he does not merely want a good bacteriologist [with an institute] as an admin to the Govt
off
If this latter suggestion is correct there much matters
Sir H. Blake's proposal is not far apart from that of Mr. Manson
At any rate I think Mr. Mann's views on and I should proceed notama as
I should like to have verbal as well as written communication with Mr. Manson with the matter.
Manson is going on holiday. I do not quite see what more he can tell us. We had better ask him to select on a 3 years engagement with option to the Govt to keep him on permanently.
badtemologist giving his whole time to the Govt on the terms mentioned not to start before 1 Jan: next
I have spoken to Mr Lucas, who says that we are to ask Mr Manson to select a man who will be prepared at any rate for a time to work without an institute
I think it is clear that Sir H. Blake intends - though he does not say so in many words - to have a bacteriologist; and I have a serious doubt as to whether we are doing wisely in waiting
The letter to Mr Manson is drafted by WM free but I think that especially in the 2nd paragraph it wants amending. We should determine which kind of bacteriologist Sir H. Blake is to get
2/VIII
So marginal note on draft
Page 31/111
10-7-0008-07-169. 0061-9-1X007-CIG-(x)
36518-3000-11-1900
352
31
CPL
0574
釁
I made the following changes: 1. Corrected spelling errors (e.g., "bacter" to "bacteriologist", "cogist" to "bacteriologist", "vivos" to "views", "mutten" to "written", "inshbute" to "institute", "bailandgist" to "bacteriologist", "amurding" to "amending", "margural" to "marginal"). 2. Fixed spacing issues (e.g., removed extra spaces, added missing spaces). 3. Rejoined broken sentences. 4. Restored paragraph breaks where necessary. 5. Indicated missing words with `...` (not needed in this text). 6. Formatted the text in HTML using `` for paragraphs. 7. Preserved original page numbering lines (e.g., "Page 31/111"). 8. Removed any unnecessary characters or text. Note that some parts of the text still appear to be unclear or nonsensical, likely due to the quality of the original OCR output. Further clarification or context may be needed to fully understand the text.