332
19498.
1766
concurring. Since however it was later explained that Mr. Wei
Han's proposal had been entirely misunderstood, the matter
dropped. (see opening paragraph of Mr. Clementi's letter of
9th. May, 1911: enclosure 2 to Despatch of 22nd. May, 1911.)
It is unnecessary for me to remind you
6.
how very unsatisfactory the existing condition of affairs is
with regard to fugitive offenders. I enclose a memorandum by
the Acting Attorney-General on this subject.
7.
The abortive proposal, however, acquir-
-ed an entirely different complexion from Sir C. Lucas's letter
to the Foreign Office in which he described the position of
the Chinese Official at the trial as that of an "Assessor",
and by Mr. Langley as a "sort of Assessor". It was never in my
mind that he should have any voice or part in the trial what-
-over.
8.
Finally I have the honour to reply to
paragraph 3 of your Despatch in which you ask for my observa-
-tions on the paragraphs of the Foreign Office letter which
deal with the question of increasing the facilities for extra-
-dition in the case of offences included in the schedule of
the Ordinance other than those for which a capital sentence
is usually awarded by Chinese Courts. I note that Sir C. Lucas
د ر ا ا ة ا في يعتلو تم الله الولاية
when
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.