!
a continuaan of
under the old system.
A
1912, on 22443/12).
In any farther communication
this subject, plesse quote
(Cf. my minute of 4th October,
No.
F 1894/117/10.
and address.
As regards Mr.Wilkinson's last paragraph (page 15) this appears to be a threat to transfer the business from Hong Kong to Weihaiwei, but if this was done it would equally need our co-operation and we should be able to secure for Weihaiwei the fees (or the greater part thereof) as we have done for Hong Kong under the Order in Council of 1915.
HA
419120
We must in the first place get the Gov.'s
obsons. He has already had the Consul Gen.'s
desp., and presumably its encl. ).
Do so, and so inform F.0.
At once
A.5.0.
5.10.20
bok to-
not to any person by name,
"The Under-Secretary of State,"
Foreign Office,
Sir:-
London, 3.W.1.
89
FOREIGN OFFICE.
S.W.1.
464538th September, 1920.
REST
A 20 SEP 201
With reference to my letter of September 3rd No.2001/117/10 on the subject of the China (Companies) Amendment Order in Council 1919, I am directed by Earl Curzon of Kedleston to refer to the despatch from His Majesty's Minister at Peking (No.443 of June 14th last) therein enclosed.
It will be observed that at the end of his despatch to His Majesty's Consul General at Shanghai of June 1st, the Crown Advocate, Mr. H.P. Wilkinson, raised the question of the allocation of part of the fees received at Shanghai in connection with the registration of China Companies to the expense of maintenance of His Majesty's Consular Service in China.
Lord Curzon would be glad to be favoured with
Lord/
:0.
0.
ed
LE
We are much obliged to Mr. Risley for setting
out the history of this matter. It will enable us
to deal effectively with the Shanghai views when
we know what attitude Sir E. Stubbs wishes to
take up.
A.E.C.
П
hder Secretary of State,
Colonial Office.
ᎥᏝ
Page 90Page 91
Lord Milner's observations on the subject.
I am,
sir,
Your most obedient,