t

OP Y.

523

Hon. Colonial Secretary,

As regards the £100 additional. Personally,

I have adjusted ny living expenses to my salary, and a reduction

of £100 in my salary would upset all my present financial

relations to a very considerable extent.

Mo

༣༽ ན, ཀུན ༢ པ འི

ام دیدگان بیسیم

C.O.D. 164 of 26th. December, 1867, states:-

"I have to carry to you my sanétion of the proposed additional

llowance of £100 a year from the Colonial revenue to Mr.

Mitchell for his increased trouble and responsibility in con- -nection with the new postal arrangements, and the Lords of the Treasury have sanctioned an allowance of £100 a year to him from Imperial Revenues thereby raising his salary as Postmaster-

-General to £1,000 per annus".

In the Blue Book for the year 1871 the then Postmaster-General, Mr. F. W. Mitchell drew the following salary:-

Postmaster-General £900. £100 from Imperial Post Office, and

£200 as collector of stamp revenue making a total of £1,200.

The work at the General Post Office done in 1872 compared to

the work done in 1910 is but a small proportion.

The Postmaster-General has therefore drawn

this extra £100 for 42 years and in accepting such an appoint-

-ment, this allowance might justly and reasonably be taken as

permanent (at least that was my opinion, when I left the Sanitary Department); my chief reason in asking for the appoint-

-ment of Postmaster-General being this extra allowance.)

In the Civil Service List the salary is

$5,400. Remarks...£100 from Imperial Funds.

As regards this question of loss to Hongkong

due to the working of the Postal Agencies in China: I have

done my best for the interests of Hongkong, and I hardly think

that the fruit of my labours, which may have helped to the

successful outcome of this question, should result ik in my

salary being reduced by £100 per annum.

shown as $4,800

As regards the question of extra work,

which

¿

Share This Page