3. Jenɩuue
4. I will endeavour to make my points as shortly as possible. I can only see two possible objections to the course suggested by me. The first might be that an officer cannot be held to have earned half-pay leave in a Colony in which he has not yet taken up his appointment. But I would point out that the service of the Federated Malay States, the Straits Settlements, and Hongkong have been specially grouped and have a peculiar and intimate relation to each other.
5. Up to the present, no Hongkong Officer has gone on promotion to the Straits Settlements or the Federated Malay States, but transfers to Hongkong have been frequent, and officers transferred have been most liberally treated by this Colony in the matter of half-pay leave. I myself, having been transferred to Hongkong in September, 1897, after 13 years' service in the Straits, went home on 15 months' leave in March 1898, after only 6 months' service in Hongkong. Since then, Messrs. Kysha, Irving, Lyons, Wolfe, and Cross have all enjoyed, from this Colony, half-pay leave, a considerable portion of which had been earned in the Straits Settlements or Federated Malay States. With all these precedents on one side, I submit that the other side should now have a turn, and that the half-pay leave of a Hongkong officer transferred to the Straits Settlements should now be borne by the latter Colony.
There is a second objection that might be made, namely, that unless the whole salary of the Puisne Judge was available, it would not be possible to make arrangements for the due performance in Singapore of Mr. Smith's duties during his absence on leave. I think, however, there may have been some misconception on this point. The circumstances, as I understand them from...