Page 205
Page 205
9
(Confidential.)
Sir,
No. 3.
Despatch of Governor.
Government House, Hong Kong, August 14, 1903. WITH reference to your telegram of the 6th instant, and to mine in reply of the 12th instant, I have the honour to forward a copy of a letter from Major-General Sir William Gascoigne, containing further particulars relative to the constitution of the Hong Kong Volunteer Corps.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
HENRY A. BLAKE, Governor, &c.
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
Enclosure in No. 3.
>
}
1
d
h
10
Headquarters, Hong Kong, August 10, 1903.
Sir,
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th instant, enclosing a copy of a telegram received by you from the Secretary of State for the Colonies with reference to the constitution of the Hong Kong Volunteer Corps.
As your Excellency is aware, Major Pritchard is at present on leave, but is due to return in a few days. It may, therefore, appear desirable to your Excellency to await his return before replying. But as I went thoroughly into the matter, not only with Major Pritchard but also with, first, Colonel Johnson, when he was C.R.A., and latterly with Major Bryan, when he was acting in that capacity, I am aware that Major Pritchard did not misunderstand the enclosure to the Confidential despatch of the 16th April, but that not only he but Major Bryan and myself (Colonel Johnson having left the Colony) did not in all respects agree with it. But as we thought it desirable to endeavour to meet the suggestions of the Colonial Defence Committee half-way, Major Pritchard drew up the letter, dated the 25th May. 1903, and Major Bryan and myself forwarded our views upon it, and these are to my mind so clearly expressed that I fail to see how they can be misunderstood. On looking over my copy of Major Pritchard's letter, in paragraph 4 I notice a clerical error, which may be the cause of the misunderstanding, although I should have imagined that Major Bryan's and my remarks would have shown that it was a clerical error.
Major Pritchard, in this paragraph, says that the decision of the Colonial Defence Committee is that one company should be kept to work with the (fixed) armaments. Instead of "fixed" this should have read movable.
But, acting on our local knowledge, we were all agreed as to the wisdom of the proposal made by Major Pritchard in this letter, and we were also fully convinced that it would be impracticable here in Hong Kong, at any rate, to have the Hong Kong Volunteers composed of one company of garrison artillery to man movable armament, and one company of infantry specially trained to machine guns.
The result would be, as we think, that as the men must be given their choice as to which unit they elect to join, the infantry company would appeal to nearly all, and the company of garrison artillery would be practically nil.
Our opinion is that the infantry are not urgently required, whereas as garrison artillery their services are urgently wanted.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
W. J. GASCOIGNE, Major-General,
Commanding Troops in South China.
.er- tee
one
this
His Excellency Sir H. A. Blake, G.C.M.G.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
FRINTED AT THE FOREIGN OFFICE BY J. W. HARRISON.-28/12/1903.
Page 205
130
Page 205
Page 205Page 206