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.
The principle laid
down
ons
telegran
g 19 July (on 23651) remains
unaffected.
As
*
nain
to general question. I am bound to say that I don't think Sie
FLugard
-sideration.
maker out
A
Lase to
Le con-
Guile so. 34.
Mu
immatural Cenestin hefore thie Lgiz was a chinose fol Cantrilent i'm cal refused the circ
J. Googling
Lov
it cued not
that
g
علی
the Chinese Govt.
contribution from
(as already stated) lig
where the Secretary
Said
it may
is whes fo
hat
no return
(see para
10
sisposed of
23651.
8 State
havs
383
be accepted if
It appears
this
despatch and
In The
The principle of direct communication
as regards the "Pratas Islands
to Sin J. Jordan having to
Declina
suggestion put forward by Sin
Lugard (see aney).
23743/09
led
F.
Lad Crewe's minute
19658) Mar
been
مما
possible
return
Lase
B
The Japanese Boycott
rejected & Si I Think
F Lugand
That
the
wisest
representations
I
Not
had followed
howe
we heard nothing
Ländlaur. (see 430
(see 43047/08) and by The
Japanese Chargé d'affaires (see 44209/08)
To suppose is hardly two The Japanese Ambassador might
have been reassured, if
the principle of Rough H.M.G
Communication A
B
The inom 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
می کی
time
to reaffein
but
contended for
and
had
at
Tho
S
time informe
The Gapanese Gout (through H.12. Ambass
-aon) of the facts of the case.
question is
As to the University
九
general
realt with
A
The
mimites
on
5748
The principle
with no Ambassadas
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.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.