This paper is misleading, but for the reasons stated in the first 4 lines of the minute, and Bently
partly because it haves
in
out of count the small increase 21463 and 34483, and the further
item of about # 3,705
acc 2 of
205 on acc
the active allowances proposed in 27205.
The
reason?
given by Cammy Hastings
for not making these
recommendations in detail
see end of his report of Nov. 10, are
very unsatisfactory
delaying hope in
an
they practically
have vindicated
of the finality of these recommendations.
The bus Mary's officers referred to were wanted for the P.O. launch. They do not appear to have been appointed, as their salaries
16382
The
not on
the 1900 Estimates. The two extra clerks herein proposed are to be additional to and in relief of the three clerks who now receive allowances as
Mailing Officers,
and travel in turn from Southampton to Singapore and back
the mail
steamers. As to this sum 2254 - which
is patent for refusing this
part of the
proposals. Moreover, the
PMG's letter of 13 Nov is inadequate. without the two letters from the Harcourt
in sanction
Nov 10, it fails to point out that Mr. Chamberlain had assumed,
the increases of staff proposed in
that the Gov. had
satisfied itself that those increases were sufficient to put the Dept on a sound footing; that Mr. Chamberlain
regret the statement in the last para. of the PMG's letter of Nov 10 that the reason for not making these recommend-
ations last year was that he altogether doubted whether if any large increase
proposed, anything of staff and pay
would be granted, and say Chamberlain is not prepared to sanction further increases now
proposed unless the Gov.
can assure
him not only that they absolutely necessary for the efficient
conduct of the post office, but also that further increases of
staff will be proposed for
GW)26/
CPL27 27
atones
Officers, which are
not inclosed.
A.F.2011
Artiend. 2, forwarded
(a)--12435-2000-1-99
16196-2000-4-99