consider that his supervision of his subordinates
had been sufficiently effective to relieve him of the whole of his legal liability in the matter. 624
In a letter of the 17th of April to the Colonial
Secretary at Hong Kong, Capt.Taylour said that, if
his request for a re-opening of this case were
refused by the Secretary of State, he would have
the matter brought up in the House of Commons
(last enclosure 27408).
(2) Pension. Capt.Taylour refers to a
grievance, but we do not know what the grievance is.
(3) "The matter of my having been required to
leave my appointment at Hong Kong after receiving
an undertaking that I should not be so required."
We know of no such undertaking. Certainly we are
guiltless, because in 12932/19 we told him he would
only be going back for a year. Possibly he refers to
the incident mentioned in gir E.Stubbs' letter
28973/20 when the Executive Council would not
recommend his being retired. But if anyone gave
en undertaking he had better produce it. I Am Bure
sir E.Stubbs would not be likely to do so - he doe
not speak of the gallant officer in flattering
teras.
(4) "The short payment to me by the Crown
Agents of my salary during the war wounting to
some hundreds of pound”.“ Capt.Taylour was
allowed to serve in the Navy during the war on the
usual terms i.e. he was granted a "Colonial
allowance" to make up the amount of his naval pay
(without allowances) to the amount of his Colonial
salary.
F
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.