[
    {
        "id": 205972,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1970",
        "page_number": 52,
        "title": "RAS-1970",
        "content_text": "HONG KONG CADETS, 1862 - 1941\n\n47\n\nrelieved by H. E. Wodehouse until January 1890, resuming duties until June, when Wodehouse again acted until the end of the year. Mitchell-Innes was then appointed Treasurer on January 1, 1891, and in 1893 defalcations were discovered in the Treasury. During Mitchell-Innes' term of office, F. H. May acted for him during a six months' leave of absence. Throughout this period 1888-1892, one Alves, first Clerk in the Treasury, had been systematically embezzling crown rents paid to him as shroff for the Department. Alves was sentenced to six years imprisonment with hard labour. It seems that he had been, like many others, caught up in a tide of building speculation, and had lost most of the stolen money, amounting to $67,817, a large sum in those days.46\n\nThe fact that the defalcations occurred in the Treasury and went unnoticed by several heads of department - Lister, Wodehouse, May and Mitchell-Innes - caused a great stir in Government and in the Colony. Lister had died in 1890, and before he died he had been given a bond of $10,000 for the faithful discharge of his duties, so that only Wodehouse, May and Mitchell-Innes were called upon by Sir William Robinson, the Governor, to show cause why they should not be held pecuniarily responsible for the sums embezzled by Alves. Each of the officials replied in his own way and attempted, naturally, to exculpate himself. The Governor mildly censured Wodehouse and May but concluded that Mitchell-Innes had continuously neglected the duties of his office, especially as his was a substantive post but theirs had been merely acting posts in addition to their regular duties in other departments. A confidential despatch was sent to the Secretary of State, the Marquis of Ripon, setting out the facts of the case. Ripon replied that 'the officer to whom the heaviest amount of blame must be attributed is unquestionably Mr. Mitchell-Innes, and I regret to observe that he has not improved his position by the tone and temper of his defence'. Ripon concluded: 'I must mark my sense of his shortcomings, by directing that, as a condition of his remaining in the public service, he be required to pay into the Colonial Treasury a fine of $1,000... and that as he has not justified his selection for the headship of a department in Hong Kong, it will be necessary for me to arrange, if possible, his transfer to another Colony. But such transfer will not mean a promotion, but I trust that...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205973,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1970",
        "page_number": 53,
        "title": "RAS-1970",
        "content_text": "48 \n\nH. J. LETHBRIDGE \n\nelsewhere and in the discharge of different duties he will gain the confidence of the Government under which he serves, and thus possibly build up a claim to promotion hereafter'.47 Wodehouse and May were also criticised but less severely, and Ripon acknowledge that May, who had already been spotted as a 'coming man', 'showed zeal and capacity in other respects during his short tenure of the office of Treasurer'. \n\nPoor Mitchell-Innes, who was a popular figure in Hong Kong society, did not leave Hong Kong at once. The fine was paid by local subscription and the Chinese petitioned the Secretary of State that he should not be removed from the Colony. The petition was successful and he remained temporarily in the Treasury; but on it becoming known in the Straits Settlements that it was the intention of the Home Government to appoint him to the position of assistant Protector of Chinese in Penang which had become vacant, vigorous opposition on the part of the Straits Settlements authorities was brought to bear, and the intention afterwards abandoned'.48 In 1895 Mitchell-Innes proceeded to England on leave of absence and in 1897 news reached the Colony that he had received appointment as Deputy Governor of a large gaol in the North of England.49 \n\nThe Mitchell-Innes case is instructive. It throws light on administrative practices in Hong Kong at that date and on the scarcity of trained administrative officers. There were only 8 cadets in office in 1893 and these were often shuffled from department to department for short periods of time and expected to master the details of their jobs in a matter of weeks. The tradition of 'omnicompetent generalism' was already believed in by Government and cadets were expected to do all things equally well. Mitchell-Innes was a victim of the system and the tradition. He had been, as the Marquis of Ripon noted, ‘a gentleman who after a comparatively short service had been promoted to a new important position'. The case also throws light on the influence the Chinese notables could exercise on certain occasions: their plea was listened to and as a consequence Mitchell-Innes continued to act as Treasurer for a further two years. Mitchell-Innes is also unique in that he is the only cadet out of the eighty-five appointed to be sacked, for all intents and purposes, from Government.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241",
        "rank": 0
    }
]