Mr. Meade
This despatch shows that both M. Pearson & I misunderstood the proposal as to 15 years in W. Marth's telegram 17846 attached to 17964
Our reply to that telegram, which must have reached M. Marth 2 days after this despatch was written, must have been rather incomprehensive, and it illustrates the difficulty, if not absurdity, of attempting to settle these matters by telegraph –
The proposal in this despatch is to give Capt. Mh. Even leave sufficient to make up his pensionable service to 10 years, & entitle him to the climate bonus; this strikes me as rather extraordinary, as he was anxious (20016709) to take up the new appointment at Shanghai at an early date
It has been repeatedly held that officers accepting promotion forfeit claim to leave, & I do not think Capt. Mh. Even should be allowed a more favourable arrangement than an officer transferred to another Colonial post.
Apart from this, St. Marsh's calculation is far from correct; he gives the date of Capt. Mh. Even's forgoing the Colonial service as 13 May 1874, though in Capt. Mh. Even's own application in 16709 he speaks of himself as serving in the S. African settlements until August 1874.
The 13 May 1874 is the date of Capt. Mh. Even's letter accepting the Straits appointment, but as appears from 1089, he drew pay up to 19 Sept /74 when he embarked for Singapore; had he remained at the Straits, his claim on that Colony would have dated from the latter date, but he resigned that appointment about April 1875 (Lee 5202/75), & not having been in the Straits a year, cannot have any claim on that Colony; practically his claim to pension dates from April 1875 (Lee 5229/75) i.e. for 1½ year service at Hongkong. W. Marth writes as to promising him a claim to 15th of his leaving salary.
And even if he had done so, I should not consider he had thereby gained any right to the climate bonus; as you are aware, we have in some other Colonial cases...