CO129-113 - MacDonnell - 1866 [5-6] — Page 253

between D. Murray Kimse & and the Colonial Office in which tha= rule is strictly laid down. therefore exresses his surprise that

#

Ale

I. Murray could apert it was not till after Fir E. B. Lytton "had nolified his appointment to " him, and he had made all "necessary preparations for Ureceding "to Houstony, although his appointment "had not then been Gazetted. "Ifficially Communicated to him, "that he became aware of "restriction against private practice

then he had

and even

"believe the restriction

reason.

was

more than nominal"

the

to

little

13

兜

!" Jany / bo'

8.

Sir Stercules clearly

#

252

suppored that J. Murray had stated something untrue, whereas, regarding I. Murray rather as the "conscientions and energetic person- represented by Sir Stercules in a previous despatch, I incline to a more natural and simple solution of the circumstances.

9.

In the first place the letter

77 5. Murray

па

which Sir Stercules

was commenting was to the Duke

7

addressed

Newcastle and it's

statement made to be sifted and examined in the very office where

the correspondence

all the records of ді. referred to by D. Murray

were