The principle laid down on telegram 19 July (on 23651) remains unaffected.
As to general question, I am bound to say that I don't think Sir F. Lugard makes out a case for consideration.
The consideration before the Legation was a Chinese contribution (as already stated) where the Secretary said it may be disposed of (see para 10 of 23651).
The State having 383 has been accepted if it appears this despatch and in The principle of direct communication as regards the "Pratas Islands" to Sir F. Jordan having to decline suggestion put forward by Sir F. Lugard (see annex). 23743/09 led F. Lugard Crewe's minute 19658) Mar been possible return case.
The Japanese Boycott was rejected & Sir F. Lugard thought that the wisest representations had followed however we heard nothing Ländlaur. (see 43047/08) and by The Japanese Chargé d'affaires (see 44209/08).
To suppose is hardly true The Japanese Ambassador might have been reassured, if the principle of H.M.G Communication A B The in om etter File would La t express made (a) 4 14.
hara 10 much Si F. Lugar action University Create friction the Govt's actin in reference to funds for which might Couve appreciation stated in to hat any agree Ha tend to to be deprecated time to reaffein but contended for and had at Tho S time informe The Japanese Govt (through H.M. Ambassador) of the facts of the case.
The question is As to the University 九 general realt with A The mimites on 5748 The principle with no Ambassador at decision A Same Nat direct communica matters on tion of principle be stopped. is F.O should have Concurence. Der despatch for E. J. H. 2/8.
After re-examining the text and following the instructions:The principle laid down on telegram 19 July (on 23651) remains unaffected.
As to the general question, I am bound to say that I don't think Sir F. Lugard makes out a case for consideration.
...the Chinese Govt. contribution (as already stated) where the Secretary said it may be disposed of (see para 10 of 23651).
It appears that this despatch and the principle of direct communication as regards the "Pratas Islands" to Sir J. Jordan having to decline the suggestion put forward by Sir F. Lugard (see annex, 23743/09).
Lord Crewe's minute (19658) has been possible return case.
The Japanese Boycott was rejected & Sir F. Lugard thought that the wisest representations had followed; however, we heard nothing from Ländlaur (see 43047/08) and by The Japanese Chargé d'affaires (see 44209/08).
The Japanese Ambassador might have been reassured if the principle of H.M.G. Communication had been made (para 14).
Sir F. Lugard's action regarding the University might create friction with the Govt's action in reference to funds, for which appreciation was stated; it is contended that any such action tends to be deprecated.
The Japanese Govt. was informed (through H.M. Ambassador) of the facts of the case.
As to the University, the general view is that direct communication on matters of principle should not be stopped; the F.O. should have concurrence (see 5748).
Despatch for E. J. H. 2/8.
Revised to HTML as requested:The principle laid down on telegram 19 July (on 23651) remains unaffected.
As to general question, I am bound to say that I don't think Sir F. Lugard makes out a case for consideration.
The consideration before the Legation was a Chinese contribution (as already stated) where the Secretary said it may be disposed of (see para 10 of 23651).
The principle of direct communication as regards the "Pratas Islands" to Sir J. Jordan having to decline suggestion put forward by Sir F. Lugard (see annex). 23743/09 led F. Lugard Crewe's minute 19658) Mar been possible return case.
The Japanese Boycott was rejected & Sir F. Lugard thought that the wisest representations had followed however we heard nothing Ländlaur. (see 43047/08) and by The Japanese Chargé d'affaires (see 44209/08).
To suppose is hardly true The Japanese Ambassador might have been reassured, if the principle of H.M.G Communication A B The in om etter File would La t express made (a) 4 14.
Sir F. Lugar action University Create friction the Govt's actin in reference to funds for which might Couve appreciation stated in to hat any agree Ha tend to to be deprecated time to reaffein but contended for and had at Tho S time informe The Japanese Govt (through H.M. Ambassador) of the facts of the case.
The question is As to the University general realt with The mimites on 5748 The principle with no Ambassador at decision Same Nat direct communica matters on tion of principle be stopped. is F.O should have Concurence. Der despatch for E. J. H. 2/8.
Let me reformat it according to the rules.The principle laid down on telegram 19 July (on 23651) remains unaffected.
As to the general question, I am bound to say that I don't think Sir F. Lugard makes out a case for consideration.
The consideration before the Legation was a Chinese contribution (as already stated) where the Secretary said it may be disposed of (see para 10 of 23651).
The principle of direct communication as regards the "Pratas Islands" to Sir J. Jordan having to decline the suggestion put forward by Sir F. Lugard (see annex, 23743/09).
Lord Crewe's minute (19658) has been possible return case.
The Japanese Boycott was rejected & Sir F. Lugard thought that the wisest representations had followed; however, we heard nothing from Ländlaur (see 43047/08) and by The Japanese Chargé d'affaires (see 44209/08).
The Japanese Ambassador might have been reassured if the principle of H.M.G. Communication had been made (para 14).
Sir F. Lugard's action regarding the University might create friction with the Govt's action in reference to funds, for which appreciation was stated; it is contended that any such action tends to be deprecated.
The Japanese Govt. was informed (through H.M. Ambassador) of the facts of the case.
As to the University, the general view is that direct communication on matters of principle should not be stopped; the F.O. should have concurrence (see 5748).
Despatch for E.J.H. 2/8.