I think it is h. hat to send this
д
letter back to Sir R. Chalmers, asking
him to prevent
منعا
Yung
ww
form
making themselves ridiculous, painting
out as at A in luv Rolina's munte
я
& adding that when iting. decided that H.K. was to have £33000
(or
if necessay) they obrinusk
that it
didn't mean $26,400. & that
toban
Jay
t
of course
in are not ging & ask HK bpay. it comed probath san
врач
imble thre
letter wie witted raut.
R1
I think it would be best for Sir J. Anderson
to write privately about this to Sir R. Chalmers,
as Mr. Stubbs suggests. I would not go into any
details, since strict logical adherence to the
absurd precedents which have been established
in the past working of this wretched system
give some colour to the present representations.
The broad fact remains that, whatever prece-
dants there may be, the deduction of 20 per cent
from these grants given by H. .G. as part compen-
sation for the loss of opium revenue in which the
policy of H.M.G. have involved H. Kong is abso-
lutely out of the question and the matter cannot
be
even mentioned to the Colony. It might be
added that the very fact of this demand being
put forward by the W.0. and supported by the
Treasury is a very strong additional argument
for the necessity of an inter-Departmental
Bw
Committee to a new scheme of contribution.
A
AFC
1
Whatever may have been in the minds of the Treas.
in consenting to these grants it was certainly not
present in the mind of Lord Crewe,when he asked the
Cabinet to agree to £12,000 for this year and sexKÁ
the same for next year, that one fifth of these amounts
would be recovered to make good the shortage in Army
Votes. That shortage would equally have existed whether
the Treas. made a grant or not, and its existence will
have to be acquiesced in.
Sir J. Anders
با هم
I need hardly day
This letter is preposterous, and we
153
seimply couldn't
exfore moscetes to contempat by letting 18. Key kun of it
Pr. 5712
Oft for me
amely 5:12
Oor