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.
whereas
possession, adoreas Hongthong was given ap to Great Britain by
av far
by
Treety, of is considered by China,
av Custom Duties are conserved, as a
forcija
Port. In the existence of such a suffered difference, Lord Serly is very sorry
that he finds it imposible to agree to the proposition of Hill's Goot for a common action in respect to the subject of the controlling authority of the Chinese fout erregende trong không
quote
لیکم
& Macao.
wh
Lord Derby's Note, and I faithfully
in "résumé", contains certain statements.
I feel
bound to correct, since the 70. hav
grounded upon
them the reason
of its refusal to
my proposition of the 32nd July last.
There is no doubt that the Treaty,
according to not possession ofthonypony, is given A great Britain, has already been sanctioned by
Gostiv
* that the Jeeaty
the Chinese
between
Portugal
352
of China asthanolding the right of Sovereignty on the part of the Crown Актраторит
over lacas, efter
discussion of acceptance of its clencer, has not yet obtained the Ratification expected, - this arising
from the fact that certain difficulties in the interpretation of come supplementary Clauses have delayed the definitive settlement of this business.
• Gort cannot certainly maintain that the existence of a Treaty should always be for the existence of
A.B. lis.
a condition "Kine quâ
a certain right or the acllnowledgment derest by any other Govt. - Any facts purporting action,
Lowever indirect it be, or declarations
an
who
coming
in
official character from experior Authors, who implicitly confirm it, are titles as to the
of euch a right of cannot be contrated. It frequently happens that the object of a Treaty
existence
an
Form
is simply restricted to extablish in a solemn form - already existing & acknowledged right, or to
Canto previmely repeat statements
& previsualy made in official documents,
10
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.