to have been raised when he was afflicted with sickness. But having allowed them to continue to act, without any protection, for a period of four years during which they discharged the duties of the fact in a completely satisfactory manner, it was impossible to refuse to confirm their appointments.
19/8 Mr Lucas & W. Ommanney
Before carrying out the above instructions in the minutes, I venture to submit that this decision will, I fear, cause discontent in the minds of Mr Kemp and other junior members of the Hongkong cadet service, who feel that they have been passed over for an appointment for which they have preferential claims.
It has been laid down that cadets should not be passed over by outsiders. I suggested that if I had seen 186:9/07 at the time, I should have given Mr Kemp a claim to the post of second magistrate, and it ought in fairness to have been given to him.
The argument that Mr Jones, having acted so long, gives him a claim to this appointment, is not valid. The fact that ad hoc appointments are made by the Governor without interference from the Secretary of State, and that it is a well-understood corollary that service in an acting capacity does not give any claim to the permanent post.
When Sir M. Ommanney wrote his minute, he was apparently not aware that I had had no opportunity of objecting to Mr Jones' acting appointment, since his separate appointment had not been reported to us, and we did not know till a few months ago that he had acted continuously for four years.
If, however, Mr Jones is to be confirmed, his confirmation must, I suppose, date back to the time when Mr Hazeland was confirmed as Police Magistrate. This must meet with the Council's approval to pay his full salary at the higher rate of $3,600 during his leave of absence (GR1178/1922/32(III)).