72
conducted with both governments on equal terms. I suggest
therefore that as the Courts must look to the attitude of
His Majesty's Government for guidance as to what is the
Chinese Government, they would be amply justified in holding
that the Nationalist Government is such a body for the
purposes of the treaties and the ordinances founded thereon.
6.
Article XXI of the Tientsin treaty provides
that "If criminals, subjects of China, shall take refuge in
Hong Kong or on board British ships there, they shall upon due requisition by the Chinese authorities, be searched for, and, on proof of their guilt, be delivered up". If, as Your Excellency fears, the Courts will rule that because
the Chinese Government, with whom this treaty was made, has
disappeared, there is no authority left in China which can
benefit by it, it follows logically that there is also no
authority against which it can be enforced. In effect the Courts would abolish the treaties. But, as Your Excellency
knows, the maintenance of the treaties, until revised by negotiation, is the policy of His Majesty's Government, and his Majesty's Consuls are occupied daily in trying to secure the observance of the treaty articles preceding and following the one quoted above. If I have to explain to the Canton authorities that they are not entitled to the benefit of Article XXI, it may be imagined what their reply will be when I press for action under, say, Article XIX, which states that it is the duty of the Chinese authorities to protect British merchant vessels against pirates.
7.
In addition to the case mentioned in Your
Excellency's despatch, of the woman charged with manslaughter, there are four other criminals whose extradition is now being sought (see my despatch No.300 of the 28th July). One of
them