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.
!
}
Proclamatio, on the is all.
However, it seems twe
·
that the interpretation which het. Wave's seek hiere spon the onda in Comine is perfecty
Jontal bar hwyth
t
волод негодная
absurd,
at is ca
Enfer the paris the 2.0.
Fattack a copy of the prin
as for
Okay
in her comes,
way gth paper
the Punter.
Ликисто
that
a
La
stece with
It is difficult to understand the precise lege point raised, but I take it to be the territory was acquired on leave for 99 years chr Frances contens
does not empower Im to make laws for the fovernment
teinton under the Foreign of the new Jurisdiction Act as a
that such a
to
annet
lease
protectorate of
-12435-2000-1-90 16195-2000-4-99
it to Hm dominions.
make it part of the Colony of Hong Kong.
264
In other uns he contens that thes
مله منا
law on
power to make British in the new territory of
17
that therefore Chinese law still afflies. The Lo on any 98 advised that the draft order in Councel was sufficient. proper for the purpose gannexing the new territones to the Cloy ottone kone a their attention was directed to the fact the levriton composible to petition the Proy
agg gear's lease only..
It would
Lew on a
be of
that
Council to quash the conviction on the grounds set forth above, but as
lives of there
see how we
the
at stake I dont
the refuse to consult
Men and
Ca
Lo though I do not think that there is
doubt that theg
Jam convicted.
HBC
Gary Bhang
11 July
I want to matle assurance
by telegraphing
areve
legally
doubly toure
10
as follows. Refering to your telegram of
assume murder combmitted
afke Bone of prodammation annexis
issue
annexing
tenity
ресто
Wakat (We cannot find absolute poff in
the correspondence though to have trai I means thile refer to Law spicens
C.P. L. 11
P.T.O.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.