Sessional_Paper_1900 — Page 119

115

( 9 )

("China Mail" leading article of 9th August, 1899.)

Some years ago, the suggestion was made that a Royal Commission should be appointed to enquire into several questions connected with the recently acquired territory at Kowloon. The reason advanced for a Royal Commission was that certain parties were so mixed up in the affair that if strict impartiality were desired the enquiry should be made either judicially or by upright men free from local connections or prejudices. In other words, to use plain Anglo-Saxon, rank land jobbery is alleged to be one of the causes of the Colony's troubles in the New Territory. This is likely to prevent the Colony, while burdened with all the addi- tional expense of policing and managing the New Territory, from deriving that benefit from its new asset which was prophesied by the Honourable C. P. CHATER and the other original advocates of extension. On the 8th April last, the Hong- kong Government Gazetle contained the Queen's Order-in-Council of October 20, 1898, relating to the New Territory, also the Local Communities and Tribunals Ordinance providing for the administration, with the necessary rules and regula- tions. There is also His Excellency the Governor's proclamation fixing the date of placing the newly-leased territory under this administration as from April 17, 1899. In making such a change from unwritten law and custom to the British ægis, it was an imperative necessity that the people concerned should be fully informed of the change in their status, in order to prevent ill-founded fears as to the security of their lives, liberty and possessions. The position was this. A population of about 100,000 people, more or less, of three distinct races, permented with tradition, superstition and inbred dread and distrust of officialdom, who had been allowed to rule themselves through their village councils without interference by the District Magistrate unless there was a chance of squeeze and exaction, was turned over to an alien system whose impartial justice they certainly will not believe in until convinced by ocular demonstration of such authority. To this end, in order to avoid any apprehension on the part of these people, "half savage and half child," as to the effect the change would have on their lives, liberties and possessions, it was enacted that the transfer to British rule should be made clearly known to them by placarding the villages. This, we are bound to believe, as loyal British subjects, actually took place. Something else also took place, as one of the men engaged (or supposed to be engaged) in posting these placards was seized at or near the village of Un Long, and was condemned to death by the elders of the adjoining villages. He was killed on the 17th or 18th May by certain men, who received "blood money" or "luck money" froin one of the elders. His murderers were tried, convicted, sentenced to death, and executed. Had the Government taken the advice tendered them at the outset and supported their pla- carding with a demonstration of force, the lives of these poor, ignorant, misguided natives, and of their victim, would not have been debited to the British occupation.

So far, the facts in connection with the murder are clear. The men were given a fair trial, before an impartial judge and jury of their fellow-citizens; they were convicted and sentenced under British law. But what follows is not so clear. It is freely asserted by the people concerned that a sum of money was paid into a local bank, for the benefit of the murdered man's (Tang Cheung's family, and that this was done by order of the British Authorities, the apportionment being as follows the villages of Kam Tun, Un Long Toong, Ping Shán, and Há Tsün paid $150 each, and the family of Tang Tsing Sz, one of the men executed in Victoria Gaol, $450, making a total of $1,050, and that the Pát Héung village was also ordered to pay $150. but did not pay it. The date when this money was paid into the Bank is given as May 29th. We believe it has been paid out again. There is also the further allegation that five houses belonging to the family of Tang Tsing Sz were burned by the soldiers on April 21st. We caunot, of course,