CO129-342 - Governor Lugard & Public Offices - 1907 [11-12] — Page 185

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

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

Edit History

2026-06-05 18:47:09 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
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
Baseline (Original)
181 extending also to the Central Government which to the extent of its power has endeavoured to meet nur dazanda. It would moreover in point of frot probably be some tine before any direct results of such action could be notice- able. This Government could not openly invite Revolution- aries 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 secur 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 distri- bution in the Colony of này printed, or written matter calculated to excite tumult disorder or orine in China. The repeal of this Ordinance which has only been 2 months in speration would hardly exert any great pressure on the Viceroy, in other respects it is in the same category as the last point considerad at (b).. (4). Refusal of extradition. This would undoubted -ly be viewed with consternation by the Viceroy, and though it is a reciprocal benefit ita 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 explanatery and prescribes limitations to the extent to which this Government will consent to gimm affect to the clause of the Treaty. It is not in the power of the Colonial Government to abrogate the Treaty and the repent 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 Font River and Delta, and I as fully recognise the obliga- tion of this Government to use its utmost efforts to co-operato
2026-06-05 18:47:09 · Baseline
View content

181

extending also to the Central Government which to the

extent of its power has endeavoured to meet nur dazanda. It would moreover in point of frot probably be some tine

before any direct results of such action could be notice-

able.

This Government could not openly invite Revolution- aries 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 secur 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 distri-

bution in the Colony of này printed, or written matter

calculated to excite tumult disorder or orine in China.

The repeal of this Ordinance which has only been 2 months

in speration would hardly exert any great pressure on the

Viceroy, in other respects it is in the same category as

the last point considerad at (b)..

(4).

Refusal of extradition. This would undoubted

-ly be viewed with consternation by the Viceroy, and though

it is a reciprocal benefit ita 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 explanatery and prescribes limitations to

the extent to which this Government will consent to gimm

affect to the clause of the Treaty. It is not in the power

of the Colonial Government to abrogate the Treaty and the

repent 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

Font River and Delta, and I as fully recognise the obliga-

tion of this Government to use its utmost efforts to

co-operato

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.