Our letter to Treasury [written befor any
358561 Genshin
Akay "Muinte existed?) asked that M. Inglis might be granted
special case
as a
d this
in reply (5109/61) allowed
1.8. fourtion
yer.
The reperon had recommendin
reusim,
Treasur him to £163.6.8°
in Jylan shudd sixtiether of his salary (£700)
resence for pension in and respect of his mine gears sener
Could
we therefore reconsider I. climates, & the the I the ground that Thumsett's. case
find that his predecesser, not qualifying for pension during the period from 1 Mar, 1861 £1 Sef 1841 ?
we
M. Meade.
to
S.W.2.19/5
W.
Thewe looked at the Correr, inthe Hound Volumes; I gather that fir H. R. gave Mr. Jughes the 6 months leave, thent his pension papers home at the same time, to not in the keat expecting the Ireasary to grant the latter.
The pension did not actually commence until the leave capiced, t so I consider that M. duplex was qualifying for pension dasing much leave. Stad Re for better, or had the Treasury reford the pension,
Dr. Inglis would probably have your back & makeup
hesitated to a dop a she, they decided mentirias canc
It would t bad preced sud
*
477
that he had secured the service to Mr Thomsett, then still in the Navy, to act as Harbor Master during, Mr I's sick leave
did not five
W. Thom sett
Consider that h
Wh
any
clain to
then permanents
brought into the Hougkay service
I thould capress repret that Lord K.
Lees to ground for reconsidering his
decision on that point.
Min 22/5/88.
Jagree
Run 2576
stones
hi to years service.
And the despatch of
Lir M. Rotrison's 3588/4, in which he
reports