the British Postal Agencies in China.
As to this question is that why the course suggested, and why 83237 should not now be followed?
On 8323
(2.) The question of Postal rates to Europe to/from the Treaty Port agencies. Lev 29163. Sir H.A. Blake recommended that the Govt. should be reduced by 5 cents. The J.P.O. point out that logically it should be 4 cents. For the reasons given here it is doubtful whether the Treasury would approve the proposal. The J.P.O. say Sir H.A. B.'s suggestion is beside the point, but I take it that what he was trying to say was that the Treasury want to introduce a system by which their share of the loss over the Haiphong-Shanghai section will fall on the P.O. Hongkong & it is to this that he objects. At present, as I understand it, the share of Haiphong has no necessary connection with the cost of any section being a fixed $66,000, agreed upon as a 'modus vivendi'.
If the Treasury agree to our suggestion on 31793/00 Straits that H. King should pay only transit charges in respect of this section, the matter will be disposed of satisfactorily. The Govt. wishes the Imperial Treasury to recoup Hongkong for the loss caused by this new rates.
(3) Proposed establishments of Agencies at Tientsin, Peking and other chief ports. The G.P.O. do not wish this but in the interests of the English people there it seems desirable to have them. But the Govt. says Hongkong cannot afford to establish them without increased subsidy from the Imperial Govt. of $1500 a year. This is really a Colonial matter rather than Imperial and the Treasury is not much concerned with it. It is the only argument that I can find in these papers for the Imperial Subsidy for, as it appears even from the figures as they stand that there is a slight profit in the work of the agencies.
I like the J.P.O. cannot understand what principle there agencies have been assessed with a part of the Mail Subsidy. It is a way to cut out the amount so added in their accounts, the result is...
Page 430