CO129-446 - Others & Individuals - 1917 — Page 576

8.

571

found that they had no views as to the inference to be drawn

or information regarding the interpretation put upon the

worda by you, and so we wired asking how you had read the

message. In the event of your not having read it to me an

that the whole of your funds were to be expended on the

Extension, we enquired whether you would approve of our

stipulating that not less than seventy five per cent of

the funds should be so expended.

You replied saying

that you regarded the Extension as the main feature of

the scheme and authorising us to make this stipulation.

As far as we could judge, £7,500 would have

more than sufficed for expenditure upon No. 34 Bryanston

Square, so now we objected to the proposal to house the

Extension there, and it was replaced by a new proposal

that it should be accommodated at Spencer House, which had

been offered for the purpose.

The initial cost of equiping Spencer House would

have been considerable and we should hardly have felt

justified in agreeing to this new proposal but for the hint

conveyed in your letter of the 22nd June that we were not

to consider as final the limit previously placed upon the

funds