75
in consideration of that concession of
late private practice, or that their private practice was materially restricted by
their public duties.
There is also another
as
Treasury letter of 1872, relative to a Malta Case, which alludes to Dr. Murray's as an "entirely exceptional" case, & maintaining
that the general rule had been applied to the Colonial as to the Imperial service.
On the other hand the Treasury letters in these cases were not always communicated to the Colonies, still less often published there; so that the rule for
many years was understood in many Colonies; we've handled many
exceptions to it; in several Colonies - notably, Malta.
The rule at present is clear though. For the Circular of 12 March 1879, which was issued, said that Treasury practice would be followed except in cases, in which, on special grounds, deviations from that practice had been duly sanctioned. The Circular of 20 Jan 1900 sent out the Regulation in its present form. But Sir A. I entered the H.K. Service in 1868 & the old 97th Regn was not ready to apply it.
On the whole I should be disposed to wish
6592/72
PEL6/
back to the Colony. It appears
that the Hongkong
minute did not appear to contain anything
explicit on the subject, but that in a despatch of 5 May 1862, forwarding the draft of the minute which eventually was issued on that date,
it was made clear that the risk lay at that time.
I was aware of the
general rule in such matters, and that the
Officers specially mentioned in the despatch were to be regarded as exceptions to the rule: that it
to reply would appear to have been
Sent from Hongkong to the Circular of 12 March 1879. I hesitate to make any
that in these cases Sir It. Holland would
further exceptions to the general
rule except in special grounds, but that before declining altogether Mr. Adams' applications, he
would be glad to know what other officers of the Hongkong Govt. were not required to give
their whole time to the public, & whether any
who had entered the service between 1859 & 1879 had been either granted or refused superannuation privileges. [I thought the point had arisen in the case of
the Crown Solicitor, & some subordinates in the Surveyor-General's Department, but cannot trace the papers]. In 1876-89