It does not havever appear to be worth while now to again return to that particular question.
As to Stewart's passing the accounts for March: 82 there was normally no question raised.
On job audit, the fault was that the accounts were not sent by James, they were those of a subordinate Officer that were correct. I would say something to this effect, in very few words referring to Stewart's own explanation of 27 Nov: 82 in 1797, wherein Lord Balcarres did not deny to express any censure.
Ray was bound to follow the guidance of Officers who might be similarly situated.
I think we need nothing more at present.
I now come to some suggestions. It is proposed that the Officer Commanding should administer in the absence of the Governor. I have discussed this with the Colonial Secretary, and I hardly see how in such a small Colony there is room for such an appointment.
It does not havever affear be worth while now. to
До
again winto that particular
Juestion.
to
As to Wistewart; passing the accounts for March: 82
Here was
Jeromally
without
excauci
Hem
40
Buck
no
puestion raised
مصر
of Job- audit on be_andit, the fault was that the accounts tot suntly James
were
they
a
the
Co
of a Aubordinate Officer that were correct. I would say Something to this affect
few words refering
explanation
very few
od Stewarts own
L
&
of 27 how: 82 in 1797, radding thach Lord Durly did not denia to express any
cense
ты
Ray
bound to
The futu
Ray as much
390
but felt as he died for
guidances of Offices who might be Amilarly situated.
we need noh I think,
thing more as anything
Mode are?
pay
regardò
Bowers
I now come to be. Cons
Puggestions.
this propional that the
Officer Commanding should administer in the freens.
absence I have discussed on for: 11349-
with regarding
ن
to his other
A
reopical, to affinit Assis and Colonial Recetary,
I hardly
see how in Auch K
Amall Colony there is room for such an approristement,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.