Confidential
policy questions relating to Hong Kong.
There the
matter rested till I had my talk with Roberts.
Roberts began by drawing my attention to the
Colonial Office Saving Despatch No.1564 of 17 August,
1965, in paragraph 2 of which it was suggested that
if the Governor thought that the Bar Association
expected or should be given the Secretary of State's
views they should be informed as follows "The
-
Secretary of State was interested to learn of the
views of the Bar Assocaiton on the matter of appoint-
ments from the Bar to the Supreme Court Bench, but
the Secretary of State cannot, of course, give an
undertaking as to how future vacancies on the Bench
will be filled." Roberts confirmed that a reply
in these terms had been sent to the Association.
Subsequently, in 1968 and 1969, there was correst
pondence between Lord Shepherd and de Basto ending
with Lord Shepherd's letter to de Basto of 23 June,
1969. A copy of that letter was sent to you with
Carter's letter to the Governor of 24 July, 1969.
Subject to the views of those concerned here, I
agreed provisionally with Roberts that any further
letter to de Basto should follow the line taken by
Lord Shepherd in June, 1969. I can now confirm
that it is accepted here that we cannot go further
than this, and if you see no objection, we should
be grateful if a letter could be addressed to de Bastb
in the following terms -
"I am directed to refer to your letter of 7 May
addressed to Sir J. McPetrie in the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office and to say that the views of
the Hong Kong Bar Association on the question of
appointments to the Bench from the Bar have been
/noted
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN