ть
time in the Colonial Office is
evident from the fact that Mr.
Russell Brown was not then warned
(as he clearly should have been
had the intention been understood)
ounce he had not been tausfened to wei-hai- liv, that he would be ineligible for any
pension in respect of his service
there
at Hei hai-wei after the 16th of
August, 1924.
Moreover your construc-
tion of the letter of the 16th of
February, 1924, would mean that no
officer seconded from the Consular
though
Service to Wei-hai-Wei (the only
in fact
other case in point is that of A.P.
Blunt who also appears in the Foreign
Office list of March, 1924 ) could
receive pension in respect of his
service in that territory, which, since-
there was secondment only and not an
actual transfer, could not reckon for
persion under the local trainance.
In