of 1870 and that they may have "equitable claim to be dealt with under the rules of 1869"
My March is in the position described by Me Round, I consider, and there are no others without inc...
It will be seen from 15839/78 that he at the time of his transfer wrote regarding the question of his ultimate pension but that no definite reply was given to him though he was told that when the time of his retirement came he would receive all the favourable consideration that could properly be accorded to him
aß 8/9/06 I do not take such a liberal view as Mr Browne.
There had been a warning in 1878 that alterations in the old & favourable scheme were contemplated & Mr. March went to Hong-Kong after this, - in 1879. And again in 1880 the Sect. of State observed that the Scheme had not been finally adopted. It seems to me, therefore, that he has no claim to be treated under the old Scheme, which, not having been ratified, can hardly be said to have been in force, and I should be inclined to deal with Mr March under the later Rules which we have applied in Marsh's case with a similar sentiment applied to other Officers.
I agree with Mr. Suyulhack. We must not treat two men differently, more favourably than our Cecil Smith with whom he had a prolonged controversy on their position.
It is now stated that having been refused on the ground that having been in Hong Kong & rights were deliberately withheld, the inference is that it is more due to the minute & by Kong Agreement he was not commuting his pension.
I should like to speak to him when I return.
Similar put understand this Rent out 10. I have nother for ff. until the date of Me minute.
conversant with the facts please speak & him when argue.
De return not print December is that he must not tout Mr Manch one St we n fund Run 23/10.
More formally than sin Britt, where regret after long correspondence (see further minutes on separate sheets over)