i
T
L
Admiralty, S.W.1–
June, 1922.
14
tu abro
Jay
22-
77420
Dear Mr. Beckett,
I am sorry to trouble you further over Hong Kong and its problems, but I should be obliged if you would kindly enlighten me on two points which arise out of your letter of the 23rd May.
The rates you quote as 1921 salaries differ consider- ably from those given in Col.Office letter of 10th May 1920 (17772/20) and its enclosures, and presumably this means that there has been a further revision since 1920. Would you please confirm this and give me some idea of how you placed existing officers in the new scales (e.g.: on a "weight for service" basis).
Also, from the 1920 letter, we gathered that you had a special scheme for dealing with the question of houses or allowances in lieu, but the new salaries you quoted to me last week do not specify whe ther quarters are provided or not. Perhaps you would let me know how far this is the case in the individual instances you mentioned, and also whether the 1920 scheme for deductions from saltry (if an officer not entitled to a residence occupies one) or rent payments (in the reverse case) still obtains.
Yours sincerely,
H. Beckett, Esq.,
golonial Office,
Downing Street,
S.W.