would not come into the case.
23664
199 Hongkong
258
My suggestion is based on what Sir H. Blake says in his private letter to Mr. Chamberlain, now annexed, "Suggest that it would be well to have the assurance formally conceded now 'at Peking'"
This question of torture is a very old one. The 21st Article of the Treaty of Tientsin provided for the surrender of "Chinese criminals" between China and Hongkong (see p. 23 of the enclosed volume); and it was noted that the Chinese government and our minister agreed that such extradited criminals should not be tortured prior to execution.
In cases other than murder, it has been the custom to get an assurance prior to extradition from the Viceroy of Canton that torture shall not be used, but the difficulty has been to ensure that the assurance is kept. There has been voluminous correspondence and two sets of Law Officers' opinions on the subject.
In the case of Canton, Sir H. Blake has obtained an assurance that a British officer shall be present at the trial of the accused prisoner. My draft proposes that this rule, like the treaty, shall apply in the case of prisoners extradited from British territory to Canton, but it might be added to cover cases generally.
C.P. 2, 18 June. I think, as altered in red ink, it is quite reasonable.
Mr. Chamberlain,
2 drafts
26 July 1901
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 31st May, enclosing correspondence as to the practice of torture in China.
3. I am glad to learn that, with the cooperation of H.M. Minister at Peking, you have secured that for the present, at any rate, a British officer shall be allowed to be present at the trial of any criminal extradited.
MINUTE.
Mr. Antrobus.
Mr. Corr.
Mr. Lucas.
13 Aug. 1882
Sir M. Ommanney.
13 July 1901
Sir F. Graham.