7062.
No. 768.
(Hong Kong.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD,
We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Holland's
Temple, July 12, 1872. letter of the 9th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us copies of a Despatch, No. 16, of 10th May, from the Governor of Hong Kong, and its enclosures, in which the question was raised whether the Peninsular and Oriental steamers and the Messageries Maritimes steamers fell within the provisions of the Chinese Passengers Act, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 104.
2. That it would be seen that the Peninsular and Oriental Company relied to a certain extent upon the Passenger Act, 15 & 16 Vict. c. 44., but as we are aware, that Act was repealed by the Passenger Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 119.), and with respect to the latter Act he (Mr. Holland) was to observe that the exemption of steam vessels carrying mails, which was made by 8. 4 of that Act, was found so inconvenient that it was repealed by the 4th section of the Passengers Amendment Act of 1863 (26 & 27 Vict. c. 51.).
3. That the Messageries Maritimes relied upon the terms of the Postal Convention between Great Britain and France of 1856, which was to be found in the 10th vol. of Hertslet's Treaties, p. 108.
4. As bearing upon that point he (Mr. Holland) was to transmit to us the copy of a letter of the 19th May 1869,* addressed by the Earl of Clarendon to the French Am- bassador, with reference to an arrest at Hong Kong on board the Messageries steamer "Tigre," which embodied the opinion of the Queen's Advocate upon the question whether that steamer came within the fair scope of the convention.
5. That he was to request us to favour your Lordship with our opinion what answer should be returned to the question raised by Sir A. Kennedy. Whether these two classes of steamers or either of them were exempted from the operation of the Chinese Passengers Act, 1855, and upon what grounds such exemption, if any, could be supported.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have the honour to
Report
That we are of opinion that if the language of the convention of 24th September 1856 really differed from the language of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 104. the Act must furnish the governing rules and not the convention. But we do not think the language of the two documents really differs, and it appears to us that the interpretation clause of the Act clearly includes in its terms the two classes of steamers as to which your Lordship has consulted us. We think that these classes of steamers are not exempted from the operation of the Chinese Passengers Act, 1855, and that there are no grounds upon which such exemption can be supported.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley,
&c.
&c.
&c.
• See No. 562a.
We have, &c. (Signed)
J. D. COLERIDGE. G. JESSEL.
o 16978,-573.
25.-5/86.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO