guarantee that the punishment of leath will not necessant to be inflicted.
you will nee
The F.O-
have
I
grave this action.
a it is
endent that
nw
doubts on the policy
Secondly
a our
the talen
the interpretation (given in for 4 of letter to F.O) of Mr Wei Han's request that endence should be allowed, in extraditio
cases Abantahin nepre British concul in Canton is not
correct,
though
it
the
justfel the
impote disadvantages which might encre for prom encourage the 595 extradition of criminals wanted for mor
Wences.
Send wby 21979+ & Fo
with a copy of our letter ottery
despatite
alove.
Row 21/6.
that nur
As to A ator
it appears
A
ole was interpretation under the cercumstance, It now affears that the all Mr Wei
Han asked for is contained in Sexto
1
Ord No. 7 of 1889
but there is no
explanation of why such depositions "reased love taken under the Ord., as Mr Wei
have
Han
(3)
atated in the closethod taken of refuse the reque
Chinese offical to est
tallow Chinese
sit on
ven
the Bench with the mapstrate in extradition cases which is
Pris We expressed
requent.
ingenious.
neus
Don the
2
& the F.O.concur
โ
try
letter to the FO!
Ack 15766+ 1979 s
I corres with El. With of it.
My f
& send
ref to 19798 call attention to the F.O. news as othe
Wei Han must have asked
sud lu made
of the proviso #59 gostupy
that mome
under
1889
"which a
dealt witte an
man
Can
is-
written depositing
necessity of
fringing
taken life the British Consul without the ne
over witnesses or. accamb of
A.
of
متنا
request
the
Lugard's minute of 21.4.11 was extraordinanty badly expreset.
As to the other paito,
une cessant
the 70. seem
to.
careful for the interests of Chimore criminals & undesirables.
थ
have offended against-
the laws of thing county, it seems