Page 66
4052
Rece'd 5 FEB
Government House.
15
4 January 1900
Confidential
Sir,
In response to the request contained in the last paragraph of your telegram of 2 November last, I have the honour to enclose herewith a statement of the additional expense entailed upon Was department funds, consequent upon the seizure and occupation of the Sham Chun territory.
It does not show separately any expenditure incurred on account of Chinese resistance to bombardment.
We have not had any claim from Ha: Kay for refund of such expenditure, and I do not think it is worth while asking for a refund of the comparatively small item given in present despatch as expenditure incurred over and above the ordinary cost.
Copy of this despatch is sent to F.O.; with reference to your letter of 21 Decr 28428/ and? as it appears that no expenditure was incurred in the wall of Ha: Kay beyond the cost of the troops referred to in consequence of the occupation of Sham Chun, there will be no necessity to press for a refund of any such expenditure, but that the military expenditure referred to within will remain a charge for Army Funds since the Colony of H.K. pays a fixed contribution to Imperial Funds in respect of its revenue as its share of the expense of its defence.
And a copy will be sent to W.O. Copy of this despatch is also sent to F.O. And for the present, simply acknowledge receipt of despatch.
I have, &c.
CW. Jk
29795
The Right Honourable
Joseph Chamberlain M.P.
Secretary of State for the Colonies
Page 170
Valley
1:1-301-peretary