whereas possession, Hong Kong was given up to Great Britain by Treaty, is considered by China, as a foreign Port. In the existence of such a suffered difference, Lord Derby is very sorry that he finds it impossible to agree to the proposition of H.M.'s Govt for a common action in respect to the subject of the controlling authority of the Chinese Govt over Hong Kong & Macao.
Lord Derby's Note, and I faithfully in "résumé", contains certain statements. I feel bound to correct, since the Govt have grounded upon them the reason of its refusal to my proposition of the 22nd July last.
There is no doubt that the Treaty, according to which possession of Hong Kong is given to Great Britain, has already been sanctioned by Govt; that the Treaty between Portugal & China, holding the right of Sovereignty on the part of the Crown over Macao, after discussion of acceptance of its terms, has not yet obtained the Ratification expected, - this arising from the fact that certain difficulties in the interpretation of some supplementary Clauses have delayed the definitive settlement of this business.
Govt cannot certainly maintain that the existence of a Treaty should always be a condition sine quâ non for the existence of a certain right or the acknowledgment thereof by any other Govt. Any facts purporting action, however indirect it be, or declarations coming in official character from superior Authorities, who implicitly confirm it, are titles as to the existence of such a right which cannot be contested. It frequently happens that the object of a Treaty is simply restricted to establish in a solemn form an already existing & acknowledged right, or to previously repeat statements already made in official documents.