[ { "id": 280768, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-142 - Public Offices & Others - 1869", "page_number": 251, "title": "CO129-142 - Public Offices & Others - 1869", "content_text": "That Caldwell was afterwards dismissed by St. Johnson, the Magistrate, and showed himself quite unfit for any situation in the Public Service.\n\nThe charge against Caldwell, which was virtually dismissed, was that Caldwell made tempting offers to Sin, and that there was sufficient ground for prosecution.\n\nIt is quite possible that Caldwell, seeing Bowning's case regarding gambling and his wager, decided to make a deal.\n\nMurrow was the only one in 1858 when licenses were established for a large sum of money from the accuser, with more or less subsequent enquiry.\n\nIn Pollard & Ashingdon's case, Murrow, who was a bitter enemy, was criminally prosecuted in 1862, but it was impossible for the Executive to empower the functions of a Police Magistrate, and the authorities decided to let the matter lie.\n\nOwners of gambling dens suggested that a monopoly should be granted. It is stated that Caldwell never exercised the monopoly given, under the most influential shaping of the Govt Policy.\n\nWhen the Govt Measure was complete, Caldwell appeared on the scene as the accredited Agent of the parties who obtained the License.\n\nPage 242", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-142 - Public Offices & Others - 1869.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 457538, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-427 - Public Offices - 1915", "page_number": 280, "title": "CO129-427 - Public Offices - 1915", "content_text": "411.\n\n7702)\n\nSir,\n\n41518\n\nERITH BASSY, RECO\n\nAshington. Reg 8 SEP 15\n\nAugust 12th, 1915.\n\n275\n\nWith reference to your telegram No. 976 of the 31st ultimo, I have the honour to transmit to you herewith copy of a report from His Majesty's Consul General at Boston, on the firm of Esara, Hartmann Brothers.\n\nI have &c.,\n\n(Signed)\n\nThe Right Honourable\n\nSir Edward Grey, Bart., K.G., M.P.,\n\netc., etc., etc.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-427 - Public Offices - 1915.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 458361, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915", "page_number": 454, "title": "CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915", "content_text": "2\n\nDevon MIRA.\n\nCounty Boroughs.-(a)Devonpart: Plymouth. Urban Districts. (a) East Stonehouse: Ivybridge. Rural Districts. Plympton St. Mary: Tavistock (Civil Parish of Bere Ferrers only).\n\nDORSET HIRE,\n\nMunicipal Boroughs.-Dorchester: Poole Warsham: Weymouth and Melcombe Regis.\n\nUrban Districts. Portland: Swanage\n\nRural Districts.-Dorchester: Pacle: Wareham and Porbeck: Weymouth.\n\nDURHAM.\n\nCounty Boroughs, · - Gateshead : South Shields: Sunderland: West Hartlepool. Municipal Boroughs.-Durham: Hartlepool: Jarrow: Stockton-on-Tees. Urban Districts. Annfield Plain Benfieldside: Blaydon: Brandon and Byshottles: Chester-le-Street: Consett: Felling: Hebburn: Hetton: Houghton-le-Spring: Leadgate: Ryton: Baaham Harbour: Bouth-wick-on-Wear: Spennymoor: Stanley: Tanfeld: Tow Law: Wickham Willington.\n\nRural Districts. Chester-le-Street: Durham: Easington: Hartlepool: Haughton-le-Spring: Lanchester: Sedgefield: South Shields: Stock-ton: Sunderland.\n\nEDGEX.\n\nCounty Borough. Southend-on-Sen.\n\nMunicipal Boroughs.-Chelmsford: Colchester: Harwich: Maldon. I'shan Districts.-Brentwood: Brightlingsea: Burnham-on-Crotch : Clacton Frinton-on-Sea: Grays Thurrock: Shoeburyness: Tilbury: Walton-on-the-Nare: Witham: Wivenhoe. Jural Districts.-Billericay: Braintree-(Civil Parishes of Fearing. Great Coggeshall, Fairsted, Faulkbourne, Hatfield Peverel, Kelve-don, Little Coggeshall, Markshall, Rivenhall, and Terling only): Chelmsford: Lexden: Maldon: Orsett: Rochford: Romford (Civil Parishes of Cranham, Great Warley, Rainham, Upminster, and Wennington only); Tendring. And also the area containing the Royal Victoria, and Royal Albert docks.\n\nGLOUCESTERSHIRE.\n\nCounty Borough.-Bristol. Urban Districts. Coleford: Kingswood.\n\nRural Districts. Chipping Sodbury: Lydney: Thornbury: Warmley: West Dean.\n\nHAMPSHIRE.\n\nCounty Boroughs. Bournemouth Portsmouth: Southampton. Municipal Boroughs.-Christchurch: Lymington: Romsey.\n\nUrban Districts.-Eastleigh and Bishopstoke: Fareham: Gosport and Alverstoke: Harant: Itchen: Warblington.\n\nItural Districts. Christchurch: Fareham Havant: Lymington: New Forest: Romsey: South Stoneham-\n\nISLE OF WIGHT.\n\nThe whole island.\n\n(a) Dovenport, and East Stonehouse, are now included in the County Borough of Plymouth,\n\n3\n\nKENT.\n\n450\n\nCounty Borough.-Canterbury. Municipal Boroughs-Chatham: Deal; Dovor: Faversham: Folkestone: Gillingham: Gravesend: Hythe: Lydd: Maidstone: Margate: New Romney: Queenborough: Ramsgate: Rochester: Sandwich: Ten-terden.\n\nUrban Districts.-Ashford: Broadstairs and St. Peter's: Cheriton: Heruo Bay Milton Regis: Northfeet: Sandgate: Sheerness: Bitting. bourne: Walmer: Whitstable: Wrotham.\n\nRural Districts. Blean: Bridge: Cranbrook: Dover: East Ashford; Eastry: Elham: Faversham: Hollingbourne: Hoo: Isle of Thanet: Maidstone Malling: Milton: Romney Marsh: Sheppey: Strood: Tenterden: Wost Ashford.\n\nLANCASHIRE.\n\nCounty Boroughs. Barrow-in-Furneas: Blackpool: Bootle: Liverpool: St. Helena: Southport. Municipal Boroughs.-Lancaster: Morecambe: Widnes. Urban Districts.-Bispham-with-Norbreck: Cranforth: Dalton-in-Furness: Fleetwood: Formby: Grange: Great Crosby: Heysham: Huyton-with-Roby: Kirkham: Lathom and Burscough: Litherland: Little Crosby: Lytham: Ormskirk: Poulton-le-Fylde: Preesall: Prescot: Rainford: St. Annes-on-the-Sea: Skelmersdale: Thornton; Ulver-ston Waterloo and Seaforth.\n\nLunesdale: Sefton:\n\nRural Districts. Fylde: Garstang: Lancaster: Ulverston: West Lancashire: Whiston.\n\nCounty Borough.-Grimsby.\n\nLINCOLNSHIRE.\n\nMunicipal Boroughs. Boston: Louth.\n\nUrban Districts-Alford: Barton-upon-Humber: Brigg: Broughton Brumby and Frodingham: Cleethorpe with Thrunscos: Holbeach: Long Button: Mablethorpe: Market Rasen: Roxby cum Risby: Scunthorpe Skegness; Spalding: Sutton Bridge: Winterton. Rural Districts. Boston: Caistor: Crowland: East Elioe: Glanford Brigg: Grimsby: Louth: Sibsey: Spilsby: Spalding.\n\nLONDON.\n\nThe area containing St. Katherine's, London, Surrey Commercial, Weat India, Millwall and East India docka.\n\nMONMOUTHSHIRE.\n\nThe whole county,\n\nNORFOLK.\n\nThe whole county.\n\nNORTHUMBERLAND.\n\nCounty Boroughs.--Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Tynemouth. Municipal Boroughs.-Berwick-upon-Tweed: Morpeth: Wallsend. Urban Districts.-Alawick: Amble; Ashington: Bedlingtonshire: Blyth: Cramlington: Earsdon: Gosforth: Longbenton: Newbiggin-by-the-Sea: Newbura: Prudhoe: Rothbury: Seaton Delaval: Beghill: Weetslade: Whitley and Monkasaton,\n\n(5768r-1.) Wt. 20144-135) 219. 2000. 8/16. D&S. G. 1.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 505310, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-497 - Public Offices - 1926", "page_number": 32, "title": "CO129-497 - Public Offices - 1926", "content_text": "7.\n\n29\n\n$'&'ARGO AMEONEK\n\n1s Hajesty's Government were therefore opposed to making the consolidation of the unsecured debt one of the purposes to be attained by the Tariff Conference, although their own nationals were directly interested in the funding of some of these debts.\n\n13. A further objection to the inclusion of the unsecured debt among the subjects to be dealt with at the Tariff Conference was brought into relief by the grant in principle of Tariff autonomy. That raised at once in acute form the question of control over Customs revenues. His Majesty's Government viewed with grave misgiving the proposal that foreign control should be extended over additional revenues which might be enormously increased by tariff autonomy. In 1921 it was natural that the Powers should demand guarantees for the due fulfilment of the benevolent purposes which the Washington Conference aimed at achieving. But what might have been practicable in 1921 was no longer possible in 1925. It was obvious that China would not now submit to any extension of foreign control either for debt consolidation or for the abolition of likin, and it seemed to His Majesty's Government that for the Powers to unite in an attempt to impose control upon an unwilling China would be entirely opposed to the spirit of the Washington treaties, and to the policy which His Majesty's Government had consistently advocated. At the same time His Majesty's Government felt that it was essential that the Washington promises, so long overdue, should be implemented. Accordingly, on the 28th May last, in reply to an enquiry from the United States government as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Tariff Conference, they proposed in a memorandum, copy of which is annexed hereto, that the Powers should abstain from any attempt to exact guarantees or conditions, but should forthwith authorise the levy of the surtaxes.\n\n13.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-497 - Public Offices - 1926.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 527229, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-529-5 China- extraterritoriality 23-11-1931 - 31-12-1931", "page_number": 142, "title": "CO129-529-5 China- extraterritoriality 23-11-1931 - 31-12-1931", "content_text": "## American Action on Chinese Counter-proposals\n\n3. The Chinese counter-proposals and my comments and request for instructions thereon had reached the Foreign Office early in January 1931, and the next few weeks were occupied by their study in London and by consultation with the American Government. The latter had, in the meantime, been pursuing the same zigzag course which they had followed from the outset of their negotiations with the Chinese Government on this question. It will be recalled that the State Department had just a year before submitted proposals to the Chinese Minister at Washington omitting any mention of two of the major safeguards, namely, the reservation of criminal jurisdiction and the employment of foreign co-judges, on which we had up to that time proposed to insist, and that soon after, when His Majesty's Government, seeing their hand forced in this way, had suggested the desirability of seeking a bargain by offering to concede criminal jurisdiction, the State Department, professing a grievance at what they termed our surrender, had retraced their steps and announced their decision to stand out on these as on the other major points; all of which had accordingly been embodied in the British and American proposals presented to the Chinese Government in the autumn of 1930. The American Government now, as the result of their study of the Chinese counter-proposals submitted in December, formulated and communicated to His Majesty's Government in January a new draft, the principal features of which were the dropping of evocation and foreign co-judges. Following, it seems, on representations made from London, the State Department subsequently withdrew this draft; and on the 7th February they submitted instead to the Chinese Minister in Washington a statement intended to indicate the nature of the concessions they were willing to make. In this document no mention was made of the question of foreign co-judges, but evocation was definitely abandoned. To this statement the Chinese Government replied on the 20th February expressing their appreciation of the concessions offered, with special reference to the abandonment of evocation, but they repeated their inability to accept any of the three remaining major safeguards, namely, co-judges, reservation of criminal jurisdiction, and excluded areas, and requested a definite statement from the American Government as to their attitude towards these major issues before seeking to continue the negotiations on other points. The State Department thereupon took no further action for the moment and intimated to us that they would await further developments and see what came of my impending negotiations at Nanking. This was satisfactory enough, but unfortunately the only result of these American negotiations had been to abandon evocation, in itself at least a useful pawn in the negotiations, without getting, or even seeking to bargain for, anything in return. It was, in fact, obvious that no other results than alternate deadlock and surrender could ensue from these attempts to negotiate with the Chinese Minister in Washington by means of formal written proposal and counter-proposal, instead of bargaining in the usual Chinese way with the National Government itself at Nanking.\n\n## Arrival at Nanking early in March\n\n4. For the first few days of my stay in Nanking, from the 1st March to the 7th March, I was awaiting your instructions, which, I was already aware, were to be expected at the beginning of the month. Apart from the transaction of other business with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I took the opportunity to make some preliminary soundings of the members of the Chinese Government, to whom I intimated that, anxious as we were to reach a settlement if we could, it was as a matter of fact the Chinese who were seeking something from us and who would be the greater losers if we failed to reach an agreement. I also had the opportunity of full and frank discussion with my American colleague, who had purposely proceeded to Nanking to meet me and who had been instructed by his Government to afford me all possible moral support in the negotiations. Mr. Johnson also explained to me that, while the State Department still insisted on keeping the American negotiations in their hands at Washington, there was at least a possibility, if not, indeed, a probability, of their being permitted to 'slide over into his hands at Nanking.\n\n## Receipt of Instructions on March 7\n\n5. On the 7th March I received your instructions, which were, in brief, to the effect that we should progressively abandon evocation, the reservation of criminal jurisdiction (subject to the American Government agreeing to adopt the same course) and foreign co-judges, in return for the retention of the other safeguards which were regarded by His Majesty's Government as really vital, namely, the exclusion of certain treaty port areas, with special reference in the last resort to the International Settlement at Shanghai, adequate arrangements in regard to the functions of the legal advisers, and satisfactory guarantees and assurances in regard to taxation, arrest, detention, bail, personal status matters, arbitration, titles to real property, expropriation, domiciliary visits, immunity of shipping, rights of business organisations, discrimination, and other minor points. It was further suggested that, pending consideration of the question of criminal jurisdiction by the United States Government, I might open the negotiations by stating that His Majesty's Government were prepared to make concessions in order to arrive at an agreed settlement, but that in order to carry public opinion in Great Britain with them it was essential that the Chinese Government should be prepared to give complete satisfaction in regard to certain vital safeguards concerning, inter alia, the functions of the legal advisers, methods of levying, assessing and enforcing taxation, and so on.\n\n## Opening of Negotiations on March 8\n\n6. I formally opened the negotiations with the Minister for Foreign Affairs on Sunday, the 8th March, being as usual accompanied by Mr. Teichman, Chinese counsellor to His Majesty's Legation, while Dr. Wang was assisted by Mr. Hsü Mo, head of the European and American Department of the Waichiaopu. Instead of acting at once on the above suggestion, which seemed to me to involve the introduction of the question of major concessions rather too abruptly and at too early a stage, I thought it better to skirmish at first on the ground of the four main principles, from which we had not as yet in theory in any way retreated. I was the more inclined to take this line because, when sounding informally the Minister for Foreign Affairs before the receipt of my instructions, I had offered him the alternative of discussing main principles at the outset or of seeking to find common ground on less contentious points of minor detail first, and he had expressed a very decided preference for, if, indeed, he was not going to insist on, the former method of approach.\n\n## Discussion of Four Major Points\n\n7. I, therefore, opened the discussion by formally examining the four main principles, namely, evocation, foreign co-judges, criminal jurisdiction and excluded areas. I purposely refrained from making concessions on any of these (though aware that the value of the first—evocation—as a bargaining pawn had been impaired, if not destroyed, by the action of the American Government in formally abandoning it). Dr. Wang, on his side, also confined himself to explaining why the Chinese Government could not possibly meet us on any of these major points. The only one on which there was the least give and take in this first discussion was that of the foreign co-judges, in regard to which, while insisting that adequate arrangements in this respect were a cardinal point in our attitude, I suggested that he should explore the possibilities of meeting us by strengthening the position of the legal counsellors in other ways. Having reached this point of apparent deadlock, I referred once more to the alternative method of approach and I mentioned the many so-called minor safeguards to which His Majesty's Government attached the greatest importance; and I thus gradually developed the argument that, if we secured complete satisfaction in regard to these legal safeguards, it might well influence our attitude towards the whole settlement, including the question of criminal jurisdiction.\n\n## Minister for Foreign Affairs agrees to Discussion of Legal Safeguards by Experts\n\n8. It was not easy to manoeuvre Dr. Wang on to this new ground, since the Chinese plan of campaign was obviously to force the issue over the four main principles, when, having driven us from our position on these major points, they [5822] B 2 \n\n## 195", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-529-5 China- extraterritoriality 23-11-1931 - 31-12-1931.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 577088, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-591-16 Liberation of Hong Kong- arrangements in the event of the collapse of Japan 3-8-1945 - 1-8-1950", "page_number": 5, "title": "CO129-591-16 Liberation of Hong Kong- arrangements in the event of the collapse of Japan 3-8-1945 - 1-8-1950", "content_text": "5\n\n16\n\n\"ob hungking Yel 893\n\n15.845\n\n17. 5.6. c/ Tel. 894 to Chunghing -17.8.\n\n18. .6.\n\n18A. L.6.\n\n-y\n\nc/Tel. 138 fm Chaughing\n\nW SACSEA\n\n15.8.45\n\nc/ Tel. 842 ffm Chungking-16-8.45\n\n17 J.S.m. to ashington to A.MS.5.0 Jel J5115-16.845\n\n20 Chunghing sel 45\n\n21 F.O\n\n16.8.45\n\nF 5166/1147/6 (+/dftrofyl=20) 16.8-\n\nSin G. Gaters authority telephoned Suggested to I have to oft. r.e. In Kitson (FO.) amendments (end in No 21).\n\nFrom a 8522 Chungsung 856. 996. 8. 17.8\n\n23. F.6. c/Tel. 857 fm. Chungking - 16-8-45.\n\n24 From Chunghing Vel. 865 104\n\n25 To Changwenty (No 916 17/8/45\n\n26 To Washington 8458 16/8/45\n\nPUBLIC RECORD OFFICE\n\n27 ARAS. TAR. TO GO.C, Chania 9/360 15/8/45\n\n2\n\n28 SEA.C. Tak oo Goo Chuis 19036 17/8\n\n29 Dft. Tel. (S(8)", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-591-16 Liberation of Hong Kong- arrangements in the event of the collapse of Japan 3-8-1945 - 1-8-1950.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 577247, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-591-18 Liberation of Hong Kong- arrangements for Japanese surrender 15-8-1945 - 19-4-1946", "page_number": 5, "title": "CO129-591-18 Liberation of Hong Kong- arrangements for Japanese surrender 15-8-1945 - 19-4-1946", "content_text": "33. w.6,0.\n\n34. Mr. 8,0 – 344 w.0.0.\n\no Chungking Iel 956 - 21-8-45\n\nyo\n\nσ\n\nno b huenghing 201967 - 22.8.45 COS(45)\n\nyo\n\nI\n\n35 1.8.0.- Shunghing 51 969\n\n35A\n\n35B 10.6.0.\n\n35C. 63.0.\n\nno 971\n\nyob hund king yel 441 - 6/Jel. 942 to Chung thing\n\n36. 2.6.0.-Geral Ising- 23.8.45\n\n23.8.4\n\n23.84 23.8.45\n\n24.8.45\n\n37 2.8.0.\n\n6. hungking yel 931 24.8.45\n\n38. 2.6.6. 38A. 3.6. 183.36.\n\n25.8.45\n\n\"Yo 6 hungking \"Hel 984 c/ Sel. 8821 to Workington- c/ Fal. 88.22 to Washingtin\n\n39. Yo General Sir Hastings Ismay\n\n40\n\n25.8.45\n\n25.8.45\n\nwo Sterndale Bennell - 5.0 (coly 34) stent\n\n-\n\n-\n\n25.8.45\n\n41. Yo Boyd - Shannon - D.α (coby 39) stars - 25/8/45\n\nА2 А.м\n\nA. M.\n\nA3 A. v.\n\n8.8.0.\n\nS.S.O. te Maj-Gu Hayes, Chungking -24/8/45\n\ny el 5353\n\n44. Adunty - To 6 in 6. B.P.F.CG Chine Il 241505 Z 25.8.45\n\n45 Adentry -b in B. P.P.F. ye 250109Z 25.8.15.\n\n46. Admity Yo bin C. B.P.F Yel 250628Z 164 w.&.0. Contrade from C.C.Star 200d moeting -25/8/45\n\n25/8/45\n\nS.M. 10 ashingten to A.M S.SO. \"el 20 691-25-8/45 474.8.6. J. Chunghing\n\nm.\n\n48 w. 6.0. Chungking Bel 946\n\n60.\n\n49\n\n26.8.45\n\n26.8.45\n\nAduty\" N.A. 6 chunghong Rests Cim b. 1. P.F vel 260632 26.8.45", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-591-18 Liberation of Hong Kong- arrangements for Japanese surrender 15-8-1945 - 19-4-1946.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]