Enclo. No.2.
Enclo. No.3.
Enclo. No.4.
Enclo. No.5.
96
valid requisitioning authority for extradition purposes any Government which might for the time being actually be
exercising authority in any part of China.
4.
Copies of this draft bill were forwarded to His Majesty's Minister at Peking under cover of a despatch (copy enclosed) dated 9th September, 1921, and on the 28th September Sir Beilby Alston telegraphed objecting strongly to the proposals for recognition, carefully limited though they were to a special purpose, and urging a continuance of extradition on the old indefinite basis. A copy of this telegram is enclosed. In the face of this opposition Sir R. E. Stubbs felt that the only course open to him was to leave matters as they were, in the hope that Canton would not institute further extradition proceedings until the political situation in China had clarified itself.
5.
In May, 1922, however, another application for extradition was received; and, although the Canton Authorities accepted the view that the probable failure of the case on the legal ground referred to above rendered it inexpedient to press the demand, it was thought desirable to move His Majesty's Minister to reconsider his view of Hong Kong's legislative proposal and a despatch (copy enclosed) was accordingly addressed to him by Sir R. E. Stubbs on 1st June, 1922. To this Mr. Clive on behalf of His Majesty's Minister replied on 17th July (copy of despatch enclosed) that he could not concur in the proposed solution and at the same time expressed surprise that the legal point "had been allowed or taken at this late date by "the Courts who must be aware of the unfortunate effect of
suspending extradition and thus putting a premium on crime "for the sake of a technicality". I need hardly say that
the