216
of these two documents, we might have expected a complete overhaul of the workings of the District Watch Committee and, indeed, the running of the Force itself. That these changes did not happen is due in no small part to differences in personalities at the top of the Hong Kong Government.
In late August 1922 Claud Severn, the Colonial Secretary who was also the Officer Administering the Colony, wrote to Winston Churchill regarding the remedial action taken by Government following the strike.22 The Acting Governor noted that an investigation into the running of the regular Police Force had found the calibre of some of the men working in the 'Chinese Police Force' to be decidedly wanting in the loyalty stakes. As a result of the inquiry a total of fifty Chinese sergeants, constables and detectives were either dismissed, ordered to retire, reduced in rank or otherwise censured. Severn noted that the situation regarding the District Watch Force was 'somewhat delicate' and one which he had discussed at length with the Secretary for Chinese Affairs. Both Severn and Edwin R. Hallifax, the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, recommended that, contrary to Governor Stubbs' proposal, no reorganization of the District Watch Force should be attempted. Severn stressed that any 'enquiry and action would necessarily be a matter for the [District Watch] Committee, which shows the greatest reluctance to carry the subject any further.'23 There can be no doubting the considerable power and influence exerted by the District Watch Committee at this time since the Acting Governor was worried that any 'action taken "by order" would certainly create unnecessary and serious trouble and might put an end to the Force, a result which is to be deprecated, since the District Watch Force is ordinarily of the greatest value to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs.' Without mentioning Timothy Murphy by name, Severn concluded his letter to the Secretary of State by noting that the District Watch Force was under the charge of ‘a very efficient Inspector of Police.' Thus, Stubbs' suggestion that the District Watch Force should be revamped was discarded. It would have been most informative to know how Governor Stubbs reacted to this news when he returned from leave on 18 November 1922 but unfortunately this was not recorded in accessible official documents.
216
of these two documents, we might have expected a complete overhaul of the workings of the District Watch Committee and, indeed, the run- ning of the Force itself. That these changes did not happen is due in no small part to differences in personalities at the top of the Hong Kong Government.
In late August 1922 Claud Severn, the Colonial Secretary who was also the Officer Administering the Colony, wrote to Winston Churchill regarding the remedial action taken by Government follow- ing the strike.22 The Acting Governor noted that an investigation into the running of the regular Police Force had found the calibre of some of the men working in the 'Chinese Police Force' to be decidedly want- ing in the loyalty stakes. As a result of the inquiry a total of fifty Chi- nese sergeants, constables and detectives were either dismissed, or- dered to retire, reduced in rank or otherwise censured. Severn noted that the situation regarding the District Watch Force was 'somewhat delicate' and one which he had discussed at length with the Secretary for Chinese Affairs. Both Severn and Edwin R. Hallifax, the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, recommended that, contrary to Governor Stubbs' proposal, no reorganization of the District Watch Force should be attempted. Severn stressed that any 'enquiry and action would neces- sarily be a matter for the [District Watch] Committee, which shows the greatest reluctance to carry the subject any further.'23 There can be no doubting the considerable power and influence exerted by the District Watch Committee at this time since the Acting Governor was worried that any 'action taken "by order" would certainly create unnecessary and serious trouble and might put an end to the Force, a result which is to be deprecated, since the District Watch Force is ordinarily of the greatest value to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs.' Without mention- ing Timothy Murphy by name, Severn concluded his letter to the Sec- retary of State by noting that the District Watch Force was under the charge of ‘a very efficient Inspector of Police.' Thus, Stubbs' sugges- tion that the District Watch Force should be revamped was discarded. It would have been most informative to know how Governor Stubbs reacted to this news when he returned from leave on 18 November 1922 but unfortunately this was not recorded in accessible official documents.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.