rever
Act- although it clearly was contemplated to apply & sucki
Vessels.
was
taken
The opinion of the Law Offur
& they reported that the Vessels of both companie.
within the operation
were
of the Chinese Passengers,
they
the
act of than
20
ZEJ
carried Chinese - they also reported
that Mastenithstand Hf as
"the "Messageries
regarded
M
to
there was nothing the Postal Convention oppose to this view, that is to say
to conform their leability. "Chinese Passengers act 1855 twa not inconsistent with their inver as subsidaged Vessals
bility
Artile J.
was
Volu Zour
the difficulty
the Fortunately
theal by the discovery
Steamers was pro
the 1. the Messageries
to Saigon, & that of Hongkong
to Singapore
than y from Honghong
? Journeys q
less than
M. the act, could not
дига
case ap
y day
se any
to either Company 1.0. above refere The opinion of
to is
obscurely worded, and I cent that in the face of article & I the
that no question have thought right of the Messag
arise
to the
Steamers to clann précisely the van
National Vessels an Privileges
مت
respect of the Chinese Passengers Anyhow the L.0.
ac
and
478
in this cater opinion they go not touch the question of
ties & privileges under
immunities
Sec. 5".
I would propose that a Letter
be
addressed to
7.0.
I acknowledging their letter
f cuclosure
Pointing out reply of 7.0
to Price de la Dour d'auvergne
to
in the case of
3.0 Law Officers.
cate
4.0
the Segre &
مشهد
of mon ama
کها
of the
opimon
Jamese
Shal
the
application of
441
Ach
+
5. Great importance
A
question should be defischog
Selled
whether these Vannes
parent be treated
are A
O
new
gwas for with reference to civil & coincial Proceed
6. That food C
to Lord
theat
/
In appeary
The classe
t
founded
of the French Fort Commun of these Vessels
C
well
Greate
and that in the terms of Art. 5" they
the same
of the a
a
those who advised in the case
J
National Vessels and accorded the same privileges.
diingle Lord (comm That according G