49
as pearleit said in háa letter of the 20th ứuly, we shail make enquiry from Bong long aʊout these claims for over 2900,000, but, as he also pointed out in paragraph 6 of th same latter, we really umnot approach the Levernor with this enquiry without saying something about the (ong kong Government' s own claims against Kim mjesty's sororcmento
I engaired
I wrder.
This srings me to my second paint, it is correctly (kotedİ. in (a, moove that at tiem meeting on the 17th -ument, the position about the fuck Faas: Goverment claies. stood from your reply that the alains were not disputed in principis ani that I might soon expect to hear from you siden t
Fasze glaise were lodged in ir fark Young's despatch 10. 20 of the 19th-pril, 1347 and the fant is that up to date, 18 months later, we wɔe still not in a position to give the Bong Yong Coveruænt any buiiantian of the proų reas of the clains. e have hed rexinders from :ions Fong dated the fith July and the fith eptember this year and there is pressare di tas Governor from unofficial meuvers in the Legislative Council as to what is being dece about these cisára, it has goODU"TW:{
to me that there seens ne reason why we mnogi á not path on to a settlescnt of the tieng kong Government alnim against Fis Bajesty's Loverseent irrespective of the claims and accounter- alaims which sea-zeru Kia ¡njesty's Government and the Chinese LOVEFADENÍ, meni I would liìm to auggest for roar sonideration that we should do thike I shall hope to hear from you im the If a discussion would help i
المد
near future about theme alal: 7he should be happy to ourze rousi to see youe
inaisentally, there appears to be as error as to the anchant of these sinias in paragraph é of ourleti's letter of the 20th July. The slain on behalf of the Lowlows - Cante Railway is correctly stated s# 2130,501.30.35%, met diet on behalf of tise er supplies soned shonii, i think, ue /17,528,11-. (or thereabouta,, nt 29, 790. 16a.
applies soară cisin,
Page 50Page 51