CO129-337 - Public Offices & Foreign Office - 1906 — Page 580

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next

The gentry concerned are of established local repute and put forward by the general body: they were earnest in fulfilment of the duties they come forward to undertake nor did they draw any pay. Where did the "ingratiating" come in?

The company's office was set up in Hunan, its personnel chosen there, its rules proposed there; how could there be said to be an absence of actual control? At the time the redemption of the line was uncertain, how could one at once scheme to build it with borrowed money? To borrow or not was left to the public feeling of the three provinces, how could it shut peoples' mouths? Moreover in case Hunan could provide funds, there would be no need of borrowing. How could calling on the gentry to provide funds be twisted into an underlying purpose to borrow?

This sort of profound writing and turns of expression is indeed beyond the power of thought to explain!

Page 4

The original memorial also states:-

"The Wai Wu Pu telegraphed to the Hukuang Viceroy its refusal of foreign loans. He however said the 'Hunan gentry also advocated building the line on borrowed money'. Now if the Hunan gentry really held this view, why to begin with did they strongly urge the cancelling of the concession? Even if there were unworthy Hunan gentry, they were probably only roving members holding Hupei offices who wanted to meet the Viceroy's wishes as a means of reaping profit and had no regard for the ruin of the general interest, while the Viceroy rashly took the lies of his subordinates for gospel".

Page 571

2016

-> revised to

2016
Page 571

is not needed as 2016 seems to be a year and is placed before Page 571, to make it more reasonable, put 2016 in the same paragraph as Page 571. Here is the final version:

The gentry concerned are of established local repute and put forward by the general body: they were earnest in fulfilment of the duties they come forward to undertake nor did they draw any pay. Where did the "ingratiating" come in?

The company's office was set up in Hunan, its personnel chosen there, its rules proposed there; how could there be said to be an absence of actual control? At the time the redemption of the line was uncertain, how could one at once scheme to build it with borrowed money? To borrow or not was left to the public feeling of the three provinces, how could it shut peoples' mouths? Moreover in case Hunan could provide funds, there would be no need of borrowing. How could calling on the gentry to provide funds be twisted into an underlying purpose to borrow?

This sort of profound writing and turns of expression is indeed beyond the power of thought to explain!

Page 4

The original memorial also states:-

"The Wai Wu Pu telegraphed to the Hukuang Viceroy its refusal of foreign loans. He however said the 'Hunan gentry also advocated building the line on borrowed money'. Now if the Hunan gentry really held this view, why to begin with did they strongly urge the cancelling of the concession? Even if there were unworthy Hunan gentry, they were probably only roving members holding Hupei offices who wanted to meet the Viceroy's wishes as a means of reaping profit and had no regard for the ruin of the general interest, while the Viceroy rashly took the lies of his subordinates for gospel".

2016
Page 571

Edit History

2026-06-02 15:03:45 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
The gentry concerned are of established local repute and put forward by the general body: they were earnest in fulfilment of the duties they come forward to undertake nor did they draw any pay. Where did the "ingratiating" come in? The company's office was set up in Hunan, its personnel chosen there, its rules proposed there; how could there be said to be an absence of actual control? At the time the redemption of the line was uncertain, how could one at once scheme to build it with borrowed money? To borrow or not was left to the public feeling of the three provinces, how could it shut peoples' mouths? Moreover in case Hunan could provide funds, there would be no need of borrowing. How could calling on the gentry to provide funds be twisted into an underlying purpose to borrow? This sort of profound writing and turns of expression is indeed beyond the power of thought to explain! Page 4 The original memorial also states:- "The Wai Wu Pu telegraphed to the Hukuang Viceroy its refusal of foreign loans. He however said the 'Hunan gentry also advocated building the line on borrowed money'. Now if the Hunan gentry really held this view, why to begin with did they strongly urge the cancelling of the concession? Even if there were unworthy Hunan gentry, they were probably only roving members holding Hupei offices who wanted to meet the Viceroy's wishes as a means of reaping profit and had no regard for the ruin of the general interest, while the Viceroy rashly took the lies of his subordinates for gospel". Page 571 2016 -> revised to 2016Page 571 is not needed as 2016 seems to be a year and is placed before Page 571, to make it more reasonable, put 2016 in the same paragraph as Page 571. Here is the final version: The gentry concerned are of established local repute and put forward by the general body: they were earnest in fulfilment of the duties they come forward to undertake nor did they draw any pay. Where did the "ingratiating" come in? The company's office was set up in Hunan, its personnel chosen there, its rules proposed there; how could there be said to be an absence of actual control? At the time the redemption of the line was uncertain, how could one at once scheme to build it with borrowed money? To borrow or not was left to the public feeling of the three provinces, how could it shut peoples' mouths? Moreover in case Hunan could provide funds, there would be no need of borrowing. How could calling on the gentry to provide funds be twisted into an underlying purpose to borrow? This sort of profound writing and turns of expression is indeed beyond the power of thought to explain! Page 4 The original memorial also states:- "The Wai Wu Pu telegraphed to the Hukuang Viceroy its refusal of foreign loans. He however said the 'Hunan gentry also advocated building the line on borrowed money'. Now if the Hunan gentry really held this view, why to begin with did they strongly urge the cancelling of the concession? Even if there were unworthy Hunan gentry, they were probably only roving members holding Hupei offices who wanted to meet the Viceroy's wishes as a means of reaping profit and had no regard for the ruin of the general interest, while the Viceroy rashly took the lies of his subordinates for gospel". 2016Page 571
Baseline (Original)
: The gentry concerned are of established local repute and put forward by the general body: they were earnest in fulfilment of the duties they come forward to undertako nor did they draw any pay. Where did the "ingratiating" come in? The company's office was set up in Hunan, its personnel chosen there, its rulos proposed there; how could there be said to be an absence of actual control? At the time the redemption of the line was uncertain, how could one at once scheme to build it with borrowed moncy? To borrow or not vas left to the public fooling of the three provinces, how could it shut peoples' mouths'? Moreover in case lunan could provide funds, there would be no need of borrowing. How could calling on the gentry to provide funds be twisted into an underlying purpose to borrow? This sort of profound writing and turns of expression is indeed beyond the power of thought to explain! 4. The original memorial also states:- 11 "The Wai Wu Pu telegraphed to the Hukuang Viceroy its refusal of forsign leans. Ho however said the "Hunen gentry also advocated building the line on "borrowed money. Now if the Hunan gentry really held *this view, why to begin with did they strongly urge "the cancelling of the concession? Even if there were unworthy Hunan gentry, they wer probably only roving "members holding Hupei offices who wanted to meet the "Viceroy's wishes as a means of reaping profit and had no "regard for the ruin of the general interest, while the "Viceroy rashly took the lies of his subordinates foj 2016 "gospel". 571
2026-06-02 15:03:45 · Baseline
View content

:

The gentry concerned are of established local repute and

put forward by the general body: they were earnest in

fulfilment of the duties they come forward to undertako

nor did they draw any pay. Where did the "ingratiating"

come in?

The company's office was set up in Hunan, its

personnel chosen there, its rulos proposed there; how

could there be said to be an absence of actual control?

At the time the redemption of the line was uncertain,

how could one at once scheme to build it with borrowed

moncy? To borrow or not vas left to the public fooling of the three provinces, how could it shut peoples'

mouths'? Moreover in case lunan could provide funds, there would be no need of borrowing. How could calling

on the gentry to provide funds be twisted into an

underlying purpose to borrow?

This sort of profound

writing and turns of expression is indeed beyond the

power of thought to explain!

4.

The original memorial also states:-

11

"The Wai Wu Pu telegraphed to the Hukuang Viceroy its refusal of forsign leans. Ho however said the

"Hunen gentry also advocated building the line on "borrowed money. Now if the Hunan gentry really held *this view, why to begin with did they strongly urge

"the cancelling of the concession? Even if there were

unworthy Hunan gentry, they wer probably only roving "members holding Hupei offices who wanted to meet the "Viceroy's wishes as a means of reaping profit and had no "regard for the ruin of the general interest, while the "Viceroy rashly took the lies of his subordinates foj

2016

"gospel".

571

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.