(referred to in Mor Luce's minute) and in the letters of Gu last Emming 20 and 22 April directing him to Vyhradition the Attorney General's Thirion by the hearing of the St case without waiting for the issue of the paryay case interfered with the magistrate's discretion in an institutional manner and that he was undeservedly censured (1) for asking whether the letter 20 Apr. was to be regarded liberally on the action of the Government by order (2) for deprecating the interference of the Executive with his discretion in the conduct of the case (3) for reading in Court, the correspondence with the Colonial Secretary as an instance of improper interference of the A. G. - the order tendered a Li Lon the Chanore nelle proseque in the case of an official who was charged with subornation in repprence.
The 2nd & 3rd portions relate to the same extradition case. Mr Wodehouse's memorial transmitted the Lozellub. Best in the 4th portion, in his letter 6 June, Mr Wodehouse, though he preserves word against the decision of the O. A. G. to surrender the prisoner whom he had committed, submits that the action of the Government in informing the Magistrate has calculated to confuse the sunt reporting that the core magistrate and the auth the cause y to innocent people and asks for a clear definition of the duties of Magistrates under the Extradition Ordinances and the treaty of Tientsin.
As regards the 1st portion of the memorial, I should say, taking the matters in question in order: (1) that there was no undue interference with the magistrate on the part of the Executive in the latter cautioning the magistrates against unnecessary delay in dealing with extradition cases and stating the principles which, in the opinion of the Government, should guide the magistrates in dealing with such cases. (2) that the man to Wodehouse was wrong in adjourning the case charged with perging against the witness Lenny was disposed of. (3) that the O. A. G. interfered with the judicial functions of the magistrate in ordering him to resume the hearing of the case. That Mr Wodehouse was not to blame for asking whether the letter 20 Apr. (5) but Mr Wodehouse who did not deserve blame for deprecating in his letter the interference of the Executive with his conduct of the case.