C. O.
1140
RECP
REOP 21 JAN 90
551
that all fees received for trade marks, etc. would have to be paid into the Treasury. I remonstrated at the time that I had not been informed of that, but I was told, "That is what you have to do," and accordingly I did it. I have now held the office, with some holidays and interregnums when I was acting in other offices, for nearly five years. I have had 35 per cent. rise in my remuneration, but not in salary. The salary was changed from $7,800, the exchange rate at that time being 3s. 2d., to $9,400, that is, $600 more than when I first came here, all fees being carefully excluded. If I win an appeal, as I did the other day, and costs are recovered from the other side, they go into the Treasury, not into my pocket. So the increase in dollars has been some 74 per cent, and now the dollar has fallen to 2s. 1d., a loss of more than a shilling on every dollar I receive. I have a family at home for which I have to make remittances, and the loss to me is very great, so grave indeed that I am not sure I should have come here if I had known that my promotion at the end of over four years' hard work would be a sterling loss of income of £360 per annum as compared with what I received on my arrival.
And now comes this offer, made by my official superiors, which, with all respect, I have not accepted. There were two things promised me when I came: first, that I should receive so many dollars when in the colony; and second, that when I went home on leave, I should receive my salary at 4s. 2d., which was the rate at which the salary was originally fixed. Now, what is this offer? Well, there are two things: you get so many dollars here and so many in England, and they say, "We think that as your dollars in Hongkong have fallen to nearly 2s., say 2s. 1d., from 3s. 2d., that is, have been reduced by more than one-third, we must give you something; therefore we will allow you to make your remittances at 3s."
Well, if they had stopped there, I should have said "thank you." But I am told, "When you go home, instead of getting 4s. 2d. to the dollar, you will get 3s." Gentlemen, I went home this year for four months on full pay. I am not speaking of half-pay leave. And I am asked, if I accept this offer, to refund to the Government, out of my own pocket, the difference between 4s. 2d. and 3s. on my salary for those four months.
The Attorney-General's office, of which I am in charge, is one the salary of which has been increased by 35 per cent. I say my office is worth three to four hundred pounds a year less than when I came, that I have been working hard all the time, and that the only offer of any relief is accompanied by this condition, that I must have 1s. 2d. less on every dollar paid me at home, including those paid this year.
The work of my office is such that it is not coveted by every one, and when I go home on leave, I have privately to pay some gentleman to make it worth his while to come and do my work while I am away. This time, when I had my four months' leave—I had no leave last year, therefore I had four months to fill up—I had to pay someone to do my work, and two years ago I had to do the same thing. I then paid $1,000 to a gentleman to do my work, and he had his private practice as well, of course. I might perhaps have got a less able man for less, but I thought it my duty to provide a thoroughly capable substitute so that the Colony should not suffer by my absence.
This offer is not such a grand offer; it is an offer that has been refused by a great many, who feel rather hurt that such an offer, after many years' service, should have been made to them, when the officers in the Straits Settlements are getting 3s. while on duty and 1s. when they are away on leave, which renders it possible for a man with a family to go to England and recuperate his health. I do not hesitate to say that for a family man to work at a 3s. dollar means that he is not to enjoy his holiday and that he is to come back considerably poorer than when he left.
The CHAIRMAN—Before putting the vote to the Committee, I should like to point out that the $80,000 only applies to the officers on active service. The question of leave pay at home is not touched upon in this matter at all, so that perhaps the hon. members who have spoken on the subject of leave pay at home have not been strictly in order. At the same time, I am sure hon. members would have deprecated any attempt on my part to limit the discussion to the $80,000, and I am sure I was only carrying out the wishes of hon. members when I gave full rein to those who have addressed us.
So far as I am personally concerned, I can only say a memorial has gone home to the Secretary of State asking for the same terms as have been granted at Singapore, and in view of the manner in which the Colonial Office usually treats its servants, I feel sure we shall receive that justice which has always been granted to us.
The question that the vote be passed was then put and carried nem. con.