CO129-311 - Acting Governor Major Gen Sir Gascoigne - 1902 [5-7] — Page 338

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

presumably,

in accordance with

Bol Reg. 124, as being required by

Locum tenens, but it is

correctly taken into account for pension &

they are right in giving him the 60

his viz. for Ilyas sevince + 5 yrs + 3 yrs for P. Qualno.

Lee annexed a letter from Mr Browly of the Treasury, to whom I wrote, asking whether, in his opinion, the information furnished in 29384 furnished any strong arguments

whereas the pension already drawn by him in this country is rather at $43 more than the half pay $22.20

As it is, he has drawn 378

I think therefore it would be simpler & fairest to let him off refunding the excess pension already paid

up to 30 June & I would even let him draw the larger pension till the 31st of this month, but tell him that from then he can only draw the smaller pension of $1634, sending him a copy

I am afraid our decision on 12554 will affect this

for we must adhere to that decision

I do not think that we should make Mr Lawson refund the whole excess pension rate of pay which he has drawn, partly in the colony & partly through the C.A., up to the 30th June

On his receiving the settlement, it may be noted that we sanctioned an extension of leave pending his pension & his pension was only now settled, we therefore put him on half pay from 26 Dec, last, when his retirement began, until the present time (his successor does not go out until the end of this month)

BRR him copy 12554, to explain why I was unable to sanction the larger pension. & C.A. inform you. I

I ought to notice one point about this case, viz that under the revised Pension Minute, (herewith), pensions including pensions grantable under O/5 do not actually require the approval of S. of S. but this case was submitted for the S. of S. approval in 12554. Perhaps we ought to ask the C.A. by tel. whether Lawson was warned that the larger pension ($2494) was made subject to S. of S. approval.

as you suggest at A, but all the adjustments regarding the period before he left the colony will involve elaborate adjustments

Proceed in the despatch as at B

C.P.L 24 at once

AC JL(X)-4669-3000-8-01

Page 337

Edit History

2026-06-01 09:39:01 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
presumably, in accordance with Bol Reg. 124, as being required by Locum tenens, but it is correctly taken into account for pension & they are right in giving him the 60 his viz. for Ilyas sevince + 5 yrs + 3 yrs for P. Qualno. Lee annexed a letter from Mr Browly of the Treasury, to whom I wrote, asking whether, in his opinion, the information furnished in 29384 furnished any strong arguments whereas the pension already drawn by him in this country is rather at $43 more than the half pay $22.20 As it is, he has drawn 378 I think therefore it would be simpler & fairest to let him off refunding the excess pension already paid up to 30 June & I would even let him draw the larger pension till the 31st of this month, but tell him that from then he can only draw the smaller pension of $1634, sending him a copy I am afraid our decision on 12554 will affect this for we must adhere to that decision I do not think that we should make Mr Lawson refund the whole excess pension rate of pay which he has drawn, partly in the colony & partly through the C.A., up to the 30th June On his receiving the settlement, it may be noted that we sanctioned an extension of leave pending his pension & his pension was only now settled, we therefore put him on half pay from 26 Dec, last, when his retirement began, until the present time (his successor does not go out until the end of this month) BRR him copy 12554, to explain why I was unable to sanction the larger pension. & C.A. inform you. I I ought to notice one point about this case, viz that under the revised Pension Minute, (herewith), pensions including pensions grantable under O/5 do not actually require the approval of S. of S. but this case was submitted for the S. of S. approval in 12554. Perhaps we ought to ask the C.A. by tel. whether Lawson was warned that the larger pension ($2494) was made subject to S. of S. approval. as you suggest at A, but all the adjustments regarding the period before he left the colony will involve elaborate adjustments Proceed in the despatch as at B C.P.L 24 at once AC JL(X)-4669-3000-8-01 Page 337
Baseline (Original)
presumably, accordance with bol Reg. 124, as being required by Locum tenens, but it is correctly taken into account for pension & they are right in giving ig him the 60 his viz. for Ilyas sevince + 5 yrs + 3 yrs for P. Qualno. Lee annexed dimate bound letter from Mr browly of the Treasury, to whom I wrote, aoking, whether, in his opinion, the in 29384 furnished any : desing arguments کا 824948 whereas the pension already drawn him in this country/ by rather at 43. mnore As country hat 378 than the half pay $2220 I think therefore it wd. be simpler & fairet to let him off refunding the excess pension already fard arry to 30 of 8 June & I wd even let him draw the larger pension till the 31st of this month, but tell him that from the he can only draw the smaller pension of D 1634, sending Tot Ang he peerzon I am afraid but decision, our decision on 12554. for A of desh on we must adhere to that I do not think that we And make Ar Lowson refund the whole 1 at the excess pension rate of any which he has drawn, partly of in the colony & partly through the b.A.. up to the 30th uet. In desh on his receiving the settlement may be ht might le ave 29157/01 we. sanction we sanctioned an extension of leave pending of regarded his pension & his pension ao only now settled, we therefore put him on half pay from 26 Dec, last, when his retirement began, until the present time (his su success or does not go out until the end of this month,- BRR him copy the 12554, to explain why ed. of I was unable to sanction the larger pension. & b. A inform you. I 337 I ought to notice one point about this case, virz that under the revised Pension Minute, (herewith), pensions including pensions grantable under 0/5 do not actually require the approval of but this case of was submitted the S for the I of I approval in 19554. Perhaps we f ought to ask the Day by tel. whether howson was warned that the larger pension (82494) was made subject to che S. of S. approval. 3 A 15193). but this AC JL (x)-4669-3000-8-01 as sued involve elaborate adjustments regards the period before he left the colons as you suggest at A, but all the guranos Proceed 8u7231 in the despatch as at 3 B C.P.L 24 atonce
2026-06-01 09:39:01 · Baseline
View content

presumably,

accordance with

bol Reg. 124, as being required by

Locum

tenens, but it is

correctly

taken into account for pension &

they

are

right

in

giving

ig him the

60

his

viz. for Ilyas sevince + 5 yrs

+ 3 yrs for P. Qualno.

Lee

annexed

dimate bound

letter from Mr browly

of the Treasury, to whom I wrote, aoking, whether, in his opinion, the

in 29384 furnished any

: desing

arguments

کا

824948

whereas the pension already drawn

him in this country/

by

rather

at 43.

mnore

As

country hat 378 than the half pay $2220

I think therefore it wd. be

simpler & fairet to let him off refunding the excess pension already fard

arry

to 30

of

8 June

& I wd even

let him draw

the larger pension till the 31st of

this

month, but tell him that from the

he can only

draw the smaller

pension of D 1634, sending

Tot Ang he

peerzon

I am afraid but decision,

our decision on 12554.

for

A

of desh on

we must adhere to that

I do not think that

we

And make Ar Lowson refund the whole

1

at

the excess pension rate of any which he has drawn, partly

of

in the colony

& partly through the b.A.. up to the 30th

uet.

In desh on

his receiving

the settlement

may

be

ht

might

le ave

29157/01

we.

sanction we sanctioned

an extension of leave pending

of

regarded

his pension & his pension

ao

only now settled, we therefore put him on

half pay

from 26 Dec, last, when his

retirement began, until the present

time (his su

success or does not go out until

the end of

this month,-

BRR

him copy

the

12554, to explain why

ed. of

I was unable to sanction the larger pension. &

b. A

inform you. I

337

I ought to notice one point

about this case,

virz

that under

the

revised Pension Minute, (herewith), pensions including pensions grantable under 0/5 do not actually require the approval of

but this case

of

was submitted

the S for the I of I approval in 19554. Perhaps

we

f

ought to ask the Day by tel. whether howson was warned that the larger pension (82494) was made subject to che S. of S. approval.

3

A

15193). but this

AC

JL (x)-4669-3000-8-01

as

sued involve elaborate adjustments regards the period before he left the colons

as you suggest

at A, but all the guranos

Proceed

8u7231

in the

despatch as at 3

B

C.P.L

24

atonce

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.