(Telegraphic.)\n\nSeoul, July 13, 1908. COMPLAINTS have since some time been made to the Corean police authorities from various quarters against a Corean subject, Ryokitaku, engaged in the Corean edition of the \"Dai-han-mai il Shimpo,\" on a charge of embezzlement of a fund raised in the name of the Foreign Loan Redemption League. Accordingly, Mr. Maruyama, Inspector-General of Police, sent for him on the night of the 12th July to examine him on the alleged charge, and on his appearance before the General Police Office has retained him there and has started the examination,\n\nThe British Consul-General presented on the 13th July a request for his release on the ground that at the time of the trial on Mr. Bethell's case, which required Ryo's presence in the Court as a witness, an assurance was given to him that he would not thereafter be arrested on a charge of having deposed the statements in favour of Mr. Bethell, and that consequently the action of the Inspector-General of Police in arresting him was likely to provoke serious misapprehension of the public. The Residency-General replied to Mr. Cockburn that the present case being in no way connected with Mr. Bethell's case, they found themselves unable to comply with the request of the British Consul-General. It was further explained that the police authorities were simply retaining him in order to proceed with necessary examination to which he spontaneously submitted himself, and that he was not, so far, under arrest as a convict. As Mr. Cockburn appears to place much importance on this incident, I telegraph the above information, hoping you will give necessary explanation to the British Ambassador.\n\nCHINA TRADE.\n\nCONFIDENTIAL.\n\n[31078]\n\nNo. 1.\n\n34815 HE 542 [September 7.323F 08\n\nSECTION 1.\n\nMr. Dering to Sir Edward Grey.—(Received September 7.) (No. 117.) Sir,\n\nStockholm, September 4, 1908. ON receipt of the instructions contained in your despatch No. 46 of the 29th April, Sir Rennell Rodd addressed an inquiry to the Swedish Government as to whether they would be prepared to conclude an Agreement with His Majesty's Government for the mutual protection of trade-marks in China and Corea, drawing their attention to the similar Agreements which have already been concluded with other Governments. I have the honour to report that the Secretary-General of the Swedish Foreign Office has just informed me that he regrets not to be able to reply yet to the note from this Legation, but that a proposal in connection with this question has been drawn up by the Swedish Government, which must first receive the sanction of the Riksdag. I understand that, whilst the Swedish Government are inclined in principle to meet the wishes of His Majesty's Government, they are unable to reply authoritatively until the Diet has met in January and sanctioned action in the matter.\n\nBaron Ramel intimated that the answer of his Government could not, therefore, be expected before early next year.\n\nI have, &c. (Signed) HERBERT G. DERING.\n\nM. le Ministre,\n\nInclosure 2 in No. 1.\n\nSir C. MacDonald to General Viscount Terauchi.\n\nTokyo, July 19, 1908. WITH reference to the arrest and imprisonment of the Corean editor of the \"Dai-han-mai il Shimpo,\" which has already been brought unofficially to the notice of the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs by this Embassy, I have now the honour to state that I have received instructions from my Government to lay before your Excellency the following\n\nAs the Japanese Government are aware, the Corean editor who has now been arrested and imprisoned was one of the witnesses at the recent trial of Mr. Bethell, the proprietor of the newspaper above mentioned, and express assurances were given at the time by the Japanese authorities in Corea that these witnesses would not suffer on account of evidence they had given.\n\nHis Majesty's Government place entire credence on Prince Ito's assurances that the arrest of the Corean editor has nothing to do with the recent prosecution of the proprietor of the paper; but the public in Corea, and, I might add, elsewhere, will not hold this view, especially as the man is said to have been enticed away by the police from the offices of the paper, so that his arrest could be effected outside British-owned premises. His Majesty's Government hope that the accused may be released on bail and allowed to communicate with his friends until such time as he is placed upon his public trial, which trial, they further trust, may take place without delay.\n\nI am also instructed to point out to your Excellency that continued detention in prison without trial will make any further proceedings against the accused in an English Court impossible, as the defence would be able to allege that the witnesses for the defence were afraid to come forward, which would insure the failure of a prosecution.\n\nI take, &c.\n\n(Signed) CLAUDE M. MACDONALD.\n\n[1944 g-1]", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-352 - Public Offices - 1908.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 418848, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "page_number": 426, "title": "CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3]", "content_text": "20\n\ndure had been put in force by the defendants to the damage of the plaintiffs, I do not think any action could have been brought. But the allegation here is that the representation was wrongful as being made without reasonable and probable cause, and if that can be established and the Court is competent I think that that cuts away any defences which might possibly have been raised in connexion with the action of the Chinese authorities: because if a man acts wrongfully he must take the consequences if damage result, even though those consequences might otherwise have given rise to no cause of action.\n\nThese points cleared away I come back to the question, is the Court competent to entertain this action? Is it not an interference with the privileges which a Sovereign State has acquired for, and conferred on its subjects? The importance of this question is emphasised by the considerations I referred to on the first motion, as to the conflict with the bankruptcy law of the colony to which their privilege may give rise.\n\nThe case seems to me to resemble the actions which are admittedly allowed to be brought in the English Courts, for maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause setting foreign legal process in motion. There are two standard examples of this-Castrique v. Behrens () and Taylor v. Ford (). In the former case Crompton J. delivering the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench said: \"There is no doubt on principle and on the authorities that an action lies for maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause setting the law of this country in motion to the damage of the plaintiff.\" And it was held that the same principle applied with regard to the law of a foreign country and that it was subject to the same rules.\n\nThe analogy between those cases and this is, I think, complete, because the action traced out by the Treaty is essentially judicial; it creates a board of reconciliation which is directed to examine into the merits of a complaint and decide it equitably: therefore it is described with strict accuracy as legal process, for it is the legal process provided for disputes between foreigners and natives in a country where Consular jurisdiction prevails. And this once admitted, many other points fall in: the consular privilege, the right of the Chinese authorities to exercise power arbitrarily over Chinese subjects; and all the matters raised in paras. (c) (d) (f) and (g) become irrelevant, in so far as they are not included in the law as to the form of action.\n\nAs to the application of the principle that the proceedings must have terminated in favour of the plaintiff, if they are capable of so doing, it is manifestly satisfied here, for the defendants wrote to the Consul-General asking that the seizure should be withdrawn, and it was withdrawn. I really cannot assume that the Chinese authorities did that on their own motion. But it was argued that even after withdrawal the defendants might have a good cause of action: so they might; but that is quite irrelevant, the question relating only to their proceedings, and to whether there was reasonable and probable cause in starting them. The only point about which I feel doubt is how far that rule which requires the act to be wrongful both by the law of the place where it was committed and by English law is satisfied.\n\nThere are two ways of looking at this question. Was the act committed in Hongkong or Canton? I told the jury that it was in Canton. But I think the more accurate view is that it took place in both places: for the facts are strictly analogous with the point discussed in R. v. Keyn (), where the wrongful act is committed by a man who fires a gun from one ship and kills a man on another. The opinion of Cockburn C. J. is, I think, very clear: he says that where there is a deliberate act committed in one place, and it takes effect in another, it is committed in both places so long as there is a continuing intention linking the act with its consequences. Now let us see how this applies to this case: whichever way we look at this action, whether as one for words spoken to the Consul producing these consequences: or as setting the Chinese authorities in motion, the starting point was the instructions of the Hongkong branch which set the Canton branch in motion, which set the Consul\n\n423", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-355 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1909 [1-3].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 427177, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-369 - Acting Governor May Governor Sir Lugard - 1910 [10-11]", "page_number": 262, "title": "CO129-369 - Acting Governor May Governor Sir Lugard - 1910 [10-11]", "content_text": "COPY.\n\nEnclosure 4.\n\n36235 259\n\nRec'd Chambers 26 NOV 10\n\nSupreme Court, Hongkong,\n\n1st October, 1910.\n\nPage 362\n\nSir,\n\nThe conversation I had with you on the subject of my letter pointing out how essential it is that a Third Judge should be appointed without delay, in view of the state of business, makes me despair of being able to bring the matter home to the Government in its true light. You ask me for further statistics. But if the statistics already supplied have failed to convey an idea as to the congestion of business no further statistics will. I reported that the state of affairs during the summer of 1907 was hopeless: that in the stress of getting through one case after another, I was doing more work than two Judges at home, and that it was not fair either on litigants or myself; but the figures do not seem at all to have impressed the mind of the Government: and I gather that your view is that if no stronger figures can be produced there is not much chance of getting the Third Judge appointed. No stronger figures could be produced, for the simple reason that if anyone ever attempted again to get through a similar amount of work at such high pressure, there would be a complete breakdown. The case must therefore stand at this, that for the 6th time since I have been in the Colony, that is regularly every year, there is an imminent prospect of a deadlock. It is of course not very complimentary that my statement should not be accepted, but I share the fate of the Lord Chief Justices at home, who from Sir Alexander Cockburn to Lord Alverstone have never ceased to say with regard to the state of business in England what I have been saying for six years with regard to the state of business in Hongkong. Lord Alverstone has at last succeeded, and I am willing to make one last effort to achieve the same result in the Colony. Only please do not ask me for figures, for they evidently convey no meaning. In the first\n\nletter\n\nPage 363", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-369 - Acting Governor May Governor Sir Lugard - 1910 [10-11].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 446813, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-408 - Public Offices & Others - 1913", "page_number": 348, "title": "CO129-408 - Public Offices & Others - 1913", "content_text": "55 Willow Brae Road, EDINBRO'\n\n15th January 1913\n\nSir Herbert Maxwell L.L.D.\n\nMonreith, Wigtownshire.\n\nSir,\n\nYour favour of 16th December last duly reached me. I acknowledge receipt of mine dated 12th of same month.\n\nNoting that you do not know who sent me the extract from your lecture, I enclose typed copy of it, from your manuscript, which I cannot send you, as it is pasted into my scrap book. The handwriting of the manuscript looks like yours. I was invited to hear the lecture by a gentleman named Cockburn, a good old sort from Cashmere, whom I met.\n\nYour son's experience of the jungle of Johore is of great interest to me, being the facts of the case, as the lawyers would say. When the Rubber boom began, I wondered if the Prospectus would mention the possible loss through sickness, of 50 out of every 100 coolies employed. Even now, after two years at home, I can get few to listen to me, when I try to communicate the glad news, that the mystery searched for during the last 300 years has been solved; that I had discovered the cause and mode of spread of malarial fever.\n\nThe man in the street knows \"Fons et Origo\" of malaria &c. The Letter, and even the London Chamber of Commerce were asked by Professor Simpson to believe that \"No mosquitoes no malaria”, he said.\n\nBut, to quote yourself in \"Memories of the months\",\n\n\"In the present painfully congested state of knowledge, it amounts almost to a calamity when a fresh discovery dispels one venerable mystery.\" Or perhaps I should say with Milton \"For the truth never comes into the world but like a bastard, to the ignominy of him that brought her forth.\"\n\nI am, sir,\n\nyour obedient servant\n\n(signed) J. Grant Smith", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-408 - Public Offices & Others - 1913.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 446837, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-408 - Public Offices & Others - 1913", "page_number": 372, "title": "CO129-408 - Public Offices & Others - 1913", "content_text": "Page 1\n\nAr 15\n\nJul 20\n\n...\n\nera of assailment legalmen e ci sa isi ne.\n\n...\n\nimm tad nedeem-- and eð svile san, ItA\n\nSir Herbert Maxwell L. L. D.\n\nMonreith, Wigtownshire.\n\nCopy\n\n350\n\n55 Willow brae Road, EDINBRGH\n\n15th. January 1913\n\nDear Sir,\n\nYour favor of 10th. December last duly reached me, and acknowledgement of mine dated 12th, of same month.\n\nNoting that you do not know who sent me the extract from your lecture, I enclose typed copy of it, from your manuscript, which I cannot send you, as it is pasted into my scrap book.\n\nThe handwriting of the manuscript looks like yours. I was invited to hear the lecture by a gentleman named Cockburn, a good old sort from Cashmere, whom I met.\n\nYour son's experience of the jungle of Johore is of great interest to me being the facts of the case, as the lawyers would say. When the Rubber boom began, I wondered if the Prospectuses would mention the possible loss through sickness, of 50 out of every 100 coolies employed. Even now, after two years at home, I can get few to listen to me, when I try to communicate the glad news, that the mystery searched for during the last 30 years has been solved - that I had discovered the \"Fons et Origo\" of malaria. The man in the street knows better, and even the London Chamber of Commerce were asked by Professor Simpson to believe that the cause and the mode of spreading malarial fever is now definitely known, \"No mosquitoes no malaria\", he said, but, to quote yourself in \"Memories of the months\", \"In the present painfully congested state of knowledge, it amounts almost to a calamity when a fresh discovery dispels some venerable mystery.\" Or perhaps I should say with Milton \"For the truth never comes into the world but like a bastard, to the ignominy of him that brought her forth.\"\n\n...\n\nYours faithfully,\n\n(signed) J. Grant\n\nPage 2\n\n \n(empty)\n\n$1,00\n\nNext", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-408 - Public Offices & Others - 1913.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 484756, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-463 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [10-12]", "page_number": 134, "title": "CO129-463 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [10-12]", "content_text": "ex-Emperor of China, from hor 1917 to may 1918 he administered the fort in the absence of Cmdr. Cockburn. Zur Johnston have intimate knowledge of Wei-hai-wei, and Lord Liverpool appears that it could be desirable that Du F Clutterbuck Find consult with him.\n\nIt will probably be difficult to arrange for him, Shantung to leave his charge, His Excellency proposes, if T.L. concurs, to approve Gov Stubbs\n\n1920 1350 12 Nov.\n\nas previous Paper. 40922 Sir R Stubbs proposal that he should travel via Peking both on his way to and from Weihaiwei, the travelling expenses thereby incurred to fall on Weihaiwei Funds.\n\n(Pay & Pensions)\n\nSubsequent Papers. 51530 HONG KONG 62957 Ordinance Ed 1920.\n\nlives Information required with reasons Wait for KEC 62951 REA 24 DEC 20 re B 341/24 7.\n\n1 in Cill. M: 5 suggest this in sufficient we aught the sanction 105 le\n\n(60404) W1, 14183,24 Gp.153 35,000 8.20 W & 5 (WB & L)\n\nJager. as 10/1. Are 11.1 G.S.14.1.21 at suce-", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-463 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1920 [10-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 529249, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932", "page_number": 33, "title": "CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932", "content_text": "# \n\nThe right to protection is not necessarily limited to the Realm. \"The protection and government of the King is general over all his dominions Seeing power and protection draweth ligeance extendeth out of England, that ligeance cannot be local, or confined within the bounds thereof\". (Per cur. in Calvin's Case: 4, Coke, page 9.) (See Chief Justice Cockburn in R.v Keyn: 2, Exchequer Division, page 63, at page 236, and 1, Blackstone, page 364). But Lord Justice Cotton, in Attorney-General v Tomline, expressly pointed out that the duty and obligation of the Crown was one which the subject could not enforce: \"For this reason only, that the Crown is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court and any default of duty on the part of the Crown cannot be made the ground of an action\" (at page 70).\n\nThe question then arises whether the many authorities which decide that money cannot be demanded colore officii have any application to a case where there is no enforceable duty, the performance of which can be refused unless payment is made. In the Attorney General v Wilts United Dairies (91 Law Journal, K.B.D., page 897) Lord Buckmaster pointed out at page 898 that no enactment enabled the Food Controller to levy any sum of money on any of His Majesty's subjects. That was a case where the Food Controller, an official having power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to make orders regulating the supply of milk products, obtained an agreement from the subject that in consideration of the issue of a licence to deal in milk he would pay a certain sum to the Food Controller. In the Court of Appeal (37 Times Law Reports, page 884) Lord Justice Bankes at page 885 said: \"It is not disputed for the Crown that the Food Controller could not without Parliamentary authority impose the charge complained of\". Lord Justice Atkin at page 886 points out that by the Bill of Rights no money can be levied for or to the use of the Crown except by grant of Parliament. See also `Brocklebank Ltd. v. The King` (1925, 1 King's Bench Division, page 52), where the Shipping Controller was similarly held not to be entitled to charge for granting a licence.\n\nOther cases such as `Wathen v. Sandys` (2 Campbell, page 640), (a case of a sheriff being under a duty to erect hustings not being able to charge candidates with expenses, being part of a duty upon him in executing a writ to return members to Parliament); `Morgan v. Palmer` (2 Barnewall & Cresswell, page 729), (in which a Justice of the Peace sought a fee for renewing a licence of publicans); `Steel v. Williams` (8 Exchequer, page 625), (where a parish clerk sought illegally to make charges for extracts from a register book); `Snowden v. Davis` (1 Taunton, page 358); all establish the proposition stated by Baron Martin in Steel's case that a person who illegally takes money under cover of an Act of Parliament is liable to be sued for it. All these cases depended upon a duty existing in some person arising from his office, which duty that person refuses to perform, unless he receives payment. In so far as there is here no enforceable duty in the Crown or its officers to use the troops in any particular way or at all, these cases do not appear to me to assist the appellants.\n\nIn `Glasbrook Brothers Ltd. v. Glamorgan County Council` (1925 Appeal Cases, page 270) it was argued that as there was a duty on the police to provide protection, the discretion as to the way that should be done was not to be bought or sold. Viscount Cave at page 279 points out that power may exist where there is no absolute duty, that is the present case, and that \n\n## 22.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-532-7 Anti-piracy guards- China Navigation Company v. H.M. Attorney General 19-1-1931 - 20-4-1932.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535033, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 34, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "GENERAL.\n\nThe Law Officers are accordingly requested to advise :-\n\n(1) Whether the case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong was, in their opinion, rightly decided; if so (2) Whether, assuming that satisfactory proof of intent to commit piracy is forthcoming, a foreigner who on the high seas assaults with intent to murder any person on board a vessel, could be convicted in the Courts of this country under 1 Vic., c. 88, or in the Colonial Courts under 12 & 13 Vic., c. 96.\n\n(3) Whether the Imperial Parliament could properly be invited to pass legislation conferring jurisdiction to try foreigners in the circumstances indicated in (2).\n\n(4) Whether it is expedient to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council any question arising out of the matters discussed in this case, and, if so, to settle the suggested terms of reference.\n\n(5) Generally on the case.\n\nOpinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and Mr. Wilfrid Lewis.\n\nIn our opinion the question whether or not the full court of Hong Kong arrived at a correct decision in quashing the conviction in the above case can only be satisfactorily answered by approaching the matter de novo.\n\nIt is thus necessary to decide at the outset what jurisdiction the Hong Kong Court had to try the twelve prisoners. They were Chinese subjects in a Chinese vessel upon the high seas. Although it is not expressly so stated, we feel entitled to assume that the acts with which the prisoners were charged were not committed inter fauces terrae, and took place more than 3 miles from the coast of Hong Kong so as to be outside the zone provided by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878. From the above circumstances it results that these prisoners, in the absence of any relevant statute applying to foreigners when outside that zone and in foreign ships, were for no purpose subject to Imperial municipal law. These prisoners, however, were liable to be tried and punished for offences committed outside the 3-mile zone if amounting to piracy jure gentium. Reference should be made to the exhaustive judgment of Cockburn C. J. in Reg. v. Keyn (1876 2 Exch. D. 63 at pp. 159 to 238), where the history and scope of English criminal jurisdiction over foreigners upon the seas was traced and examined.\n\nIt will be convenient to postpone dealing with the questions whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy and justiciable as such, and to deal first with the question whether Imperial Courts have jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships who commit outside the 3-mile zone offences made punishable as piracy by British or Imperial Statutes.\n\nIn this connection the propositions of Cockburn C. J. in Reg. v. Keyn can be stated broadly as follows: Up to the 16th century the jurisdiction of English criminal courts was confined to crimes committed within the body of a county, while crimes at sea were subject to the jurisdiction of the Admiral (pp. 162, 167). Thus piracy jure gentium was never a felony at common law. Subsequently, in the reign of Richard II the respective jurisdictions were allowed to overlap, to the extent that in murder and mayhem done in great ships in the mouths of great rivers the Admiral was accorded concurrent jurisdiction with the common law (p. 168). And so English criminal law remained until 1878. Cockburn C. J. examined the statute 28 Henry VIII, c. 15, and reached the conclusion (pp. 169 and 209) that it created no new offence and did not render foreigners liable to any English Court when they were not previously so liable: the statute merely transferred the existing jurisdiction of the Admiral to commissioners appointed by the King, and the only jurisdiction over foreigners for crimes committed on the high seas being derived from the civil law the commissioners received no further or greater jurisdiction under the statute of Henry VIII than the Admiral possessed and no power to apply English criminal law to foreigners in circumstances where the Admiral could not apply it (p. 169). And this position was not altered by the statute 4 & 5 William IV, c. 36 (which gave the Central Criminal Court jurisdiction) or 7 & 8 Vict., c. 2, which gave power to ordinary Courts of Assize to try offences committed on the high seas and within the jurisdiction of the Admiral.\n\nGENERAL.\n\n3\n\nAdmittedly piracy jure gentium was within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, and to this extent the Commissioners (subsequently the Central Criminal Court and Assize Courts) obtained jurisdiction over foreigners committing crimes in foreign ships on the high seas, though Cockburn C. J. admitted that if Parliament had expressly asserted a more extended jurisdiction it would have been the duty of the Courts to recognise and endeavour to enforce such jurisdiction (pp. 160 and 207). At p. 208 he examined the question whether English municipal law either expressly or by implication had been extended to foreigners in foreign ships on the high seas. After approving the doctrine laid down by Turner L. J. in Cope v. Doherty (1858 2 De G. & J. 614 at 624 affirming 4 K. & J. 367) that Parliament must not be presumed to have legislated for foreigners and that to warrant such a conclusion the words of an Act ought to be express or its context very clear, Cockburn C. J. reached the conclusion that, up to 1876, no provision had been made by Parliament for trying foreigners for crimes committed generally upon the seas in foreign ships (p. 213), while such legislation as had been applied either expressly or impliedly to foreigners within what may for convenience be termed territorial waters had dealt with the revenue, customs, the protection of fisheries and kindred matters.\n\nWe feel satisfied that Cockburn C. J. in his exhaustive analysis of the law would have commented on such acts as the Suppression of Piracy Act, 1698 (Halsbury's Statutes IV, p. 334), the Piracy Act, 1821 (p. 343 op. cit.), the Offences at Sea Acts, 1799 and 1806 (pp. 401 and 417), the Murders Abroad Act, 1817 (p. 440), the Piracy Act, 1837 (p. 461), the Admiralty Offences Act, 1844 (p. 476), and the Piracy Act, 1850 (p. 520), had he considered that the provisions of any of those Acts either expressly or impliedly referred to foreigners, for, although the crime charged in Reg. v. Keyn was manslaughter, the principle at issue was sufficiently wide to render relevant the various municipal Acts dealing with piracy had the advocates in the case or other members of the Court cited them as conferring statutory criminal jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships.\n\nUp to 1878, therefore, we think that, while for the purpose of regulating national defence and such matters as customs and revenue, municipal law had in certain cases been applied to foreigners in foreign ships at sea, there was no statute which had extended the jurisdiction of our criminal courts in respect of crimes committed by foreigners at sea, unless committed on board a British ship or falling under the definition of piracy jure gentium. The ratio decidendi of Cockburn C. J. and the majority of the Court was responsible for the drafting of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878. The effect of that Act was to declare and enact (see the preamble and per Coleridge C. J. in R. v. Dudley and Stephen, 14 Q.B.D. at 281), that the jurisdiction of our courts extended to all offences committed within 3 miles of the coast; but, subject to that extension, we think that the law of the high seas remains to-day as it was stated by Cockburn C. J. (see Harris v. steamship \"Franconia,\" 1877, 2 C.P.D. 173, and the Fagernes, 1927 P, 311).\n\nThus, in our opinion, Section 2 of the Piracy Act, 1837, does not assist, except in so far as it affects the question of punishment.\n\nWe think that the object of this Act was not the definition of the crime of piracy, but the regulation of its punishment. It must be remembered that at this time statutory revisions of punishments, and more particularly capital punishment, was occupying the attention of the Legislature see, for instance, the Criminal Law Act, 1827, Section 7, the Forgery Act, 1837, and the Punishment of Offences Act, 1837. We think the object of the Piracy Act, 1837, was to retain the death penalty in cases of piracy with violence, but in other cases of statutory or municipal piracy to substitute transportation for death (Section 3). Moreover, if actual robbery is an essential ingredient in piracy, the Section carries the matter no further; if it is not, it is unnecessary to invoke the section.\n\nAccordingly, in our opinion, it would not have been correct to indict these twelve prisoners under the Piracy Act, 1837, Section 2, or any other provision of English municipal law relating to piracy.\n\nOn the other hand, we do not agree with what we understand to be the view of the Hong Kong Court, that they were not competent to try a charge of piracy jure gentium. We entertain no doubt that the Hong Kong Court possesses jurisdiction over foreigners accused of piracy jure gentium. We think such jurisdiction was inherent under international law, upon the doctrine that the\n\n[7653]\n\nB 2\n\n34", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535034, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 35, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "4\n\nGENERAL.\n\nA pirate is hostis humani generis, and his crimes are justiciable anywhere (per Cockburn C. J. in Reg. v. Keyn at pp. 163, 168–9; Hawkin's Pleas of the Crown, Volume 1, Chapter 20, Section 1; Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9, p. 524; Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 28th edition, pp. 670-1; Hall's International Law, 8th edition, pp. 311, 317). That view was held by the Privy Council in A.G. for Hong Kong v. Kwok a Sing (1873 L.R. 5 P.C. 179 at 199, 200), and the jurisdiction specifically recognised in the Courts of that Colony. In this respect, we think the acting Chief Justice was wrong when he expressed the opinion that such jurisdiction, in order to exist, would probably require to be founded on an express Statute of the Imperial Parliament. But even so, it seems to us that the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 96) coupled, if necessary, with the earlier Acts 11 William III, c. 7, and 46 Geo. III, c. 54, have effectively invested the Hong Kong Courts with jurisdiction to try foreigners charged with piracy jure gentium upon the high seas.\n\nBut such jurisdiction is confined to acts falling within the conception of piracy jure gentium under international law. Any extension—and, conversely, any restriction—in the definition of that crime in English municipal law has not affected that jurisdiction.\n\nThus it remains to examine whether actual robbery is a necessary ingredient in the commission of piracy jure gentium, or whether an unsuccessful attempt to rob upon the high seas fulfils that crime. Up to the present case, this question seems to have been treated academically, for no direct answer has been given judicially, facts apparently not having arisen to require it.\n\nFor the purpose of answering such a question, we think the opinions of the leading writers on International Law are entitled to rank with more authority than was allowed in Reg. v. Keyn, when the application of municipal law was involved; or in Republic of Bolivia v. Indemnity Mutual (1909 1 K.B. 785), where the question was one of the construction of a policy of insurance (see pp. 790 and 802 ibid).\n\nWhile there is no absolute consensus on the subject, it seems to us that modern opinion supports the contention that an attempted or unsuccessful attack or attempt to rob at sea amounts to piracy jure gentium. Thus Hall, at p. 314 of his work on International Law, 8th edition, says:\n\n“Piracy may be said to consist in acts of violence done upon the ocean by a body of men acting independently of any politically organised society, and among acts which are recognised or alleged to be piratical,” the writer includes “robbery or attempt at robbery of a vessel by force or intimidation, either by way of attack from without or by way of revolt of the crew and conversion of the vessel and cargo to their own use.” Phillimore's International Law, 2nd edition, Vol. 1, p. 411, contains the passage, “Piracy is an assault upon vessels navigated on the high seas, committed animo furandi, whether the robbery or forcible depredation be effected or not, and whether or not it be accompanied by murder or personal injury.” Oppenheim, 4th edition, Vol. 1, 500, is to a similar effect, while Lord Birkenhead, 5th edition, pp. 139-140, goes further, in stating that an animus furandi is not essential, and robbery is not necessarily an ingredient in the offence. On the other hand, in Archbold's Criminal Pleading, robbery is treated as being of the essence of piracy jure gentium (p. 670); while in Hawkin's Pleas of the Crown (Ch. XX, 8th edition, p. 251), there appears to be a conflict between Sections 1 and 3 as to whether actual robbery is essential. It is worth noting, however, that statutes such as the Suppression of Piracy Act, 1698, Section 11, and 6 Geo. IV, c. 49 (an Act for encouraging the capture or destruction of piratical ships and vessels) suggest that Parliament recognised that piracy, though frustrated, was nevertheless piracy. See also the judgment of Dr. Lushington on the latter Statute in Serhassan (2 W.Rob. 354).\n\nThe chief argument to the contrary is founded on the charge to the Grand Jury by Sir Charles Hedges in R. v. Dawson (1696 13 State Trials 451 at 454) (approved in Kwok a Sing's case), but the conclusiveness and authority of his definition appear to us to be capable of being discounted by two factors: (1) he was dealing with charges where robbery of the clearest kind had occurred; (2) he was charging a Grand Jury at the second trial of the same prisoners, and it is tolerably clear from the circumstances that the occasion was not one when Sir Charles Hedges would have deemed it either necessary or expedient to embark on the niceties of technical definition. For such reasons, notwithstanding the Privy Council's adoption of Sir Charles's words in Kwok a Sing's case, and\n\n5\n\nGENERAL.\n\nthe statements which are to be found in such works as Carver's \"Carriage of Goods by Sea\" (7th Edition, p. 142), or Russell on Crimes (7th Edition, Vol. 1, p. 256), we consider that what Sir Charles Hedges said in R. v. Dawson need not be accepted as a precise definition to-day of piracy jure gentium. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that, until comparatively recently, piracy was regarded as practically another term for sea robbery (see the trial of Captain Kidd, reported in 14 State Trials, p. 123, and of Bonnet and others, 15 State Trials, p. 2341, where the several indictments laid are set out in full; see also per Lord Abinger C. J. in R. v. Macgregor, 1 Car & Kirwin at 431). But, weighing the various opinions, judicial and otherwise, as well as we can, we are of the view that the old definition expressed by Sir Charles Hedges and approved by the Privy Council in Kwok a Sing's case, is not conclusive to the effect that actual robbery is an essential ingredient in piracy jure gentium. It is to be observed, also, that Sir Robert Phillimore, in the Chapter already referred to, cites several of these authorities without, apparently, regarding them as being in conflict with his definition of piracy quoted above.\n\nIn our opinion, therefore, the full Court of Hong Kong was wrong when it decided to quash the conviction of these twelve prisoners. We think the indictment, verdict, and conviction were proper upon the facts, and if, on a future occasion, a similar case arises of an unsuccessful attack by pirates, the Hong Kong Court is entitled to, and should, convict. But it seems to us that, before convicting in such circumstances, the Court should have clear evidence of the attack being made with intent to rob, or, in other words, made piratically. Under the present law, homicide by a foreigner when not in a British ship and outside Hong Kong territorial waters (and a fortiori lesser offences, such as assaults) are not cognisable by Imperial Courts. It is of obvious importance that the scope of judicial treatment by any State of piracy jure gentium should not be extended so as to trespass unduly upon the municipal jurisdiction which every civilised State is assumed to exercise over its subjects. In the interests of international amity, any unwarranted extension of Imperial jurisdiction over the high seas is sincerely to be avoided.\n\nOur answers to the questions put to us are as follows:—\n\n(1) The conviction was correct and should not have been quashed.\n\n(2) A foreigner, when not in a British ship and outside the 3-mile zone, cannot be proceeded against under 1 Vic. c. 88, or in Colonial Courts by virtue of 12 and 13 Vic. c. 96.\n\n(3) It is unnecessary, in our opinion, to answer this, but we conceive great objection to legislation extending Imperial Municipal jurisdiction beyond the limits at present laid down.\n\n(4) Having regard to the importance of the question to the community at Hong Kong, we think that this is a proper case for special reference to the Judicial Committee under Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act, 1833, if His Majesty should think fit. As the judgment was one quashing the conviction, we do not think that an appeal would have lain under Section 3. We are aware of the decisions in R. v. Bertrand (L.R. 1 P.C. 520) and R. v. Murphy (L.R. 2 P.C. 535). These, however, were cases in which a new trial had been ordered without jurisdiction. In the present case, in spite of power to order a new trial under Section 78 of the Hong Kong Criminal Procedure Ordinance, the Court quashed the conviction, and we know of no case in which the Privy Council has entertained an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. In our opinion, the Hong Kong Order in Council (1909 S.R.O., p. 805) does not affect the matter.\n\nWe think that the reference should be in the following terms:—\n\n“Whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium, or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy jure gentium and justiciable as such.\"\n\nLaw Officers' Department,\n\nJuly 29, 1932.\n\nT. W. H. INSKIP.\n\nF. B. MERRIMAN.\n\nWILFRID LEWIS.\n\n36", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535049, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 50, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "In our opinion the question whether or not the full court of Hong Kong arrived at a correct decision in quashing the conviction in the above case can only be satisfactorily answered by approaching the matter de novo. It is thus necessary to decide at the outset what jurisdiction the Hong Kong Court had to try the twelve prisoners. They were Chinese subjects in a Chinese vessel upon the high seas. Although it is not expressly so stated, we feel entitled to assume that the acts with which the prisoners were charged were not committed 'inter fauces terrae', and took place more than three miles from the coast of Hong Kong so as to be outside the zone provided by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878.\n\nFrom the above circumstances it results that these prisoners in the absence of any relevant statute applying to foreigners when outside that zone and in foreign ships, were for no purpose subject to Imperial municipal law. These prisoners, however, were liable to be tried and punished for offences committed outside the three mile zone if amounting to piracy \"jure gentium\". Reference should be made to the exhaustive judgment of Cockburn C.J. in Reg. v. Keyn (1876 2 Exch. D. 63 at pages 159 to 238), where the history and scope of English criminal jurisdiction over foreigners upon the seas was traced and examined.\n\nIt will be convenient to postpone dealing with the questions whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy 'jure gentium' or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy \"jure gentium\"...\n\nPage 50\nPage 51", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535050, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 51, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "-2-\n\n52\n\nand justiciable as such, and to deal first with the question whether Imperial Courts have jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships who commit outside the three-mile zone offences made punishable as piracy by British or Imperial Statutes.\n\nIn this connection the propositions of Cockburn C.J. in Reg v. Keyn can be stated broadly as follows: Up to the 16th century the jurisdiction of English criminal courts was confined to crimes committed \"within the body of a county\" while crimes at sea were subject to the jurisdiction of the Admiral (pp. 162, 167). Thus piracy \"jure gentium\" was never a felony at common law. Subsequently, in the reign of Richard II the respective jurisdictions were allowed to overlap, to the extent that in murder and mayhem done in great ships in the mouths of great rivers the Admiral was accorded concurrent jurisdiction with the common law (p. 168). And so English criminal law remained until 1878. Cockburn C.J. examined the statute 28 Henry VIII C.15, and reached the conclusion (pp. 169 and 209) that it created no new offence and did not render foreigners liable to any English Court when they were not previously so liable: the statute merely transferred the existing jurisdiction of the Admiral to commissioners appointed by the King, and the only jurisdiction over foreigners for crimes committed on the high seas being derived from the civil law, the commissioners received no further or greater jurisdiction under the statute of Henry VIII than the Admiral possessed and no power to apply English criminal law to foreigners in circumstances where the Admiral could not apply it (p. 169). And this position was not altered by", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535051, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 52, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "53\n\n-3-\n\nby the statute 4 & 5 William IV C. 36 (which gave the Central Criminal Court jurisdiction) or 7 & 8 Vict. C.2 which gave power to ordinary Courts of Assize to try offences committed on the high seas and within the jurisdiction of the Admiral.\n\nAfter\n\nAdmittedly piracy \"jure gentium\" was within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, and to this extent the Commissioners (subsequently the Central Criminal Court and Assize Courts) obtained jurisdiction over foreigners committing crimes in foreign ships on the high seas, though Cockburn C.J. admitted that if Parliament had expressly asserted a more extended jurisdiction it would have been the duty of the Courts to recognise and endeavour to enforce such jurisdiction (pp. 160 and 207). At page 208 he examined the question whether English municipal law either expressly or by implication had been extended to foreigners in foreign ships on the high seas.\n\napproving the doctrine laid down by Turner L.J. in Cope v. Doherty (1858 2 De G. & J. 614 at 624 affirming 4 K. & J. 367) that Parliament must not be presumed to have legislated for foreigners and that to warrant such a conclusion the words of an Act ought to be express or its context very clear, Cockburn C.J. reached the conclusion that, up to 1876, no provision had been made by Parliament for trying foreigners for crimes committed generally upon the seas in foreign ships (p.213) while such legislation as had been applied either expressly or impliedly to foreigners within what may for convenience be termed territorial waters had dealt with the revenue, customs, the protection of fisheries and kindred matters.\n\nWe feel satisfied that Cockburn C.J. in his exhaustive", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535052, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 53, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "54\n\n-4-\n\nexhaustive analysis of the law would have commented on such acts as the Suppression of Piracy Act 1698 (Halsbury's Statutes IV p.334), the Piracy Act 1821 (p.343 op. cit.), the Offences at Sea Acts 1799 and 1806 (pp.401 and 417), the Murders Abroad Act 1817 (p.440), the Piracy Act 1837 (p.461), the Admiralty Offences Act 1844 (p.476) and the Piracy Act 1850 (p.520) had he considered that the provisions of any of those Acts either expressly or impliedly referred to foreigners, for although the crime charged in Reg. v. Keyn was manslaughter the principle at issue was sufficiently wide to render relevant the various municipal Acts dealing with piracy had the advocates in the case or other members of the Court cited them as conferring statutory criminal jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships.\n\nUp to 1878 therefore we think that while for the purpose of regulating national defence and such matters as customs and revenue, municipal law had in certain cases been applied to foreigners in foreign ships at sea, there was no statute which had extended the jurisdiction of our criminal Courts in respect of crimes committed by foreigners at sea unless committed on board a British ship or falling under the definition of piracy 'jure gentium'. The ratio decidendi of Cockburn C.J. and the majority of the Court was responsible for the drafting of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878. The effect of that Act was to declare and enact (see the preamble and per Coleridge C.J. in R. v. Dudley and Stephen, 14 Q.B.D. at 281), that the jurisdiction of our Courts extended to all offences committed within three miles of the coast; but subject to that extension we think that the law of the high seas remains to-day as it was stated by Cockburn C.J. (see\n\nHarris/", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535054, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 55, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "56\n\n-6-\n\nanywhere (per Cockburn C.J. in Reg. v. Keyn at pp. 163, 168-9: Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown, Volume 1 Chapter 20 Section 1; Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume 9 p. 524: Archbold's Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, 28th Edition, pp. 670-1: Hall's International Law, 8th Edition, pp. 311, 317). That view was held by the Privy Council in A.G. for Hong Kong v. Kwok a Sing (1873 L.R. 5 P.C. 179 at 199, 200), and the jurisdiction specifically recognised in the Courts of that Colony. In this respect we think the acting Chief Justice was wrong when he expressed the opinion that such jurisdiction in order to exist would probably require to be founded on an express Statute of the Imperial Parliament. But even so, it seems to us that the Admiralty Offences (Colonial) Act 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. C. 96) coupled if necessary with the earlier Acts 11 William III C. 7 and 46 Geo. III C. 54 have effectively invested the Hong Kong Courts with jurisdiction to try foreigners charged with piracy 'jure gentium' upon the high seas. But such jurisdiction is confined to acts falling within the conception of piracy 'jure gentium' under international law. Any extension and conversely any restriction in the definition of that crime in English municipal law has not affected that jurisdiction.\n\nThus it remains to examine whether actual robbery is a necessary ingredient in the commission of piracy 'jure gentium' or whether an unsuccessful attempt to rob upon the high seas fulfils that crime. Up to the present case, this question seems to have been treated academically, for no direct answer has been given judicially, facts apparently not having arisen to require it.\n\nFor/", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 544658, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "page_number": 46, "title": "CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934", "content_text": "## \n4. In The Queen v. Keyn L.R. 2 Ex. Div. at p. 160 Chief Justice Cockburn laid down two propositions:---\n\n(1) No proposition of law can be more incontestable or more universally admitted than that, according to the general law of nations, a foreigner, though criminally responsible to the law of a nation not his own for acts done by him while within the limits of its territory, cannot be made responsible to its law for acts done beyond such limits.\n\n(2) This rule must, however, be taken subject to this qualification, namely, that if the legislature of a particular country should think fit by express enactment to render foreigners subject to its law with reference to offences committed beyond the limits of its territory, it would be incumbent on the Courts of such country to give effect to such enactment, leaving it to the state to settle the question of international law with the governments of other nations.”\n\n6. In summing up the history of the jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Admiral on the high seas the Chief Justice concludes with the following passage:---\n\n“At all events, it appears that the Court of King's Bench, in dealing with cases occurring below low-water mark, and therefore dehors the limits of any country, was deemed to be exceeding its lawful authority. For Lord Hale informs us that this jurisdiction of the Common Law Courts in cases of felonies and treasons, and other crimes committed upon the seas, was interrupted by a special order of the King and his council, in the 35 Edw. III, and by a supersedeas issued shortly after; since which, says Lord Hale, 'I have not observed that the King's Bench or Courts of common law have proceeded criminally in cases of crimes of this nature committed on the high sea.\n\nThe only exception to the first proposition would appear to be the assumption of jurisdiction over foreigners charged with the crime of piracy jure gentium.\n\n5. From the earliest times of our legal history it is indisputable that the Court of the Admiral had jurisdiction in cases of piracy jure gentium. Down to the 16th Century it is submitted that the sole jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and punish for crimes committed on the High Seas rested on the Admiral though it does appear that prior to the 35 Edw. III the Court of King's Bench purported to exercise jurisdiction in four cases of piracy, cited in Hale's Pleas of the Crown Vol. II p. 12, and referred to in the above case of The Queen v. Keyn, at page 163 as having possibly been dealt with on the principle that piracy is triable anywhere and everywhere.\n\nThe probability is that the exercise of this jurisdiction was looked upon as a usurpation of authority, which it was thought necessary to restrain. Certain it is that from that time to this no such jurisdiction has ever been exercised or claimed by the Courts of common law. There cannot possibly be a question that, in respect of any offences committed on the sea, out of the body of a county, the jurisdiction was formerly exclusively in the Admiralty, and is at the present time, in the courts to which the Admiralty jurisdiction has been transferred. Upon this all authorities on criminal law are entirely agreed.”\n\n7. But, in the words of Cockburn C.J. in R. v. Keyn, at p. 168, the jurisdiction of the admiral, though largely asserted in theory, was never, so far as I am aware--except in the case of piracy, which, as the pirate was considered the communis hostis of mankind, was triable anywhere--exercised, or attempted to be exercised, in respect of offences, over other than English ships.\n\n8. A few lines further down the Chief Justice in the following passage shows how the jurisdiction of the Admiral came to be transferred simpliciter to the Common Law Courts.\n\nHe says: \nAnd though, by 25 Hen. 8, c. 15, the trial of offences previously within the jurisdiction of the admiral was transferred to commissioners to be appointed by commission... \n\n## RECORD.\n\n61", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-547-8 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 22-3-1934 - 14-12-1934.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 554447, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-562-2 Chung Chi Cheung- appeal against death sentence 1-1-1937 - 31-12-1938", "page_number": 20, "title": "CO129-562-2 Chung Chi Cheung- appeal against death sentence 1-1-1937 - 31-12-1938", "content_text": "9. \n\n20 \n\nmotives for preventing those objects from being \ndefeated by the interference of a foreign state. Such \ninterference cannot take place without affecting his \npower and dignity. The implied license therefore under \nwhich such vessel enters a friendly port may reasonably \nbe construed as containing an exemption from the \njurisdiction of the sovereign within whose territory \nshe claims the rites of hospitality.\n\nWheaton (4th Edition p. 167) quotes from the \nReport of the Royal Commission on Fugitive Slaves 1876, \np. 43 the following opinion of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn. \n\"The rule which reason and good sense would, \nas it strikes me, prescribe, would be that, as regards \nthe discipline of a foreign ship of war, and offences \ncommitted on board, as between members of her crew \ntowards one another, matters should be left entirely \nto the law of the ship, and that should the offender \nescape to the shore he should, if taken, be given up \nto the commander of the ship on demand, and should be \ntried on shore only if no such demand be made.\"\n\nWe have set out these quotations at some length \nas indicating the change in the attitude of international \njurists as to the reasons underlying this universally \nconceded immunity, and the trend of modern writers \ntowards the opinion that it is a freely accorded waiver \nby one sovereign state of part of its complete \nsovereignty. If this opinion is the correct one it \nnecessarily follows that the guest state and the host \nstate have concurrent jurisdiction, but that, as a \nmatter of international comity, the jurisdiction of \nthe host state is postponed to that of the guest state. \nMr. Macnamara's proposition that the jurisdiction of \nthe visiting state is sole and exclusive is one to \nwhich we are unable to accede. On any other view of \nthe authorities the footnote to page 245 of Hall's \n\nPage 20\nPage 21", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-562-2 Chung Chi Cheung- appeal against death sentence 1-1-1937 - 31-12-1938.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 554448, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-562-2 Chung Chi Cheung- appeal against death sentence 1-1-1937 - 31-12-1938", "page_number": 21, "title": "CO129-562-2 Chung Chi Cheung- appeal against death sentence 1-1-1937 - 31-12-1938", "content_text": "## International Law and the concluding words of Lord Chief Justice Cockburn's opinion quoted above would be meaningless, nor would it be possible to justify the action of the British and French authorities in the cases of Sun Yat Sen and Nikitschenkow which are referred to in the footnote to page 632 of Vol. I of Oppenheim's work.\n\nThere remains for consideration the third of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. As we have already decided against the contention that the visiting state has sole and exclusive jurisdiction, it follows that in our opinion there is no merit in the argument that there can be no waiver of immunity. The question that now falls for decision is whether in the facts of this case there has been a valid and sufficient waiver and therefore a submission to the jurisdiction of this Court.\n\nIn the course of his argument, Mr. Macnamara referred us to the reported cases of Taylor v. Best (1854) 14 C.B. 487, In re Suarez, Suarez v. Suarez (1918) 1 Ch. 176, and Dickinson v. Del Solar (1930) 1 K.B. 376, and relied particularly on the extradition proceedings at the instance of the Chinese Government as evidencing the fact that they had not consented to waive their priority of jurisdiction nor had they approved of any waiver of that priority which might be inferred from the conduct of the Chief Officer or the boatswain.\n\nIn his able argument, Mr. Macnamara, in our opinion, overlooked one important point which is fatal to his contention. The appellant has been found by a competent court to be a British subject. By the Treaty of Tientsin 1858, the Emperor of China renounced all claim to exercise jurisdiction within his territorial limits over British subjects. The requisition for the surrender of the appellant was doubtless inspired...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-562-2 Chung Chi Cheung- appeal against death sentence 1-1-1937 - 31-12-1938.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 556537, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-565-5 Hong Kong Eugenics League- activities 27-6-1937 - 31-8-1937", "page_number": 12, "title": "CO129-565-5 Hong Kong Eugenics League- activities 27-6-1937 - 31-8-1937", "content_text": "14\n\n28\n\nBIRTH CONTROL NEWS\n\nDoctor's Case for Small Families.\n\nA defence of mothers who \"provide the State with a small number of good citizens rather than a rabble of neglected starvelings\" is made by Dr. John Kershaw, medical officer of health for Accrington (Lancs.)\n\nThe number of first-born children, he points out, had increased in Accrington, and was higher in 1936 than at any time since 1930. The number of second children had also increased during recent years.\n\n\"If young parents prefer pleasure to perambulators and cars to cradles,\" Dr. Kershaw writes,\n\n16 we should expect to find a decrease in the number of first children, since once the first baby has arrived a life of pleasure is seriously hampered.\n\n\"It is in the third and subsequent children that the decrease has been steadily progressing during the last dozen years.\n\n\"If these figures mean anything, they mean that women are as ready as ever to become mothers, but that they are unable to afford a large family.\n\n\"Parents are still courageous. It is fear for the child's future and not for her own comfort that deters a woman from continuing to bear children.\n\n'Until she is relieved of this fear, it is futile to mouth well-meaning but empty phrases about duty to the State.'\n\nYour Own Opinion.\n\n(\n\nI do not think the writer of the article on empty cradles worked out how a mother with only £2 a week coming in can provide for a newcomer without robbing those she has already.\n\nI have two big and healthy children, and I have just had another in Crumpsall Hospital.\n\nI borrowed £2 for a second-hand layette for my new babe, expecting to\n\nOctober, 1937\n\nreceive £2 maternity money, and now I am informed by the Post Office that I am not entitled to draw any.\n\nI have drawn just 24s. 6d. in money and I have put ninety 1s. 2d. stamps on my cards, expecting it now my babe is here. I have no money to buy even a second-hand pram, nor anything to pay back what I borrowed for the layette. Then we have to read articles on why there are not more children!\n\nD. S., Belper Street, Harpurhey.\n\nLandlord Bans Babies.\n\nA young couple in Aberdeen have been forbidden by their landlord to have any children. If they do they must leave the house.\n\nThe identity of the couple is being kept secret, but the matter has aroused tremendous indignation and is being investigated by the Aberdeen House Proprietors' and Factors' Association.\n\nThe clergy have taken strong objection to the landlord's ruling, and steps may be taken to have the whole case officially reviewed.\n\nInvestigations have revealed that although it is seldom a factor makes the stipulation so definite many young couples have been given houses, but told when they take over that no children were wanted.\n\n\"There is no A young wife said: doubt that many young couples are afraid to have families for fear they are put out of their house.\"\n\nMEDICAL HELP\n\nON\n\nBIRTH CONTROL\n\nBY\n\nHAROLD CHAPPLE, M.C.\n\nSIR JOHN COCKBURN, K.C.M.G., M.D. SIR W. ARBUTHNOT LANE, C.B.\n\nSIR JAMES BARR, C.B.E., M.D.\n\nAnd others.\n\nOf all Booksellers\n\n6s. net. Putnam, 24, Bedford St., London, W.C.2\n\nVol xvi, No. 3.\n\nBIRTH CONTROL NEWS\n\nParis-International Population Congress.\n\nPrison Ban.\n\n29\n\n15\n\nA woman friend who has just become a visitor to Holloway Prison is puzzled and disturbed because she finds she is unable to get permission to give the inmates any instruction in birth control.\n\nCC\n\nAt the Congress held in Paris on July 29 to August 1, under the Presidency of M. Adolphe Landry, a large number of speakers from different countries assembled to listen to a wide range of theoretical papers. The\n\nHere, if anywhere,\" she says subject arousing most discussion and indignantly, \"it is needed.\n\nit is needed. Most of on which the Congress members got\n\nthese women, who have either got no thoroughly bogged was that of \"Race.\" brains at all, or the wrong sort, and are It is clear that the word as used at\n\noften physically unsound as well, have large families, some of them eight or ten, even in these days.\n\n80\n\npresent is charged with much political significance and based on so little truly diagnostic character that it would be better not to use the word at all at any scientific meeting.\n\nA full Report of the proceedings is to be issued by the Congress Secretary in due course.\n\nSir Leonard Hill's Warning.\n\nSir Leonard Hill, specialist in physical medicine, discussed the prospect of a greatly diminished population, with a growing proportion of the aged, in his Presidential Address to the Sanitary Inspectors Association Conference at Brighton.\n\nHe said that, if the present trend continues, in one hundred years Britain's population may have fallen to 5,000,000, little more than half the present population of London. In every 100 people there were now 23 under 15 and 12 over 60. In thirty years' time the figures would be 10 and 24, and in sixty years 4 and 45.\n\nThe infant mortality had been halved and the expectation of life at birth had gone up since the middle of last century, from thirty-nine to fifty-nine years.\n\nIt was not that the late middle-aged people were now living to be older, but that the young were not dying. If the present trend was followed there would by 1941 no longer be any excess of births over deaths.\n\n'They would like to know how to stop, having children; the prison officials would like them to. I would like to tell them. But none of us is the Home Office will not even listen to able to do anything about it, because\n\nargument on the subject.\"\n\nNot \"Three Score Years and Ten.\"\n\nC\n\nThe child born in this century can hope on the average for thirty more years of life than his ancestor in the fourth century and twelve more years than if he had lived 200 years ago,\" said Professor D. Burns, speaking at the British Association.\n\nCC\n\nMore and more people of all ages are being protected against natural death, and the proportion of people unfitted for life's struggle is increasing, especially in the more sheltered classes, and they are likely to fall victims to any sudden physical or mental crisis. That explains why the average expectation of life of the male of 65 is less to-day than it was at the beginning of the Christian Era.\n\nTHE C.B.C. LIBRARY is there for use Members can use the Reading Room or borrow books. Join the C.B.C. and use it.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-565-5 Hong Kong Eugenics League- activities 27-6-1937 - 31-8-1937.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 559161, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938", "page_number": 25, "title": "CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938", "content_text": "25\n\n4\n\nJustice lays down that \"the grant of a free passage implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the troops during this passage and permits the foreign general to use that discipline and to inflict those punishments which the government of his army may require.\" He points out that differing from the case of armed troops where an express license to enter foreign territory would not be presumed, the private and public vessels of a friendly power have an implied permission to enter the ports of their neighbours unless and until permission is expressly withdrawn. When in foreign waters private vessels are subject to the territorial jurisdiction:\n\n1\n\nBut in all respects different is the situation of a public armed ship. She constitutes a part of the military force of her nation: acts under the immediate and direct command of the sovereign: is employed by him in national objects. He has many and powerful motives for preventing these objects from being defeated by the interference of a foreign state. Such interference cannot take place without affecting his power and his dignity. The implied license therefore under which such vessel enters a friendly port may reasonably be construed and it seems to the Court ought to be construed as containing an exemption from the jurisdiction of the sovereign within whose territory she claims the rights of hospitality. It seems then to the Court to be a principle of public law that national ships of war entering the port of a friendly power open for their reception are to be considered as exempted by the consent of that power from its jurisdiction.\"\n\nThis conclusion is based on the principles expounded in the extracts from which the Chief Justice summarised at P. 143 of the report:\n\n\"The preceding reasoning has maintained the proposition that all exemptions from territorial jurisdiction must be derived from the consent of the sovereign of the territory: that this consent may be express or implied; and that when implied its extent must be regulated by the nature of the case and the views under which the parties requiring and conceding it must be supposed to act.\" The judgment then proceeded to apply the principles stated to the case before the Court and held that the former owners of The Exchange which had been captured by the French and entered the port of Philadelphia under stress of weather could not have a decree to recover the vessel which must be treated as an armed public vessel of the Emperor of the French whose title could not be controverted in the American Court.\n\nThe extreme doctrine of exterritoriality was not in issue in The Exchange: and neither the principles enunciated by Marshall C.J. nor his application of them appears to support it. In this country the question arose in acute form in 1875 over instructions issued by the Admiralty to commanders of Her Majesty's ships in respect of the treatment of fugitive slaves. They were attacked by Sir William Vernon Harcourt, then Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge and Liberal M.P. for Oxford in two letters to The Times under the title \"Historicus.\" He there stated, 4th November, 1875, that\n\nhe had seen with much surprise that the doctrine of the absolute immunity of a public ship and all persons and things on board of it from local jurisdiction and the operation of local law where lying in the territorial waters... has been treated as a doubtful proposition. I had certainly supposed that in the whole range of public law there was no position more firmly established by authority, more universally admitted by Governments, or one which had been more completely accepted in the intercourse of States as unquestioned and unquestionable.\n\nL\n\nThe Government appointed a Royal Commission to report on the whole question as to the reception of fugitive slaves, which included such eminent lawyers as Sir Alexander Cockburn C.J., Sir Robert Phillimore, Mr. Montague Bernard, Mr. Justice Archibald, Mr. Alfred Thesiger K.C., Sir Henry Maine, Mr. James Fitzjames Stephen K.C., and Mr. Henry C. Rothery, the Registrar in Admiralty. The lawyers were not agreed as to the doctrine of international law, and the Commission were able to report without expressing any decided opinion about it. The lawyers, however, wrote memoranda which were annexed to the report. Sir Robert Phillimore, Mr. Bernard and Sir Henry Maine appeared to favour the more extreme doctrine, but admitted it must have qualifications. Sir Alexander Cockburn, in a memorandum which is worthy to be compared with the judgment of Marshall C.J., discussed the whole question of exterritoriality of a public ship of war, quoting the authorities from 1740 onwards and referring to cases of Government action. He quotes Casaregis (1740), \"Discursus de Commercio\" Hubner (1759), \"De la Saisie des Batiment Neutres,\" Lampredi, Pinheiro Ferreira, Azueri, Lord Stowell's advice to the British Government in 1820 in Brown's case, Wheaton, Hautefeuille, \"Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations Neutres,\" Ortolan, 'Diplomatie de la Mer,\" Bluntschli Heffter and Calvo. Of these Hubner, Hautefeuille, Ortolan and Calvo support in his view the high doctrine of exterritoriality, Casaregis and Wheaton are non-committal, the others are against the doctrine. After controverting the views which favour complete exterritoriality and pointing out the difficulties and indeed absurdities to which the doctrine leads, he says:\n\nCF\n\n\"The rule which reason and good sense would as it strikes me prescribe would be that as regards the discipline of a foreign ship and offences committed on board as between members of her crew towards one another matters should be left entirely to the law of the ship, and that should the offender escape to the shore he should if taken be given up to the commander of the ship on demand and should be tried on shore only if no such demand be made. But if a crime be committed on board the ship upon a local subject or if a crime having been committed on shore the criminal gets on board a foreign ship he should be given up to the local authorities. In which way the rule should be settled so important a principle of international law ought not to be permitted to remain in its present unsettled state.\"\n\nIn this passage which was cited with approval by the Full Court of Hong Kong in the present case, it should be observed that the Lord Chief Justice assumes that even if a crime be committed on board by one member of the crew on another, should the offender escape to shore and no demand be made for his return, the territorial Court would have jurisdiction. Their Lordships doubt whether when he is dealing with the case of a crime committed on board on a local subject he has present to his mind the possibility of the\n\n13804\n\nA 3\n\n26", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 559162, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938", "page_number": 26, "title": "CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938", "content_text": "27\n\nlocal subject being a member of the crew. And while he says that in the cases put the offender should be given up to the local authorities, he does not say whether, if surrender were refused, judicial process could be directed to the captain of the foreign vessel to secure the custody of the offender by the local authority. In the memorandum of Sir Alexander Cockburn, Mr. Justice Archibald concurred. Mr. Stephen wrote a memorandum to the same effect in the trenchant Stephen style. Mr. Rothery treated the dogmatic assertion of Historicus\" and his authorities to a merciless dissection to which the conclusions of a Whewell Professor can seldom have been subjected. In addition to the authorities already mentioned, reference should be made to the passages cited in the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case from Hall, 8th Ed., 1924, edited by Professor Pearce Higgins, para. 55. There the author states that a public vessel is exempt from the territorial jurisdiction: but that her crew and persons on board of her cannot ignore the laws of the country in which she is lying as if she were a territorial enclave. Exceptions to their obligation exist in the case of acts beginning and ending on board the ship and taking no effect externally to her in all matters in which the economy of the ship or the relations of persons on board to each other are exclusively concerned. The author appends a note:-\n\n\"The case which however would be extremely rare on board a ship of war of a crime committed by a subject of the state within which the vessel is lying against a fellow subject would no doubt be an exception to this. It would be the duty of the captain to surrender the criminal.'\n\nThe other passage is from \"Oppenheim\", 5th Ed., 1937, edited by Professor Lauterpacht, vol. 1, para. 450. The author adopts the full exterritorial view:-\n\n\"The position of men of war in foreign waters is characterised by the fact that they are called 'floating portions of the flag State.\" For at the present time there is a customary rule of international law universally recognised that the State owning the waters into which foreign men of war enter must treat them in every point as though they were floating portions of their flag State.\"\n\nWhen, however, he is dealing with the analogous immunities of diplomatic envoys, para. 389, he says \"exterritoriality in this as in every other case is a fiction only, for diplomatic envoys are in reality not without but within the territories of the receiving States\". There is a note that \"The modern tendency among writers is towards rejecting the fiction of exterritoriality\", a note which is not in the second edition, the last prepared by the author, and appears for the first time in the 4th edition edited by Professor McNair.\n\nTheir Lordships have no hesitation in rejecting the doctrine of exterritoriality expressed in the words of Mr. Oppenheim which regards the public ship as a floating portion of the flag State\". However the doctrine of exterritoriality is expressed it is a fiction, and legal fictions have a tendency to pass beyond their appointed bounds and to harden into dangerous facts. The truth is that the enunciators of the floating island theory have failed to face very obvious possibilities that make the doctrine quite impracticable when tested by the actualities of life on board ship and ashore. Immunities may well be given in respect of the conduct of members of the crew to one another on board ship. If one member of the crew assault another on board, it would be universally agreed that the local courts would not seek to exercise jurisdiction, and would decline it unless indeed they were invited to exercise it by competent authority of the flag nation. But if a resident in the receiving State visited the public ship and committed theft and returned to shore, is it conceivable that when he was arrested on shore and shore witnesses were necessary to prove dealings with the stolen goods and identify the offender, the local courts would have no jurisdiction? What is the captain of the public ship to do? Can he claim to have the local national surrendered to him? He would have no claim to the witnesses or to compel their testimony in advance or otherwise. He naturally would leave the case to the local courts. But on this hypothesis the crime has been committed on a portion of foreign territory. The local court then has no jurisdiction, and this fiction dismisses the offender untried and untriable. For it is a commonplace that a foreign country cannot give territorial jurisdiction by consent. Similarly in the analogous case of an embassy. Is it possible that the doctrines of international law are so rigid that a local burglar who has broken and entered a foreign embassy and having completed his crime is arrested in his own country cannot be tried in the courts of the country? It is only necessary to test the proposition to assume that the foreign country has even so assented to the jurisdiction of the local courts. Objective exterritoriality would for the reason given above deprive our courts at any rate of any jurisdiction in such a case. The result of any such doctrine would be not to promote the power and dignity of the foreign sovereign but to lower them by allowing injuries committed in his public ships or embassies to go unpunished.\n\nOn this topic, their Lordships agree with the remarks made by Professor Brierly in \"The Law of Nations,” (1928), p. 110.\n\n\"The term 'exterritoriality' is commonly used to describe the status of a person or thing physically present in a State's territory, but wholly or partly withdrawn from that State's jurisdiction by a rule of international law, but for many reasons it is an objectionable term. It introduces a fiction, for the person or thing is in fact within, and not outside, the territory: it implies that jurisdiction and territory always coincide, whereas they do so only generally; and it is misleading because we are tempted to forget that it is only a metaphor and to deduce untrue legal consequences from it as though it were a literal truth. At most it means nothing more than that a person or thing has some immunity from the local jurisdiction: it does not help us to determine the only important question, namely, how far this immunity extends.\"\n\nThe true view is that in accordance with the conventions of international law, the territorial sovereign grants to foreign sovereigns and their envoys and public ships and the naval forces carried by such ships certain immunities. Some are well settled: others are uncertain. When the local court is faced with a case where such immunities come into question\n\n280", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 559168, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938", "page_number": 32, "title": "CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938", "content_text": "36\n\n4.\n\nJustice lays down that \"the grant of a free passage implies a waiver of all jurisdiction over the troops during this passage and permits the foreign general to use that discipline and to inflict those punishments which the government of his army may require.\" He points out that differing from the case of armed troops where an express license to enter foreign territory would not be presumed, the private and public vessels of a friendly power have an implied permission to enter the ports of their neighbours unless and until permission is expressly withdrawn. When in foreign waters private vessels are subject to the territorial jurisdiction:\n\n\"But in all respects different is the situation of a public armed ship. She constitutes a part of the military force of her nation: acts under the immediate and direct command of the sovereign: is employed by him in national objects. He has many and powerful motives for preventing these objects from being defeated by the interference of a foreign state. Such interference cannot take place without affecting his power and his dignity. The implied license therefore under which such vessel enters a friendly port may reasonably be construed and it seems to the Court ought to be construed as containing an exemption from the jurisdiction of the sovereign within whose territory she claims the rights of hospitality. It seems then to the Court to be a principle of public law that national ships of war entering the port of a friendly power open for their reception are to be considered as exempted by the consent of that power from its jurisdiction.\"\n\nThis conclusion is based on the principles expounded in the extracts from which the Chief Justice summarised at P. 143 of the report:\n\nC\n\nThe preceding reasoning has maintained the proposition that all exemptions from territorial jurisdiction must be derived from the consent of the sovereign of the territory: that this consent may be express or implied; and that when implied its extent must be regulated by the nature of the case and the views under which the parties requiring and conceding it must be supposed to act.\" The judgment then proceeded to apply the principles stated to the case before the Court and held that the former owners of The Exchange which had been captured by the French and entered the port of Philadelphia under stress of weather could not have a decree to recover the vessel which must be treated as an armed public vessel of the Emperor of the French whose title could not be controverted in the American Court.\n\nThe extreme doctrine of exterritoriality was not in issue in The Exchange and neither the principles enunciated by Marshall C.J. nor his application of them appears to support it. In this country the question arose in acute form in 1875 over instructions issued by the Admiralty to commanders of Her Majesty's ships in respect of the treatment of fugitive slaves. They were attacked by Sir William Vernon Harcourt, then Whewell Professor of International Law at Cambridge and Liberal M.P. for Oxford in two letters to The Times under the title \"Historicus.\" He there stated, 4th November, 1875, that\n\n\"he had seen with much surprise that the doctrine of the absolute immunity of a public ship and all persons and things on board of it from local jurisdiction and the operation of local law where lying in the territorial waters... has been treated as a doubtful proposition. I had certainly supposed that in the whole range of public law there was no position more firmly established by authority, more universally admitted by Governments, or one which had been more completely accepted in the intercourse of States as unquestioned and unquestionable.\"\n\n37\n\n5\n\nThe Government appointed a Royal Commission to report on the whole question as to the reception of fugitive slaves, which included such eminent lawyers as Sir Alexander Cockburn C.J., Sir Robert Phillimore, Mr. Montague Bernard, Mr. Justice Archibald, Mr. Alfred Thesiger K.C., Sir Henry Maine, Mr. James Fitzjames Stephen K.C., and Mr. Henry C. Rothery, the Registrar in Admiralty. The lawyers were not agreed as to the doctrine of international law, and the Commission were able to report without expressing any decided opinion about it. The lawyers, however, wrote memoranda which were annexed to the report. Sir Robert Phillimore, Mr. Bernard and Sir Henry Maine appeared to favour the more extreme doctrine, but admitted it must have qualifications. Sir Alexander Cockburn, in a memorandum which is worthy to be compared with the judgment of Marshall C.J., discussed the whole question of exterritoriality of a public ship of war, quoting the authorities from 1740 onwards and referring to cases of Government action. He quotes Casaregis (1740), Discursus de Commercio\", Hubner (1759), \"De la Saisie des Batiment Neutres,\" Lampredi, Pinheiro Ferreira, Azueri, Lord Stowell's advice to the British Government in 1820 in Brown's case, Wheaton, Hautefeuille, \"Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations Neutres,\" Ortolan, Diplomatie de la Mer,\" Bluntschli Heffter and Calvo. Of these Hubner, Hautefeuille, Ortolan and Calvo support in his view the high doctrine of ex-territoriality, Casaregis and Wheaton are non-committal, the others are against the doctrine. After controverting the views which favour complete exterritoriality and pointing out the difficulties and indeed absurdities to which the doctrine leads, he says:\n\n**\n\n\"The rule which reason and good sense would as it strikes me prescribe would be that as regards the discipline of a foreign ship and offences committed on board as between members of her crew towards one another matters should be left entirely to the law of the ship, and that should the offender escape to the shore he should if taken be given up to the commander of the ship on demand and should be tried on shore only if no such demand be made. But if a crime be committed on board the ship upon a local subject or if a crime having been committed on shore the criminal gets on board a foreign ship he should be given up to the local authorities. In which way the rule should be settled so important a principle of international law ought not to be permitted to remain in its present unsettled state.\"\n\nIn this passage which was cited with approval by the Full Court of Hong Kong in the present case, it should be observed that the Lord Chief Justice assumes that even if a crime be committed on board by one member of the crew on another, should the offender escape to shore and no demand be made for his return, the territorial Court would have jurisdiction. Their Lordships doubt whether when he is dealing with the case of a crime committed on board on a local subject he has present to his mind the possibility of the\n\n13804\n\nA 3", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 559169, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938", "page_number": 33, "title": "CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938", "content_text": "39\n\n31 38\n\nlocal subject being a member of the crew. And while he says that in the cases put the offender should be given up to the local authorities, he does not say whether, if surrender were refused, judicial process could be directed to the captain of the foreign vessel to secure the custody of the offender by the local authority. In the memorandum of Sir Alexander Cockburn, Mr. Justice Archibald concurred. Mr. Stephen wrote a memorandum to the same effect in the trenchant Stephen style. Mr. Rothery treated the dogmatic assertion of \"Historicus\" and his authorities to a merciless dissection to which the conclusions of a Whewell Professor can seldom have been subjected. In addition to the authorities already mentioned, reference should be made to the passages cited in the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case from Hall, 8th Ed., 1924, edited by Professor Pearce Higgins, para. 55. There the author states that a public vessel is exempt from the territorial jurisdiction: but that her crew and persons on board of her cannot ignore the laws of the country in which she is lying as if she were a territorial enclave. Exceptions to their obligation exist in the case of acts beginning and ending on board the ship and taking no effect externally to her in all matters in which the economy of the ship or the relations of persons on board to each other are exclusively concerned. The author appends a note:\n\n\"The case which however would be extremely rare on board a ship of war of a crime committed by a subject of the state within which the vessel is lying against a fellow subject would no doubt be an exception to this. It would be the duty of the captain to surrender the criminal.\"\n\nThe other passage is from \"Oppenheim\", 5th Ed., 1937, edited by Professor Lauterpacht, vol. 1, para. 450. The author adopts the full exterritorial view:\n\n\"The position of men of war in foreign waters is characterised by the fact that they are called floating portions of the flag State.' For at the present time there is a customary rule of international law universally recognised that the State owning the waters into which foreign men of war enter must treat them in every point as though they were floating portions of their flag State.\"\n\nWhen, however, he is dealing with the analogous immunities of diplomatic envoys, para. 389, he says \"exterritoriality in this as in every other case is a fiction only, for diplomatic envoys are in reality not without but within the territories of the receiving States\". There is a note that \"The modern tendency among writers is towards rejecting the fiction of 'exterritoriality'\" a note which is not in the second edition, the last prepared by the author, and appears for the first time in the 4th edition edited by Professor McNair.\n\n1\n\n[F\n\nTheir Lordships have no hesitation in rejecting the doctrine of exterritoriality expressed in the words of Mr. Oppenheim which regards the public ship as a floating portion of the flag State\". However the doctrine of exterritoriality is expressed it is a fiction, and legal fictions have a tendency to pass beyond their appointed bounds and to harden into dangerous facts. The truth is that the enunciators of the floating island theory have failed to face very obvious possibilities that make the doctrine quite impracticable when tested by the actualities of life on board ship and ashore. Immunities may well be given in respect of the conduct of members of the crew to one another on board ship. If one member of the crew assault another on board, it would be universally agreed that the local courts would not seek to exercise jurisdiction, and would decline it unless indeed they were invited to exercise it by competent authority of the flag nation. But if a resident in the receiving State visited the public ship and committed theft and returned to shore, is it conceivable that when he was arrested on shore and shore witnesses were necessary to prove dealings with the stolen goods and identify the offender, the local courts would have no jurisdiction? What is the captain of the public ship to do? Can he claim to have the local national surrendered to him? He would have no claim to the witnesses or to compel their testimony in advance or otherwise. He naturally would leave the case to the local courts. But on this hypothesis the crime has been committed on a portion of foreign territory. The local court then has no jurisdiction, and this fiction dismisses the offender untried and untriable. For it is a commonplace that a foreign country cannot give territorial jurisdiction by consent. Similarly in the analogous case of an embassy. Is it possible that the doctrines of international law are so rigid that a local burglar who has broken and entered a foreign embassy and having completed his crime is arrested in his own country cannot be tried in the courts of the country? It is only necessary to test the proposition to assume that the foreign country has assented to the jurisdiction of the local courts.\n\nEven so objective exterritoriality would for the reason given above deprive our courts at any rate of any jurisdiction in such a case. The result of any such doctrine would be not to promote the power and dignity of the foreign sovereign but to lower them by allowing injuries committed in his public ships or embassies to go unpunished.\n\nOn this topic, their Lordships agree with the remarks made by Professor Brierly in \"The Law of Nations,\" (1928), P. 110.\n\nThe term 'exterritoriality' is commonly used to describe the status of a person or thing physically present in a State's territory, but wholly or partly withdrawn from that State's jurisdiction by a rule of international law, but for many reasons it is an objectionable term. It introduces a fiction, for the person or thing is in fact within, and not outside, the territory: it implies that jurisdiction and territory always coincide, whereas they do so only generally; and it is misleading because we are tempted to forget that it is only a metaphor and to deduce untrue legal consequences from it as though it were a literal truth. At most it means nothing more than that a person or thing has some immunity from the local jurisdiction; it does not help us to determine the only important question, namely, how far this immunity extends.\n\nThe true view is that in accordance with the conventions of international law, the territorial sovereign grants to foreign sovereigns and their envoys and public ships and the naval forces carried by such ships certain immunities. Some are well settled: others are uncertain. When the local court is faced with a case where such immunities come into question\n\n7", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-568-9 Chung Chi Cheung- petition to appeal against decision of Hong Kong court 7-1-1938 - 28-12-1938.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 587756, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-605-5 Government loans 4-2-1948 - 8-1-1949", "page_number": 78, "title": "CO129-605-5 Government loans 4-2-1948 - 8-1-1949", "content_text": "54126/4/48\n\nExtract from letter to Sir Sydney Caine\n\nfrom Mr. Follows (Hong Kong) dated\n\n12th February, 1948.\n\n \n\n2\n\n9/2 Boss\n\n173\n\nA\n\nMake\n\n79\n\n9.\n\nIn regard to Cockburn's remarks about the Chartered Bank playing their part in the floating of the new Loan, while we naturally hope that they will take up a substantial allocation of the issue, I think you will agree that we can never count on them to give us support on the scale we can expect from the Hong Kong Bank. Indeed, we must face the fact that it would not be practical politics to float a loan locally unless we had the Hong Kong Bank behind it. In actual fact, the Chartered Bank took up $5,000,000 in the recent issue and subscriptions from their constituents only amounted to $2,723,000. I do not think that the funds they have available locally permitted them to participate on their own account on a larger scale. The Hong Kong Bank guaranteed to take a minimum of $25,000,000, if required, and were prepared, if necessary, to go up to about $30,000,000.\n\n10.\n\nWe are sending an official communication regarding the response to the first issue of $50,000,000. Actually, it was disappointing. Very little was forthcoming from the private investor, and although we had many enquiries from Singapore, the fact that we had income tax here apparently deterred most of their investors, and in the end we only received about one and a half lakhs from that area. The response from the Chinese was poor as we expected, and even the large European firms and Trusts of various sorts, on whom we had relied for our main support, did not subscribe on the scale expected. The response would have been better if the loan had been floated some months earlier, and it is unfortunate that it took so long to clear matters with the Treasury.\n\n11.\n\nI considered it undesirable to keep the lists open too long as it was important, from the point of view...\n\nof", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-605-5 Government loans 4-2-1948 - 8-1-1949.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]