t
I doubt whether we can omit Sir E. Stubbs'
confidential despatch of 6th March, 1923 (page 32 of
the print) without unduly mutilating the story. We
should have to alter the reply; and there would be
no sufficient explanation of the postponement of the
part of the Ordinance about registration etc. If
this view is adopted I presume we must show a line of
asterisks in place of the sentence which Foreign Office
want omitted.
As regards the omission shown on page 34
we could telegraph to Sir Cecil Clementi and get his
concurrence. We could then omit without asterisks.
We might try this? If he objects we must omit, and
show the omission.
The omission proposed on page 48 is
awkward, coming in the middle of a short statement by
a Chinese member of the Council. On the whole I
would telegraph that we propose to omit at the request of the Foreign Office and to show that words
have been omitted, and leave it at that. Sir C.
Clementi can then, if he likes, get Dr. Ts'o to agree,
or at any rate inform him.
We must take it from the Foreign Office
that publication of the Consuls' replies will not
embarrass the Consuls. But I feel anxious about the
effect on the anonymous informant in Canton, whose identity could no doubt easily be ascertained by the
Canton authorities. (See paragraph 7 on page 48.)
We had better telegraph to the Governor that we propose with Foreign Office consent to publish the whole despatch with the omissions indicated unless
he
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.