be appointed. The cadet was to act as administrative head of the department, and be responsible to the Government, and not, as the Commission suggested, to the Sanitary Board. In regard to the other points raised, it was proposed that the head of the department should, before March 31st of each year, lay the estimates before the Sanitary Board for discussion, together with any proposals which he might have to make regarding works of a sanitary nature included in the vote for public works extraordinary; that he should consult the Sanitary Board on all changes giving effect to sanitary bye-laws; that he should inform the Board of any change in the organisation of the staff; that he should inform them regarding any recommendations for appointment or leave or dismissal of the European staff; and that he should lay before them any complaint of the public regarding the staff. This measure encountered strong opposition, but it passed into law in substantially this form on July 3, 1908.
THE COURTS.
When the East India Company's monopoly of trade in China ceased, an Act was passed in the third and fourth years of the reign of William IV., conferring upon the Crown the power of appointing Superintendents of Trade and of governing by Orders in Council all British subjects within the dominions of the Emperor of China. Under the powers granted by this Act a Court of Justice was appointed in Canton, with criminal and admiralty jurisdiction, for the trial of all offences and the settlement of all cases that might be brought before it. Of this court the Superintendent of Trade was president. When, under the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, Hongkong was ceded to Great Britain, and four other ports were thrown open to trade, the Emperor of China renounced all authority over British subjects, and, accordingly, in the sixth and seventh years of the reign of Queen Victoria Acts were passed empowering the Superintendent of Trade, at that time the Governor of Hongkong, to enact, with the advice of the Legislative Council of the Colony, such laws and ordinances as might seem "necessary for the peace, order, and good government of Her Majesty's subjects within the dominions of the Emperor of China," and "within any vessel not more than 100 miles from the coast."
By an order of the Privy Council dated January 4, 1843, the Criminal and Admiralty Courts, which had been held at Canton since 1833, were removed to Hongkong, and they were granted jurisdiction over British subjects in the "island and within the dominions of the Emperor of China, and the ports and havens thereof, and on the high seas within 100 miles of the coast of China." It was further directed that the Court should be held by the Chief Superintendent of Trade.
In the meantime formal official possession had been taken of the island of Hongkong, and on April 30, 1841, Captain Elliott, the British plenipotentiary in China, issued a warrant appointing Major Caine Chief Magistrate, requiring him in the case of natives to exercise authority "according to the laws, customs, and usages of China," and in the case of all others "according to the customs and usages of British police law." The proviso was added that the head of the Government should be consulted in any case where the crime, according to Chinese law, involved imprisonment for more than three months, penalties exceeding $400, corporal punishment exceeding a hundred lashes, or capital punishment. On the same date were published "rules and regulations for the British merchant shipping and for the marine magistrates." In the following year the powers of the Chief Magistrate and of the Marine Magistrate were increased in certain respects, the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate in civil matters being raised to $250, with power to confine debtors if necessary.
In the Charter under which Hongkong was created a Crown Colony in 1843, clauses were contained authorising the establishment of properly constituted courts to administer the law, the Governor being empowered to remit any fine not exceeding £50, to suspend the payment of penalties above that amount until the Royal pleasure was ascertained, and to grant a free and unconditional pardon to any convicted person. The Chief Magistrate remained the chief judicial officer in the Colony until 1844, when a Chief Justice was appointed. In October of the same year the Supreme Court was opened, and, except for the Criminal and Admiralty Court presided over by Sir Henry Pottinger, the Governor and Chief-Superintendent of Trade under the old law, this was the first time that a regularly constituted Criminal Court for trial by jury had sat in China.
It was enacted that the law of England should be in full force except where it might be inapplicable to the local circumstances of the Colony or its inhabitants, and that in all matters relating to the proceedings of the Supreme Court the practice of the English courts should obtain unless, and until, otherwise ordered by rule of the Court. The same jurisdiction as that which was lawfully held by the judges in England, both on the Common Law and Chancery side, was conferred upon the Supreme Court of Hongkong, and express power was given to the Court to admit and enrol barristers and solicitors to practice their profession in the Colony. Power, also, was given to the Chief Justice to order the arrest of absconding debtors.
A court with Admiralty jurisdiction within the Colony was created by Letters Patent of January 10, 1846. It was composed of the Governor, the Chief Justice, the Officer Commanding the Troops, the Colonial Secretary, the Chief Police Magistrate, and the flag officers or captains of ships of war in the harbour. Either of these commissioners could examine or commit those charged with piracy. Trials could be held by three of the commissioners, including the Governor or the Chief Justice. The Court was opened on January 14, 1847, with a grand jury and petty jury in attendance. It was abolished in 1850, and its functions were transferred to the Supreme Court.
In 1847, the Supreme Court was so overburdened with trivial cases that the powers of the Magistrates and Justices of the Peace were extended. With the object of further relieving the congestion, a Court of Petty Session was established in 1849. This court sat once a week, and was composed of a Magistrate, who occupied the chair, and such of the Justices of the Peace as cared to attend. Although this change was a step in the right direction, the Ordinance under which it was effected unfortunately left the stipendiary during the remaining five days of the week invested with powers which were formerly exercised only by a judge and jury.
This arrangement continued in force until 1862, when a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, presided over by a judge called the Judge of the Court of Summary Jurisdiction, was established, with power to deal with cases in which the amount involved did not exceed $1,000. In order to make provision for the salary of the new judge, the salaries of the Chief Magistrate and the Assistant Magistrate were abolished, and two Police Magistrates were appointed in their stead. From this date the Justices of the Peace ceased to have any criminal jurisdiction, and at the present day their powers are confined to granting licenses, visiting the gaol, hospitals, and asylums, and awarding punishment to refractory prisoners when the power of the Superintendent of the Gaol is not sufficient to deal adequately with the case. The Court of Summary Jurisdiction was abolished in 1873, its powers being transferred to the Supreme Court, over the summary jurisdiction of which a puisne judge was appointed to preside.
By an Order in Council dated April 17, 1844, Her Britannic Majesty's Consular Officers residing at the several ports were invested with jurisdiction over British subjects within their respective districts for the repression and punishment of crime, and for the settlement of disputes and contentions. In the exercise of this authority it was stipulated that they were to be governed by the laws and ordinances promulgated by the Superintendent of Trade (who was at that time, and for many years after, the Governor of Hongkong) with the advice of the Legislative Council of Hongkong. The right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Hongkong in certain cases was allowed. By an Order of the Queen in Council in November, 1853, the powers of the Consular officers and Superintendent of Trade were extended, authority was vested in the Chief Superintendent of Trade (as distinct from the Governor of Hongkong), and in the Consuls and Vice-Consuls in their respective districts, subject to the approval of the Chief Superintendent, to make and enforce by fine and imprisonment rules and regulations for the observance of treaties, and for the peace, order, and good government of British subjects within the dominions of the Emperor of China. The Consuls were further authorised to hear and decide all civil suits between British
