181
extending also to the Central Government which to the extent of its power has endeavoured to meet our demands. It would moreover in point of fact probably be some time before any direct results of such action could be noticeable.
This Government could not openly invite Revolutionaries to Hongkong and a case of such a person arriving in the Colony and his expulsion being requested by the Chinese Government (and refused) might not occur for a long time.
(a).
On October 11th last without any prior request from the Chinese Government an Ordinance was passed prohibiting the printing publication sale or distribution in the Colony of any printed or written matter calculated to excite tumult disorder or crime in China.
The repeal of this Ordinance which has only been 2 months in operation would hardly exert any great pressure on the Viceroy, in other respects it is in the same category as the last point considered at (b).
(4).
Refusal of extradition. This would undoubtedly be viewed with consternation by the Viceroy, and though it is a reciprocal benefit its abrogation would beyond doubt be far more damaging to China than to ourselves.
Mutual extradition is however provided for by Article 21 of the Tientsin Treaty, and the local Ordinance No.7 of 1899 is mainly explanatory and prescribes limitations to the extent to which this Government will consent to give effect to the clause of the Treaty. It is not in the power of the Colonial Government to abrogate the Treaty and the repeal of the local Ordinance would be a benefit rather than a cause of alarm to the Viceroy.
3.
I fully appreciate the importance to the trade of this Colony of the suppression of piracy in the West River and Delta, and I as fully recognise the obligation of this Government to use its utmost efforts to co-operate