}
3
2nd
4 of Febmay last and
Februan
• your despatch
enclosed in your No. 42. of the 12th of February last] I should infer that M
g
of
Moosa having been promoted to succeeded M. Barradas
1164
does not clive 116 # per monthe but only his former pay of 104 4. that M. Gutierrez Succeeding M. Mooz a receives
oney
96$ and not 104, & so forth.
If this is the case I do
not think that the intention
of Lord Riponis despatch No. 82. of the 1st of April has been carried out. I
predecessor
XSo
gather that my foo much took exception not to the
present rates
has to increasing
Salaries
the
190
scale of Salanies of certain afforintonents
as eg. from 60 #4 to 65/7
and
from 40 # to 45#.
on the other
If thanks hand the fromotions with
the comsponding increases of have actually
Salary
been:
Made I do not understand
7 do
why the majority of petitioners have signed
memorial
the
this
4. I shall be glad, before
this petition
deciding
on
to learn what are the actual the case.
facts of