off desp
230 of 22nd Left: 1892 [M 15879/4]
"in that paragraph the word "remitting" is a clerical error for "receiving". As the context shows, Lord Ripon sees no reason for reconsidering that decision, the words in 1890 quoted by Z.A. will in future draw leave salaries to cover the whole service of an officer's future in any capacity in Hong Kong. The later words quoted by him were meant rather to deal with cases of officers promoted from one office to another, not receiving any increase of pay in 1890.
If M. Ackroyd's claim were admitted, M. Lawrie, P. Judge in Ceylon, ought to be allowed a similar right of going back to the 2p rate; for he formerly held an office which got the 20 percent rise, & so got his leave salary at 1/10=, but has since been promoted to a post, P. Judge, which did not get the 20 percent rise.
I agree that M. Ackroyd should not be given what he asks, but on paper he can make out a good case for himself. The real reason for not giving him what he wants is that the receipt of very substantial emoluments on promotion from Registrar to Puisne Judge is tantamount to entering the service under new conditions, and he cannot, having been given an increase of salary on being elevated to a higher position, yet claim his old privileges.
As to cases of the kind, because no increase was made to the Puisne Judge's salary, I should decline without hesitation. Therefore, leave out the part of M. Johns' minute which I have put in brackets.
CPS 5 June 97
Page 614
Daftaue
Page 614 appears to be a page numbering notation and is kept as is.
is removed as per rule 12. The corrected output is as follows:off desp
230 of 22nd Left: 1892 [M15879/4]
"in that paragraph the word "remitting" is a clerical error for "receiving". As the context shows, Lord Ripon sees no reason for reconsidering that decision, the words in 1890 quoted by Z.A. will in future draw leave salaries to cover the whole service of an officer's future in any capacity in Hong Kong. The later words quoted by him were meant rather to deal with cases of officers promoted from one office to another, not receiving any increase of pay in 1890.
If M. Ackroyd's claim were admitted, M. Lawrie, P. Judge in Ceylon, ought to be allowed a similar right of going back to the 2p rate; for he formerly held an office which got the 20 percent rise, & so got his leave salary at 1/10=, but has since been promoted to a post, P. Judge, which did not get the 20 percent rise.
I agree that M. Ackroyd should not be given what he asks, but on paper he can make out a good case for himself. The real reason for not giving him what he wants is that the receipt of very substantial emoluments on promotion from Registrar to Puisne Judge is tantamount to entering the service under new conditions, and he cannot, having been given an increase of salary on being elevated to a higher position, yet claim his old privileges.
As to cases of the kind, because no increase was made to the Puisne Judge's salary, I should decline without hesitation. Therefore, leave out the part of M. Johns' minute which I have put in brackets.
CPS 5 June 97
Page 614
Daftaue