The newspaper paragraph stated that the Secretary of State had granted the privilege to Messrs. Cox & Anthoning at the Straits, this being done because "The Secretary of State declines to enter into the question of domicile of officials of rank."
This newspaper statement is a very incorrect paraphrase of the Straits despatch regarding Messrs. Cox & Anthoning (in 208558/14) and it is a most extraordinary proceeding for a lover of Hong Kong to take such a newspaper statement without further enquiry.
We can hardly take away the privilege from W. J. A. Hazeland, but I don't think his brother can also, as it would open the door to other claims (see 22070/95).
In reply to the apparent misunderstanding, it is gathered from a newspaper report that the Secretary of State had made a distinction between former officials of rank and subordinate officials in the case of Messrs. Cox & Anthoning; however, the instructions given to the Straits were identical with respect to Hong Kong (as those given in 3988/95).
The Secretary of State, Mr. Chamberlain, is therefore of the opinion that W. J. A. Hazeland's promotion is not sufficient reason to grant him the privilege, which he considered he was not entitled to, but under the circumstances, will not direct that it be withdrawn from him. However, he adds that he cannot approve of its being extended to W. C. M. Hazeland (84931/12).
It is noted that the Governor is mistaken in gathering from a newspaper report that the Secretary of State had made such a distinction.
Mr. Lucas suggests that we should go further and withdraw the privilege from W. J. A. Hazeland also. A draft is submitted for despatch (2/1197).
It is mentioned that compensation allowance depends on domicile. Two others must have...
Page 234The newspaper paragraph stated that the Secretary of State had granted the privilege to Messrs. Cox & Anthoning at the Straits, this being done because "The Secretary of State declines to enter into the question of domicile of officials of rank."
This newspaper statement is a very incorrect paraphrase of the Straits despatch regarding Messrs. Cox & Anthoning (in 208558/14) and it is a most extraordinary proceeding for a lover of Hong Kong to take such a newspaper statement without further enquiry.
We can hardly take away the privilege from W. J. A. Hazeland, but I don't think his brother can also, as it would open the door to other claims (see 22070/95).
In reply to the apparent misunderstanding, it is gathered from a newspaper report that the Secretary of State had made a distinction between former officials of rank and subordinate officials in the case of Messrs. Cox & Anthoning; however, the instructions given to the Straits were identical with respect to Hong Kong (as those given in 3988/95).
The Secretary of State, Mr. Chamberlain, is therefore of the opinion that W. J. A. Hazeland's promotion is not sufficient reason to grant him the privilege, which he considered he was not entitled to, but under the circumstances, will not direct that it be withdrawn from him. However, he adds that he cannot approve of its being extended to W. C. M. Hazeland (84931/12).
It is noted that the Governor is mistaken in gathering from a newspaper report that the Secretary of State had made such a distinction.
Page 234
What a singular Governor this is
but shengerr Reply as proporedi
Express Empire that the foremos Shewld have the night such a weeees-paper para sufficient outlinety for.
of li to take as his baris decision in such cases de-at once
Land Lelbane S 2/1197
Mr. Lucas Micks we should go further & withdraw the privilege from W. J. A. Hazeland also Isulmit draft for scending Ca Buy 5 Jan
Compensation allowance depends tomicile. Two Gothers must have
Page 235
newspaper paragraph to the effect that the Secretary of state had granted the privilege
to Messrs. Cox & Authoring at this Straits, this being done because "Ihe Lee of State declines to enter into the question of domicile of officials
rank.
very This newspaper statement is a
in the subject fice and incorrect paraphrase of Straits "the Lec: efstate's desft. of Messrs. Cox & Anthoning (in 208558/14/ and it is a most extraordinary proceeding for a lover or of Hongking to take such,
newspaper statement without further enquiry.
We can
hardly
however
beig
take
Correct
awa
the privilege from M. 7. A. Hazeland, but I don't think his brother can also as it would open the door to me. other claims (see 22070/95).
? Reply
that the apparents
have it
many
Governor is mistaken
in a
gathering from
newspaper report that the Lec. If State had in the case
The Straits Letts laid down
John
any
Z
distinction between fromerkolding Cofficials of rank Isubordinate officials; the mistructions given the Thaits - in regard to Mears. Com & Anthonisz - were identical with
despre to H Kory (em those given in 3988/95) 227
The March 1895;
M.Chamberlain
is therefor of Opinim that W. 7. A. Hazeland's promote
no
as sufficient
otim wat
reason
234
him the privilege= which the for. (in 22070/95). considered he was not entitled, but under the circes will not direct that it be with drawn.
1. from him. But add that bee. that cannot approve of its being Extended &W.C. M. Hazeland
A
84931/12
What a singular Govenor this is
but shengerr Reply
as proporedi
Express Empire that the foremos Shewld have the night such a weeees- paper para sufficient outlinety for.
of li to take as his baris
decision in such cases de-
at once
Land Lelbane
S
2/1197
Mr. Lucas Micks we should go
further & withdraw the privilege from 4.7. Hageland also
Isulmit draft for
scending
Ca
Buy 5 Jan Compensation allowance depends tomicile. Two Gothers must have
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.