425
The fort has, prima facie, given him $660 down, instead of a pension of $192 per annum.
He is "languishing from consumption", his life may be very short, - and the arrangement for the fort is a bad one, permitting...
On looking at the cases which I have had to deal with in the disposal of these matters, (A Fan-a-cove is certainly on the fixed establishment. See Blue Book for 1871 and Estimates for 1873 Verwitt.)
I cannot say why he is deemed ineligible for pension. Mr. Meade has brought forward cases of retirement without such...
I do not find Chinaman's retirement. Tell me what the precedents are (of payment of gratuities instead of pensions to "Chinese employees") to which the fort refers in par. 2 of the Despatch.
In any case, the Colonial Office ought to send home particulars.
J = A on the fort "Paper of 2/8/73" and R&2 4/8/73.
I cannot understand the class distinction that is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of this despatch. It is not borne out by the Hong Kong Pension Rules, and it seems to me to be unjust.
Ruth asks on the foremost of the precedents to which allusion is made in his despatch, and to furnish a report on the reasons for drawing a distinction between Chinese and other servants.
Page information is not explicitly present in the original text, hence not added.
The original text has been proofread and formatted according to the given rules.
However, to follow the exact output format as requested (using HTML withfor paragraphs), and removing the last two sentences as they are comments and not part of the original text, the corrected output is:
425
The fort has, prima facie, given him $660 down, instead of a pension of $192 per annum.
He is "languishing from consumption", his life may be very short, - and the arrangement for the fort is a bad one, permitting...
On looking at the cases which I have had to deal with in the disposal of these matters, (A Fan-a-cove is certainly on the fixed establishment. See Blue Book for 1871 and Estimates for 1873 Verwitt.)
I cannot say why he is deemed ineligible for pension. Mr. Meade has brought forward cases of retirement without such...
I do not find Chinaman's retirement. Tell me what the precedents are (of payment of gratuities instead of pensions to "Chinese employees") to which the fort refers in par. 2 of the Despatch.
In any case, the Colonial Office ought to send home particulars.
J = A on the fort "Paper of 2/8/73" and R&2 4/8/73.
I cannot understand the class distinction that is mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of this despatch. It is not borne out by the Hong Kong Pension Rules, and it seems to me to be unjust.
Ruth asks on the foremost of the precedents to which allusion is made in his despatch, and to furnish a report on the reasons for drawing a distinction between Chinese and other servants.