Thu
had the advantage of offacing Opinion of Sir H. Blake, who incurred
in the grant.
lost
REA1619
I should not
the
argue
matter,
simply refer to previous despatches and say
that Major Chapman's action
I
was improper. [There must be some principle plainly balanced in this despatch]
Lid
M. Stubb
5.779/16/0
Major Chapman ever
whether
01
bring
to our notice the terms on which
the Contingent
were sent as embodied
in the Colonial Secretary's letter?
Or did he do so? CPF
Ar Hous-
Shell received no
7
what noti
f
their Glmy.
12.050" the additional expense Who heard nothing except to Exactly imperially" Pro is cloudy not constant
16003
with the grant of
Free command £1342.7. the allowance. refund & the enclosort her wor
Il ca. paid Major Charente Parangi!) liis accounts to be audited direct to the lol fort.
Mr Lucas
BM
we should I think inform Gov, that Major Wharfman did not ask for
these allowances but that they were granted
14&L(k)—50654-3000-12-01
54040--3000-3-02
168
by the S. f S after consulting Sir H. Blake for the reason given.
33006;
I add
that
on the desk had not
previously been info. of the allowances referred to in the reference to this letter, I
sustenance
that he considers that the allowance
of 7/6 per day to officer referred
to
par 2 thereof should
not be given in addition to the
allowances
(m 24647)+
O
that in accounts for the
by Major Chakman from
maunty
this account.
dins read the Ca to £1392~7?
a
? the sustenance allowance
if drawn in addition, must be refunded.
GUR2079C.Pd.20
at once