Ref: AGC. L/M. 1/73S
PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIM.
14/3 Stuart
Your Ref: HKK 14/3
Sir D, Watson
بس
Apeed
RUSHFORD
I think we should now regard, this comes pendance as closed
PLA
Aos
C.M.G.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS
HONG KONG
16th December, 1974.
17/1
0.B.E.
M Stud Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
ACA. R. Rushford, Esq., C.M.G.
(on return) You have
aheady
d
sin
mü, may wish
to have it
intured afte letting Sii
Jurican
сам
Watem
su it.
have kype
λ
соку
fur
do mit intend
to uply under you
So adoré
me
ARR
Legal Division, Downing Street,
LONDON, S.W.1A, 2AL.
Dear Tory,
R
17 JAN:975
MKKCH!
I am not..
296
Pre
Thank you for your letter of 27th November, which I have shown to the Governor. I am glad that you wrote, in view of the misunderstanding which seems to have arisen.
in
First of all, as Andrew Stuart knows from one of my telephone conversations with him, I consider that Penlington made a serious mistake in not including details of the "deal" with
affidavit, from which it follows that he should certainly have disclosed them to French. Indeed, you understate the seriousness of his mistake in your letter. Penlington knows my view and the only thing that can be said in his favour is that I accept that he never really saw it as a "deal" in the normal sense.
It I think that he may have got too close to the matter. was also unfortunate that I did not see Hunt's affidavit in draft.
In general, the fact is that the whole business was too difficult for resolution by telegram. I do not think that it will help if I go into detail in a letter and I look forward to an opportunity of discussing the matter with you in due course. We see some aspects rather differently from you and in other respects we have not really been conscious of matters which clearly concern you I refer particularly to your reference to "tones" and "attitudes". So far as our telegrams had "tone", this is mostly a reflection of my style, as I was largely responsible for the drafting. I was however a bit irri- tated by some things and this perhaps showed through more than I thought. Frankly, I do not understand what you mean by "attitudes".
-
The persistence about interviewing Irvine is mine, though I must say that "interrogation" has never been in my mind. This is why I favoured the approach by letter. I remain concerned about this aspect and was 289) surprised by your telegram No. 1026 in view of the preceding
telegrams. I propose to do nothing further about this for
6.1.75