paper published about 15 April. ad Body patch band by mad be
E
is do
rate
delete of thip this rare thin that the affece But the Ordinan (for reas
reasons given at length on 1890) in objectionable that it ought perhaps hardly to have been passed brought into operation, without the approval first obtained of the Sec. So perhaps nothing need be said in reply to this portion defence of
delay-
at any
of State
as
to supposed
Nor perhaps need we d
defend ourselves for asking questions in consequence of paragi noticed (not in obscure... disse- putable papers" but) in the best (if not "the only) paper published in London on Chinese affairs. by another marked "Tepurate"
? Acknowledge this despatch and concur in the suggestion made in the P.S. desp (on 15602) being marked
as to our
"Separate"
the understanding of coured
that the original desp. (no. 273) to which reply, has been removed from
it was a
that public record in the C.S.0.
S.W.9.27xb. Euch 26
I think it should might also be said
that Lund dulys despoted It 131 did not excision
J
the Froomer's action
criticism hany or impute to hear
any negligence both
that the State
Statement
ar
237
which Lord Herly asked for explanation
exportatte Land in The Benz in her
taken from a
•fost conect though
newspaper and that the despatch did not afsume the statcount it toh torati so and that as it's date shews the despatch was written and signed before this receipt of the frames's despelit
transmetting the Ordinance.
Ew 3.2
Jeff
D.
Feb.3.
Dr. J. Howen arts for a telegram
says that the land
authorising hair & male this despalat Separati Sent. 1.50 pun "Separati" coll suffice 6. belepaph.
Jus9/2
Alean
Mutt Seb q
Page 240Page 241