Claim to Chinese jurisdiction there will be insisted.
Function it says nothing as to the question.
This use of "mmey Frooks & occupations" is unclear, but continuing with the rest of the text: Some of Sham Chun has been a matter of expense. On the 5th June, we wrote to their H.E. Anggartistating that this Chinese govt ought to make compensation for the expense caused by the outbreaks in the ceded territory. On the 8th June, the H.E. proposed cutting for a large indemnity that H.M. govt might forgo in whole or part if the Chinese govt gave satisfaction in other matters.
On the 17th of June, we had a telegram from the Governor reporting that the expenditure up to date had been $93,500 and the further expenditure would be $120 a day. We decided on the 21st June that $100,000 should be asked as compensation.
On the 28th June, they asked us to send a copy of a telegram which they had sent to Peking asking for $150,000 indemnity with an intimation as above that their claim might possibly not be pressed. We have pressed that this matter should be speedily settled and we renewed the warning as before.
The result is, as far as I can make out, that the colony is to be left to pay the bill. This, coupled with the retreat from Sham Shui Po, will probably cause a great deal of resentment in Hong Kong, and I do not think it has been well treated.
Assuming before telegraphing to the Governor, I think we must let the Foreign Office see the War Office letter of 23rd Sept, and we must have it from them whether or not they intend that the colony shall pay this foreign bill.
We ought also to warn the War Office in answer to their letter of the 23rd September that it is purposed to immediately withdraw from Sham Chun.
Page 5
Oct 5
5710
Krulle.
K
the matter
Governor.
Min be
6