A
in
was not charged with having committed any crime, Jam of opinion that the s application for her extradition frous
Treaty Hong Kong was not warranted by any injagement between Gt Britain and {lia, although the representation of the China, & Consul may be correct, that the uroter of the joil would have had a clear right by the law of China to demand within flicnese 4 territon the restitution of wheat the Consul considers " may be termed his property, the girl", "the forent is in error in supstoding that there is any obligation arising out of "the law wis prevails amongst nations," "whe required the Goor of Hongkong to que infect to the municipal law of China within British territory. Further, if it be assumed that I. his foural at Canton may intended to speak of the obligations of t "international comity" when be alludes
"
to
have
།
459
to the "law whe prevails accouget Nations, &e that the comity of nations might have required the Governor of "Hongkong to direct the property of a Chinese subject, whe had been abducted unlawfully from the Hankin territory & found in the ponction of the thief at Hongkong, to be restored to its lawful owner on the application. of the Chinese Auther, if such property had buen a brute aminal, the analogy would fail altogether in the case of a girl alleged to be a slave & as such the property of the Clinese subject on whose behalf the is
British lav "claimed, masmuch as
ter ou
-
forbids all recognition of rights ofproperty, over a human being within British territory; Pam of opinion therefore that view of the case the Goor of
in
cuery
in
Hongkong, was perfectly justified declining to accede to the request of
M. Mis Consulat (anton.
I have
de
thept/ travers Twiss.
: