entatain this memorial and
M. Sangster should be informed accordingly. The Frchange confonsation
allowance was non intended
А
to be alternative to and t
the
fainlage of family remittance
fffficers who
in the case
enjoy
the latter privilege; and in Ceylon it has been notified that
the election between the two
alternatives must be final
And that
the compensatio
remittance, it is no
allowance is
accepted
in lieu
I family l'anger
there is no
longer any
hereafter the
option left of reverting t
remittance Privilege.
The same
family in the eventing #t Wule should be followed in
Hong Kong
3. I see no
sufficient
Zeasm
for accepting the suggestion
with regard
to this case
C
248
which is contained in the
last paragraph of the acting Preasurer's memorandum,