CO882-6 — Page 194

No. 53.

33372

36

No. 51.

TREASURY to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received September 24, 1901.)

SIR,

Treasury Chambers, September 23, 1901. I HAVE laid before the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury Mr. Lucas's letter of the 23rd ultimo,* with its enclosed draft of a Wei-Hai-Wei Legal Tender Ordinance.

My Lords observe that, by a clerical error, the First Schedule is headed * Additional" instead of "Standard" Coin, and that a corresponding mistaket has been made in the heading of the Second Schedule.

Otherwise, my Lords see no objection to the draft Ordinance.

The Deputy Master of the Mint calls attention to the fact that no provision is made as regards subsidiary coinage. My Lords presume that this subject will engage the attention of the Commissioner.

37

are distinct from the general revenue of the island, which you estimate at $720 & month, and, if so, what is the nature of the funds, and within what area they are collected.

6. It is not clear from your despatch whether your proposal that the Military and Naval Authorities shall be asked to contribute at least 25 per cent. of the rents collected from tenants of houses belonging to them towards the "Muncipal Funds has reference to the immediate present or to the time when the Chinese population shall have been transferred to the new village.

you

7. You have probably received my despatch, No. 21, of the 2nd ultimo,* forward- ing, for your consideration, a copy of a letter by Commander Gaunt upon the ad- ministration of the leased territory. I should be glad if would reconsider your despatch under acknowledgment in connexion with that despatch, and place me in possession of any further observations that you may wish to make.

I have, &c.,

29849

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

I am, &c.,

S. E. SPRING RICE.

12

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

6

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

No. 52.

29849

MR. CHAMBERLAIN to COMMISSIONER SIR A. DORWARD.

SIR,

(No. 28.)

[Answered by No. 66.]

Downing Street, September 26, 1904.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 11, of the 22nd June last, submitting proposals in regard to the civil administration of Lui Kung Tao.

2. I have not failed to give my careful attention to the arrangements submitted in this despatch, but before any definite steps can be taken in the direction of approaching the Naval and Military Authorities or the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, there are certain points which seem to require further elucidation.

3. In your despatch you propose the removal of the native town from its present site to a new one, to be provided free of cost by the War Office. You further propose that "when the town is built

the Civil Administration should only be con- cerned with its care, the Admiralty and War Office being left to administer their own property." You proceed to explain that the appointment of an officer of the garrison as Cantonment Magistrate has been found necessary, and I understand you to recommend that this appointment shall be continued after the removal of the native town to its new site. It is not clear, however, whether the Cantonment Magistrate is to exercise his functions over the area included in the site of the new town (to which you suggest that the Civil Administration should confine its attention), or, as the representative of the War Office and Admiralty, over the rest of the island only. It is not, moreover, quite evident to me what is implied in the proposal that the War Office and Admiralty should be "left to administer their own property."

4. I do not, as at present advised, see any serious objection to the appointment of a military officer to be magistrate for the whole or any part of the island, in the same way as Mr. Hare has been appointed magistrate for the Mainland District, under the Order in Council recently enacted. Nor do I see any objection to your assigning definite administrative duties to this officer; but I should deprecate your relinquishing in any degree full civil and judicial control over any part of the leased territory. But, as I have pointed out, I am not sure whether you contemplate such

step.

#

5. In paragraph 13 you refer to certain "Municipal Funds," which you state are estimated at £240 a year. I notice that this estimate is the same as that put forward by Colonel Prendergast in his letter dated the 20th September, 1900, § to the Under Secretary of State for War. I should be glad to know whether these funds

No. 46.

• No: 45.

↑ This is corrected in the print. Enclosure in No. 73 in Eastern No. 72.

SIR,

MB CHAMBERLAIN to COMMISSIONER SIR A. DORWARD.

[Answered by No. 66.]

(Secret.)

Downing Street, September 26, 1901. WITH reference to my numbered despatch of even date,† in regard to the civil administration of Liu Kung Tao, I have the honour to observe that the estimate of military and naval requirements upon which the Committee on Sites, &c., based their proposals must necessarily be modified by the decision in regard to future military arrangements at Wei-Hai-Wei which was communicated to you in my secret despatch of the 16th ultimo.‡

2. I may add that although the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury might eventually be asked to increase the grant-in-aid of the civil administration on the estimates for the financial year 1902-3, so as to allow of the carrying into effect of a scheme on the lines of that proposed in your despatch, No. 11, of the 22nd June last,§ paragraphs 1 to 7, I should hardly feel justified in inviting their Lordships to include a vote for this purpose in any supplementary estimate that may be proposed for the year 1901-02.

31742

SIR,

No. 54.

I have, &c.,

J. CHAMBERLAIN.

COLONIAL OFFICE to FOREIGN OFFICE. [Answered by No. 55.]

Downing Street, September 27, 1901. WITH reference to your letter of the 17th ultimo, I am directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to transmit to you, to be laid before the Marquess of Lansdowne, a copy of a despatch¶ from the Commissioner at Wei-hai-wei, calling attention to the injurious consequences to the Civil and Military Administration of the leased territories resulting from the continuance of Chinese jurisdiction within the walled city.

2. Mr. Chamberlain especially desires to invite Lord Lansdowne's attention to paragraph 10 of the enclosed despatch, in which Sir A. Dorward states that, in his opinion, the continuance of the present system is inconsistent with naval and military requirements for the defence of the leased territories, and to enquire whether His Lordship considers that this statement, with the grounds on which it is based, affords sufficient justification for requiring the cessation of Chinese jurisdiction within the city.

3. If His Lordship finds himself unable to accept this view, Mr. Chamberlain would suggest, as an alternative, that the Chinese authorities should be informed

‡ No. 41.

§ No. 46. | No. 42.

• No. 34.

↑ No. 52.

¶ No. 49.