Proclamation on the issue at hand.
However, it seems that the interpretation which they seek here upon the Order in Council is perfectly absurd.
It is difficult to understand the precise legal point raised, but I take it to be that the territory was acquired on lease for 99 years from France, and that such a lease does not empower HM to make laws for the government of the new territory under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act as a protectorate.
In other words, they contend that the power to make British law in the new territory is limited, and that therefore Chinese law still applies. The Law Officers advised that the draft Order in Council was sufficient and proper for the purpose of annexing the new territories to the Colony of Hong Kong, and their attention was directed to the fact that the legislature could petition the Crown to quash the conviction on the grounds set forth above, but as the lives of the men were at stake, I do not see how we could refuse to consult the Law Officers, though I do not think that there is doubt that they were convicted.
I want to make assurance doubly sure by telegraphing as follows. Referring to your telegram of 10 July, we cannot find absolute proof in the correspondence that the proclamation annexing the new territory was issued.
Page 264
-12435-2000-1-90 16195-2000-4-99
C.P. L. 11
P.T.O.