The newspaper paragraph stated that the Secretary of State had granted the privilege to Messrs. Cox & Anthoning at the Straits, this being done because "The Secretary of State declines to enter into the question of domicile of officials of rank."
This newspaper statement is a very incorrect paraphrase of the Straits despatch regarding Messrs. Cox & Anthoning (in 208558/14) and it is a most extraordinary proceeding for a lover of Hong Kong to take such a newspaper statement without further enquiry.
We can hardly take away the privilege from W. J. A. Hazeland, but I don't think his brother can also, as it would open the door to other claims (see 22070/95).
In reply to the apparent misunderstanding, it is gathered from a newspaper report that the Secretary of State had made a distinction between former officials of rank and subordinate officials in the case of Messrs. Cox & Anthoning; however, the instructions given to the Straits were identical with respect to Hong Kong (as those given in 3988/95).
The Secretary of State, Mr. Chamberlain, is therefore of the opinion that W. J. A. Hazeland's promotion is not sufficient reason to grant him the privilege, which he considered he was not entitled to, but under the circumstances, will not direct that it be withdrawn from him. However, he adds that he cannot approve of its being extended to W. C. M. Hazeland (84931/12).
It is noted that the Governor is mistaken in gathering from a newspaper report that the Secretary of State had made such a distinction.
Mr. Lucas suggests that we should go further and withdraw the privilege from W. J. A. Hazeland also. A draft is submitted for despatch (2/1197).
It is mentioned that compensation allowance depends on domicile. Two others must have...
Page 234Page 235 has been removed as it is not in the original text, instead, the page number is kept as per instruction 11. Here is the corrected response in HTML format as requested. Since there are page numbering detected, they are kept as per instruction 11. The final output is:
The newspaper paragraph stated that the Secretary of State had granted the privilege to Messrs. Cox & Anthoning at the Straits, this being done because "The Secretary of State declines to enter into the question of domicile of officials of rank."
This newspaper statement is a very incorrect paraphrase of the Straits despatch regarding Messrs. Cox & Anthoning (in 208558/14) and it is a most extraordinary proceeding for a lover of Hong Kong to take such a newspaper statement without further enquiry.
We can hardly take away the privilege from W. J. A. Hazeland, but I don't think his brother can also, as it would open the door to other claims (see 22070/95).
In reply to the apparent misunderstanding, it is gathered from a newspaper report that the Secretary of State had made a distinction between former officials of rank and subordinate officials in the case of Messrs. Cox & Anthoning; however, the instructions given to the Straits were identical with respect to Hong Kong (as those given in 3988/95).
The Secretary of State, Mr. Chamberlain, is therefore of the opinion that W. J. A. Hazeland's promotion is not sufficient reason to grant him the privilege, which he considered he was not entitled to, but under the circumstances, will not direct that it be withdrawn from him. However, he adds that he cannot approve of its being extended to W. C. M. Hazeland (84931/12).
It is noted that the Governor is mistaken in gathering from a newspaper report that the Secretary of State had made such a distinction.
Page 234
What a singular Governor this is
but shengerr Reply as proporedi
Express Empire that the foremos Shewld have the night such a weeees-paper para sufficient outlinety for.
of li to take as his baris decision in such cases de-at once
Land Lelbane S 2/1197
Mr. Lucas Micks we should go further & withdraw the privilege from W. J. A. Hazeland also Isulmit draft for scending Ca Buy 5 Jan
Compensation allowance depends tomicile. Two Gothers must have
Page 235