CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4] — Page 359

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

357

said, were

prima facie guilty of murder,

given up.

6.

Whilst

to

was not due to the careful consideration that Thomas Wade very properly gave the serious question raised by M. Consul Hewlett; but to certain legal informalities which I had failed to detect when the commitment and the depositions were considered by the Executive Council. Before being considered in Executive Council, they had been, in the usual course, sent to the Attorney General. Having read all the papers he advised that the case was a proper one for rendition, but that in view of Mr. Consul Hewlett's opinion of 10 January 1881, the legality of the case should be carefully watched after being committed.

* See Mr. O'Malley's minute of the 11th of January, 1881, I accepted, as absolutely correct, the Attorney General's view of the papers in the case (which legal view, as it turns out, was unfortunately not correct) I declined giving up the fugitives until I could get further explanation from M. Consul Hewlett as to his allegation that they would certainly be judicially tortured during their trial in spite of the guarantee of the Viceroy to the contrary.

On the enclosed papers,

%

In

Your Lordship will see the Attorney General's argument in the Supreme Court in support of the opinion he had

Edit History

2026-05-22 18:31:47 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
357 said, were prima facie guilty of murder, given up. 6. Whilst to was not due to the careful consideration that Thomas Wade very properly gave the serious question raised by M. Consul Hewlett; but to certain legal informalities which I had failed to detect when the commitment and the depositions were considered by the Executive Council. Before being considered in Executive Council, they had been, in the usual course, sent to the Attorney General. Having read all the papers he advised that the case was a proper one for rendition, but that in view of Mr. Consul Hewlett's opinion of 10 January 1881, the legality of the case should be carefully watched after being committed. * See Mr. O'Malley's minute of the 11th of January, 1881, I accepted, as absolutely correct, the Attorney General's view of the papers in the case (which legal view, as it turns out, was unfortunately not correct) I declined giving up the fugitives until I could get further explanation from M. Consul Hewlett as to his allegation that they would certainly be judicially tortured during their trial in spite of the guarantee of the Viceroy to the contrary. On the enclosed papers, % In Your Lordship will see the Attorney General's argument in the Supreme Court in support of the opinion he had
Baseline (Original)
357 said, were prima facie guilty of murder, given up. 6. Whilst to was not due to the careful consideration din Thomas Wade very properly gave the serious question raised by M. Consul Hewlett; but to certain legal informalities which I had failed to detect when the commitment and the me in depositions were considered by s Excentive Conneil. Before being considered in Executive Connoil, they had been, in the usual course, sent to the Attorney General. Having read all the papers he advised was a proper me * See Mr. O'Malle that the case. rendition, but opinion 10 Januar for __ one that in view of Mr. Consul Hewlett's in Executive Count the legality of the Mas movember 1989 anticipation, the fate of the criminals commiture. should be carefully watched after being given my minute of the 11th of January, 1881, I accepted, as absolutely correct, the Attorney General's view legal of the papers in the case (which legal view as it turns out was unfortunately not correct) I declined giving up the fugitives until I could get further explanation from M. Consul Hewlett as to his allegation that they would certainly be judicially tortured during their trial in spite of the guarantee of the Viceroy to the contrary. on the enclosed papers % In Your Lordship will see the Attorney General's argument in the Supreme Court in support of the opinion he had
2026-05-22 18:31:47 · Baseline
View content

357

said, were

prima facie guilty of murder,

given up.

6.

Whilst

to

was not due to the careful consideration din Thomas Wade very properly gave the serious question raised by M. Consul Hewlett; but to certain legal informalities which I had failed to detect when the commitment and the

me in

depositions were considered by s Excentive Conneil. Before being considered in Executive Connoil, they had been, in the usual course, sent to

the Attorney General. Having read all the papers he advised

was a

proper

me

* See Mr. O'Malle

that the case. rendition, but opinion 10 Januar for __

one

that in view of Mr. Consul Hewlett's

in Executive Count

the legality of the Mas

movember 1989 anticipation, the fate of the criminals commiture. should be carefully watched after being

given

my minute of the 11th of January, 1881, I accepted, as absolutely correct, the Attorney General's

view

legal

of the papers in the case (which legal view as it turns out was unfortunately not correct) I declined giving up the fugitives until I could get further explanation from M. Consul Hewlett as to his allegation that they would certainly be judicially tortured during their trial in spite of the guarantee of the Viceroy to the contrary.

on the enclosed papers

%

In

Your Lordship will see the Attorney General's argument

in the Supreme

Court in support of the opinion he

had

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.