18
and the reply was sent that we should prefer to romit. Lord Cerby enquire.com whether the following considerations were
taken into accork
(1.) The loss of Speterest derring the course of post,
: 2) The cast of discounting the Bill, (3) The charge of 5%
· Agents overdraft.
The figures
An
staud thus: -
Bill drawn by Crown a
aAgents
L10,000 at 3/8 = $54.545.45 √
the Crown
Interest here, 42 days 15% = 319.82 $54.231.63 ✓
Billremitted by w
£10,000 at 3/9 = $53.333.38
Discount, 120days
at 13/4-L58.6.11.
کی
99.13...
311.11 53.644.44
Difference in favour of remitting
pay-Loy)
$ 587.19
The charge of 30/
ON QUA110 over drawn in
our account with the Crown e Agents
not taken into account, because it did not occur to us that there would be any overdraft. Had the Crown Agents adhered
to the arrangeunut sanctioned in Lord Corby's Despatch Nr.58 of Irtmuary 28,
53
by which our securities in England were to be realised instead of our- xmitting funds from Hongkong, no
Quch
I
Avad
that
could have occurred. overdraft could have
Course imagined here that arrangement
el had been carried
out. It
is certainly not economical to pay the Crown Agents 5% on money axpended d for the service of this Colony. whilst there are finds at hand producing 44% only. If to the differeus
exchange indicated above bel
added