CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869 — Page 33

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next

unfounded.

Since the receipt of your letter a note has been addressed to Lord Clarendon by the French Ambassador, at the same time stating that His Government considered the arrest of "Tigre" to be contrary to the provisions of the Anglo-French Postal Convention of September 24, 1856, under which Steamers employed in conveying correspondence are entitled to the same treatment as vessels of war in the Ports of either State. His Excellency at the same time stated that his Government did not support the claim put forward by their Consul at Hongkong for exclusive jurisdiction over all French Merchant vessels in the Port.

A second reference was thereupon made to the Law Officers who reported that a vessel, in order to be entitled under the Convention of September 1856 to the privileges of a vessel of war, must not only fall within the terms of Article 5 but of Articles 1 and 2, which are strictly confined to the object of conveying correspondence, whereas it appeared that the "Tigre" was not such a vessel but was employed in the carriage of merchandize.

Edit History

2026-05-20 09:23:36 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
unfounded. Since the receipt of your letter a note has been addressed to Lord Clarendon by the French Ambassador, at the same time stating that His Government considered the arrest of "Tigre" to be contrary to the provisions of the Anglo-French Postal Convention of September 24, 1856, under which Steamers employed in conveying correspondence are entitled to the same treatment as vessels of war in the Ports of either State. His Excellency at the same time stated that his Government did not support the claim put forward by their Consul at Hongkong for exclusive jurisdiction over all French Merchant vessels in the Port. A second reference was thereupon made to the Law Officers who reported that a vessel, in order to be entitled under the Convention of September 1856 to the privileges of a vessel of war, must not only fall within the terms of Article 5 but of Articles 1 and 2, which are strictly confined to the object of conveying correspondence, whereas it appeared that the "Tigre" was not such a vessel but was employed in the carriage of merchandize.
Baseline (Original)
unfounded. Since the receipt of your letter a note has been addressed to Lord Clarcudon by the French Ambassador. at this fourt stating that His Government considered. the sailors the arrest of "Sigre" to be contrary of thip to the provisions Convention of the Anglo-French Postal of September 24, 1856, under which Steamers employed lio conveying correspondence: are entitled to the Quine treatment as vessels of war in the Ports of either Stater His Excellency at the same time stated that sis Government did not support the claim put 31 -put forward by their Consul at Hongkong for exclusive jurisdiction 6 over all French Merchant vessels in the Port. A second reference was thereupon made to the Law Officers who reported that a vessel, in order to be entitled under Convention the of September 1856 to the :-privileges of a vessel of Dar, mast only ! ! fall within the terms not of Article 5 but of articles 1 and 2. which are strictly confined to the object of conveying correspondence), whereas it appeared that the " "Tigre" was not such a vessel but was employed in the carriage of. merchandize 1 **
2026-05-20 09:23:36 · Baseline
View content

unfounded.

Since the receipt of your

letter a note has been addressed

to Lord Clarcudon by the French

Ambassador. at this fourt stating

that His Government considered.

the sailors

the arrest of "Sigre" to be contrary

of

thip

to the provisions

Convention

of the Anglo-French Postal

of September 24, 1856, under which

Steamers employed

lio

conveying

correspondence: are entitled to the

Quine treatment as vessels

of

war in the Ports of either Stater His Excellency at the same time stated that sis Government did not support the claim

put

31

-put forward by their Consul at Hongkong for exclusive jurisdiction

6

over all French Merchant vessels in the Port.

A second reference

was

thereupon made to the Law Officers

who reported that a vessel, in

order to be entitled under

Convention

the

of September 1856 to the

:-privileges of a vessel

of Dar, mast

only

!

!

fall within the terms not

of Article 5 but of articles 1 and

2. which are

strictly confined to the object of conveying

correspondence), whereas it

appeared that the " "Tigre"

was

not such a vessel but was

employed

in the carriage of.

merchandize

1

**

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.