PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
6
TITLC.O. 882
6
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
18271
SIR,
12
No. 20.
ADMIRALTY to COLONIAL OFFICE.
(Received May 27, 1901.)
[Answered by No. 24.]
Admiralty, May 25, 1901. WITH reference to your letter of the 4th instant, No. 15113, and to previous correspondence relative to the draft Wei-hai-wei Order in Council, I am commanded by my Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to request you will inform the Secretary of State that they concur in the substitution in Sub-Clause (3) of Article 82, of the term "Naval Commander-in-Chief" for that of "Naval Authorities."
I am further to suggest, for Mr. Chamberlain's consideration, that in view of the inconsistency which is held to be involved in the wording of Sub-Clause (2), as amended by their Lordships, it would be desirable to strike out the Sub-Clause, and substitute the following:-
(2) "The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty may from time to time, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, alter the limits
of the Admiralty Waters, and such alteration shall be carried into effect by Ordinance, as provided by Section 9 of this Order in Council.”
My Lords have suggested this amendment in order to secure to the Admiralty the power of initiating such changes as they may deem necessary in the limits of Admiralty Waters, and I am to request you will represent to Mr. Chamberlain that they regard such power of initiation as absolutely necessary in the interests of His Majesty's Naval Service, the occupation of Wei-hai-wei having been dictated primarily by reasons of Naval policy.
It will be within Mr. Chamberlain's recollection that on previous occasions, notably at Malta, Simon's Bay, and Esquimalt, the failure to secure to this Department definite and legal rights in the first instance, has led to considerable delay and difficulty in obtaining subsequent recognition by the Colonial Authorities of Admiralty control over anchorages necessary for the service of the fleet, and they are anxious, in the present case, to avoid leaving any room for ambiguity or dispute hereafter as to Naval rights at Wei-hai-wei.
I am, &c.,
18479
No. 21.
EVAN MACGREGOR.
TREASURY to COLONIAL OFFICE. (Received May 29, 1901.)
SIR,
Treasury Chambers, May 28, 1901. I HAVE laid before the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury Mr. Lucas's letter of the 9th instant † (15306/1901), concerning the proposal to make the British dollar legal tender at Wei-Hai-Wei.
In reply, their Lordships direct me to acquaint you, for the information of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that they concur in his proposal to instruct the Com- missioner to issue a Proclamation making the British dollar legal tender on equal terms with the Mexican dollar, after a period of three months, provided he has first obtained the consent of the Chinese Governor, as regards the city of Wei-Hai-Wei.
My Lords agree also that it should be an instruction to the Government of the Dependency that no special preference should be shown for the British dollar, or any other type of legal tender dollar, in making payments on Government account. The Officers charged with the duty of raising specie for the purpose of such payments will, of course, take by preference, among dollars which are of equal legal value in the place at which they are to be disbursed, those which can for the time be obtained on the cheapest terms. It is, in fact, the primary motive of the proposal to legalize the use of the British dollar, that by this means His Majesty's Government may gain relief
* No. 17.
† No. 18.
13
from the heavy burden of the premium which it has been necessary to pay during recent months for the supply of the old die Mexican dollars, which are specially accept- able at present in the district of Wei-Hai-Wei.
In the War Office letter to the Colonial Office of the 1st instant,* it was stated to be of the utmost importance that the change should not be made in such a way as to affect the troops injuriously. As regards Chinese troops, the question appears to depend upon the terms of their contract of service. If the contract provides for their payment in Mexican dollars, they should continue to be so paid until the parity of the two coins is effectively established. But for British soldiers and sailors on the station whose claim is to be paid in local currency the equivalent of their pay in sterling, this consideration need not apply. The dollar, whether Mexican or British, is issued to them at a rate which is fixed with reference to the current gold value of the silver which it contains. By paying a premium to obtain a special stamp of Mexican dollar which has an artificial local value, the Government would, in effect, be adding to their rate of pay.
My Lords have caused copies of this correspondence to be communicated to the War Office and Admiralty.
18690
SIR,
(No. 7.)
No. 22.
I am, &c.,
S. E. SPRING RICE.
COMMISSIONER DORWARD to MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
(Received May 30, 1901.) [Answered by No. 27.]
Wei-hai-Wei, April 17, 1901.
In accordance with the instructions contained in paragraph 3 of your despatch, No. 5, of 1st February,† I have the honour to forward herewith a statement showing the exact figures of the civil expenditure during the first three months of 1901.
2, It will be observed that the accounts show a balance in hand of $4049.79, which has been carried forward to the credit of the civil revenue for the financial year commencing April 1st.
3. It should be pointed out, however, that these accounts make no provision for any payment of salary or allowances to Mr. S. Barton, of His Majesty's Consular Service, who, since December, 1899, has been discharging the duties of District Officer and Magistrate, and who still continues to draw his Consular salary of £350 per annum from His Majesty's Legation, Peking. Sir C. MacDonald, when appointing Mr. Barton to the post, informed me that he considered this Administration should pay a local allowance to Mr. Barton of £100 per annum. I concurred in that opinion, and in my proposals for the Administration of the Territory submitted to the War Office on January 7th, 1900, I made provision for a personal allowance to Mr. Barton of £100 per annum, together with forage, and fuel and light allowances, amounting to £64 per annum.
I understand that His Majesty's Minister also addressed the Foreign Office on the subject.
However, no instructions were received either from the War Office or the Foreign Office on the subject, and Mr. Barton has drawn no allowances during his residence here.
On receipt of your despatch, No. 5, of 1st February,† I appointed Mr. Barton Assistant Commissioner from 1st April pending further instructions from you, and as I note that the value of this Officer's services is placed at £500 per annum, I have the honour to recommend that an allowance of £150 per annum be assigned to Mr. Barton payable from the date of his arrival here; such an allowance, in addition to the Consular
• No. 16.
† No. 84 in Eastern No. 72,