during a period of vacation leave on the mainland of China.
I have to observe that Sir M. Hicks Beach's despatch of 14th Sept. 1878 to which you refer despatch No. 320, in June and Lord Kimberley's despatch No. 137 of 27th June 1882, go beyond an order of 14th Dec. 1886 prohibiting private work, undertaken during service, within the Colony, and the last paragraph of Mr. Stanhope's Circular of 21st Dec. 1886 only prohibited private Employment during leave spent in the Colony, but there is at present no regulation forbidding an officer taking outside the Colony work during such leave of absence.
I am unable therefore to refuse permission to Mr. Boulton to accept the honorarium offered to him in the present case.
during a period of vacatio leave yo
on the maniland of
(hina.
I have to observe that Sin M. Hicks Beach's
dest" of 14th Sept. 1870
to which que
refer
desp
hus. 320,
in June
and Lord Kimberley's
desp = no, 137 127 in tammes po beyond an
did not
June 1882, moda dikk
partitition of
prohibited private
work, undertaken
during service, within
the Colony, and the
last par. Of
Mr.
777
Seez Stanhope's Circular
без
921th Dec. 1806
n ofpeir accepting
only prohibited print
Employment during
leave spent in ther
definiti
Colmy, but there is at present no regn-
latim forbidding
offier taking
outside the foling work during
Λ
such
lean
of absence.
Jam unable
therefore to refuse permission TM. Boulton to accept
The honorarnier
Offered to him ein the present
Je
case,
lust
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.