ants. When Mr. Hazeland was some distance in front, he met
three or four Chinamen, one of whom accosted him in English.
When turning round to acknowledge the salutation , another
Chinaman , -who with the others had jumped from behind
a tree when Mr. Hazeland was coming along- made a blow at
his head with a sword, and, in attempting to ward off this, Mr.
Hazeland's thumb was nearly severed from his hand . Another
stroke caused a tremendous gash on the back of his head and
stretched him senseless on the ground. Other wounds were in-
flicted and his gold watch and chain, hat, and other things were
taken away. Mr. Stace came up before the villains had retired
any distance, but unfortunately he had only three shots in his
revolver, and as the men waved their swords and appeared
ready to fight, he judged it best to act only on the defensive,
and allowed them to retire . With great difficulty Mr. Haze-
land was supported on horseback down to town and taken to the
Seamen's Hospital, where he lay for several weeks in a preca-
rious condition . On the 4th June Government offered a re-
ward of $ 100 for the apprehension and conviction of the robbers,
and a free pardon to any one engaged in the commission of the
robbery, other than the person or persons who inflicted the vio-
The ruffiaus lence . The ruffians, however, were never brought to justice.
never
brought to On the 25th June, a Chinaman was arrested on suspicion and
justice. charged with the murderous assault, but there being no evidence
against him, Mr. Hazeland , moreover, being short-sighted and not
having recognized him , he was brought before the Magistrate and
discharged. Another Chinaman named Ashing, against whom
a charge of conspiracy regarding the assault had also been entered ,
after being remanded several times, was also discharged on the
8th July, for want of evidence.
Paper by
Mr. Anstey
on slavery A very interesting paper on slavery, being a critical review of
and the
Dred Scott the speech of Senator Benjamin upon the Dred Scott decision,
decision. was, on the 13th June, written by Mr. Anstey. This paper
LEGISLATION . 479
though not meant for publication , many years after found its Chap. XXI ,
way into the press. * 1858.
The Legislature, on the 15th June, passed Ordinance No. 10 Ordinance
No. 10 of
of 1858 , making it lawful for the Governor to substitute penal 188.
servitude for transportation until suitable places to which offen-
ders could be transported should be appointed .
* See Hongkong Daily Press, 26th September, 1873.
480
CHAPTER XXII .
1858 .
Vigorous movement for the amalgamation of the two branches of the legal profession.
-The merchants and bankers memorialize the Attorney-General. -The origin of the
memorial for amalgamation. - Motion of the Attorney-General in the Legislative Council.
-Memorial read and ordered to be printed. -The Hongkong Law Society memorialize
the Chief Justice and the Governor- in-Council against amalgamation. -The memorial to
the Chief Justice.-The memorial to the Governor-in-Council. The Chief Justice pre-
sents the memorial of the Hongkong Law Society to the Council.- The Governor lays
on the table the draft of ' An Ordinance for Practitioners in Law ' .- Discussion upon the
memorial and as to Mr. Parsons having been deputed by the Hongkong Law Society to
represent them. Exorbitant charges of the lawyers discussed. - The Governor and Mr.
Anstey upon the Chinese.--The Ordinance for practitioners in Law.-The Hongkong Law
Society heard in Council. - First occasion on which press reporters attend the Legislative
Council. The whole Colony calls for amalgamation. -The local press upon the subject.—
Meeting of the Legislative Council upon the amalgamation question. - Mr. Parsons dis
owned by the Hongkong Law Society, and ordered to withdraw from the Council.-
Denial of certain attorneys as to Mr. Parsons representing them.-The Council declare
the petition a fraud upon its privileges.-Correspondence relative to Mr. Parsons' conduct
and the alleged petition from the Law Society and his having been deputed to represent
it.-The Governor's remarks upon the enormous charges imposed upon the Chinese.—
Resolution on motion of Chief Justice that Chinese be notified in Government Gazette
that bills of costs are taxable.-Mr. Anstey and Ordinance No. 13 of 1856. -Ordinance
No. 12 of 1858 for Practitioners in Law ' passed. The outcome.- Mr. Anstey renews his
application for Police protection.- The Governor's reply.-Mr. Anstey addresses the
Secretary of State and alludes to the constables allowed to Mr. Caldwell.-Rules and orders
of the Legislative Council of 6th April, 1843, re-published.-Rules and orders of 7th March,
1858, rescinded.-- Mr. Anstey states in the Legislative Council that the Registrar-General's
office is a sinecure. - Pawnbrokers attempt a demonstration, considering their licences exor-
bitant. -Police warning as to increased watchfulness by residents necessary.-- Caution as
to walking or residing far away from town. Night passes. Hours reduced . - Condition of
affairs in Hongkong consequent upon relations with China.- Hostile action of the Chinese
and others. Artisans leave the island .-- Stoppage of supplies of provisions. Food at famine
prices.- Police inefficiency. The residents memorialize the Governor and ask for prompt
remedy.-The Straits Guardian on the condition of the Police Force.-- The memorial of
the community. The reply of the Governor as to measures taken for the protection ofthe
Colony.-Proclamation announcing Treaty of Peace between England and China and
requiring obedience to law and good behaviour on the part of the Chinese inhabitants.
Chap. XXII.
A VIGOROUS movement, more important than that recorded in
Vigorous
movement January last,* again set in at this period for the amalgamation
for the
amalgama- of the two branches of the legal profession . The Hongkong
tion of the merchants and bankers in a body decided upon memorializing
two branches
of the legal the Attorney- General upon the subject, not aware, however, at
profession. the time, that they had a precedent in the Charter of the Straits
The mer-
chants and Settlements' Court of Judicature, which recognized only one
bankers class of practitioners . On the 10th May a petition signed by
memorialize
the At- the most influential residents
Mr. Anstey, of which the following was isaccordingly
a copy : - forwarded to
torney.
General.
Victoria, Hongkong, 10th May, 1858.
Honourable T. CHISHOLM ANSTEY, Esq.,
Attorney- General, etc., etc. , etc.
Sir,-We, the undersigned , do ourselves the honour of addressing you, the
law officer of the Crown, for the purpose of drawing your attention to the
* Antè Chap. XX. § II.. pp. 455-460,
COMMUNITY ASK FOR AMALGAMATION OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION . 481
distinction (unnecessary as it appears to us) existing between barristers and Chap. XXII.
-
solicitors in this Colony. Whatever may be the custom at Home in this 1858.
respect, we think that a great benefit would result to us and our fellow-
citizens, were an amalgamation effected between the two branches of the legal
profession here, and should you feel disposed to concur in our views, we
trust that you will take such steps as may seem to you best adapted to carry
out our wishes.
We do not desire this change on account of the expenses attending legal
proceedings, as we know they must necessarily be high in this place ; but we
can see no sufficient reason why we should be compelled to employ two
advisers when it would be much more convenient for us to confide the whole
of the law matters to one. The conviction has long been gaining on us that,
in a young and small community like ours, there should be but one class of
practitioners, and that unrestricted competition between all the properly
admitted members of the Supreme Court would be a great improvement on
the existing state of things.
We have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient servants,
Dent & Co. Gibb, Livingston & Co.
Lyall, Still & Co. D. N. Mody & Co.
Birley & Co. [A signature in Parsee.]
Turner & Co. Dhurumsey Poonjabhoy.
For Mercantile Bank- [A signature in Parsee.]
John Costerton, Manager. Cassumbhoy Nathabhoy & Co.
Siemssen & Co.. Cowasjee Pallanjee & Co.
Blenkin, Rawson & Co. Hormusjee & Rustomjee.
Maxn. Fischer, Supt., P. & O. S. N. Co. Aderjee Sapoorjee.
John Burd & Co. C. S. Lungrana & Co.
p. pro Phillips, Moore & Co., R. Ruttunjee & Co.
P. Cohen. David Sassoon, Sons & Co.
Neave, Murray & Co. Judah & Co.
Lindsay & Co. B. C. Bhabha.
Wm. Pustau & Co. Lane, Crawford & Co.
P. & D. N. Camajee & Co. p. pro Bowra & Co.,
Eduljee Framjee, Sons & Co. W. Harding.
Augustine Heard & Co. Smith & Brimelow.
Fletcher & Co. F. Woods.
De Silver & Co. For Commercial Bank of India ---
Samuel Woodruff. Henry Rutter, Agent .
Thomas Hunt & Co. G. Duddell.
Gilman & Co. G. Harper & Co.
R. McGregor & Co. MacEwen & Co.
A. Shortrede & Co. Russell & Co.
D. Lapraik. W. H. Wardley & Co.
Edwards & Bulley . Vaucher Frères.
P. Campbell,
Manager, Oriental Bank Corporation.
As to the origin of this petition or the manner in which , it is of
Thetheorigin
alleged , it was got up, the records hereafter will show. * memorial for
amalgama-
tion.
At a meeting of the Legislative Council held on the 25th Motion of the
Attorney-
* See Vol. 11., Chap. XXXVII.
482 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXII . May, the Attorney- General brought up and read the following
1858. motion in connexion with the foregoing prayer :-
General
in the " The Attorney- General, —To present a memorial addressed by fifty-one
Legislative mercantile and trading firms of Hongkong to himself, as the Law Officer of
Council,
Her Majesty, on the distinction existing between the two branches of the
legal profession here, and recommending an amalgamation between them ;
to call attention to the same, and to move that it be printed for general
information."
Memorial On the question being put and passed, the memorial was read
read and
ordered to be and ordered to be printed. Mr. Lyall stated that he would,
printed. before the next meeting, send to the Clerk of Councils a notice
of motion for submission to the Council , on the subject matter
The Hong- of the memorial . In the meantime, considering their interests
kong Law
Society at stake, certain attorneys of the place without having, however,
memorialize
the Chief the full sanction of the whole of their body as constituted by
Justice the Hongkong Law Society, through the Secretary of the Society ,
and the
Governor-in- presented memorials both to the Chief Justice and to the
Council Governor-in- Council against the proposed amalgamation , con-
against
amalgama- sidering it unfair and prejudicial to themselves.
tion.
The memorial The following was the memorial presented to the Chief Jus-
to the Chief
Justice. tice on the 5th June : -
To the Honourable JOHN WALTER HULME, Esq.,
ChiefJustice of the Colony of Hongkong.
THE HUMBLE MEMORIAL OF THE HONGKONG
LAW SOCIETY.
We, your memorialists, look to Your Lordship, as the common head of both
branches of the legal profession , to protect us against an insidious attempt,
now being made, to deprive us of our just rights and privileges, under the
specious pretext of the amalgamation of the two branches, thereby pretend-
ing to give to us equal advantages and position with the barristers.
None in this Colony knows so well as Your Lordship the reasons for the
division of the profession into barristers and attorneys, and the advantage
gained to the community thereby, and that the assistance which the Court
expects, and so often receives , from the learning and research of an intelli-
gent bar, and which could not be expected from the legal education of an
attorney, is not lightly to be disregarded.
Your Lordship, in the discussion of points of law before you, would hard-
ly lose sight of the fact, that an attorney was addressing you in one case, and
a barrister in another, and however desirous you might be to give a fair and
equal attention to the arguments of each, it would be more than could be ex-
pected of humanity that you should pay equal regard to them.
We conceive that an amalgamation would be very prejudicial and unfair to
us, and of no advantage to the community, who, not regarding expense, may
have all they can desire under the present system.
We beg leave to hand to Your Lordship, for presentation to the Legislative
Council, the accompanying petition, which more fully expresses our views,
THE HONGKONG LAW SOCIETY AGAINST AMALGAMATION. 483
and we humbly request Your Lordship to give such effect to the prayer there- Chap. XXII .
of in the Legislative Council, as Your Lordship may deem just and equitable.
1858.
-We have the honour to be, Your Lordship's obedient servants,
THE HONGKONG LAW SOCIETY,
By their Secretary,
EDWARD K. STACE ,
5th June, 1858.
The memorial to the Governor and the Legislative Council Thememorial
was of a different nature altogether. It sounded more like an to the
Governor-in-
alarm than anything else, and in their attempt to upset the Council.
movement the attorneys outstepped the bounds of truthfulness.
They asserted that the heads of the mercantile and other firms.
who signed the memorial for amalgamation had done so in
ignorance of the subject and principally because two members
of the Legislative Council had signed it first ;-that no complaint
had been made against the attorneys' branch of the profession,
which in itself was a gross perversion of facts , as this memorial
had been got up principally owing to complaints against the
lower branch of the profession ; * -also that the memorial origi-
nated in a hostile spirit with a view to benefit the members of
the bar. The memorialists further denied the competency of
the Colonial Government to effect the change asked for, and
ended by asking for a Committee of Inquiry.
The following was the petition , said to have been drawn up
by Mr. Parsons, the leading spirit in the matter : -
To His Excellency Sir Jonx BOWRING,
Governor ofHongkong, and its Dependencies, etc., etc., etc.,
in Legislative Council.
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE HONGKONG KONG
LAW SOCIETY
Sheweth,-
That in The Government Gazette, of the twenty-ninth of May, one thousand
eight hundred and fifty-eight, a memorial was published, purporting to have
been signed by fifty-one mercantile and trading firms of Hongkong, address-
ed to the Attorney- General , in which an opinion was expressed that the dis-
tinction between barristers and solicitors in this Colony was unnecessary, and
that great benefit would result to the memorialists, and their fellow-citizens,
were au amalgamation to be effected between the two branches of the legal
profession here. And further stating, that they did not desire the change on
account of the expenses attending legal proceedings, as they knew they must
be necessarily high in this place, but that they could see no sufficient reason
why they should be compelled to employ two advisers, when it would be
much more convenient for them to confine the whole of their law matters to
one, and that the conviction had been long gaining on them, that in a young
and small community like ours, there should be but one class of practitioners,
and that unrestricted competition between all the properly-admitted members
of the Supreme Court, would be a great improvement on the existing state
of things.
*
See antè Chap. XX. § II ., p. 454 , and references there given.
484 HISTORY OF THE LAWS, ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXII. That no reasons are given in the memorial, except the convenience of con-
-
1858. fidin g law matters to one adviser, and the inability of the memorialists to
perceive any sufficient reason for a state of things which has existed in Eng-
land at least ever since the time of King Henry the Third, and has been
found convenient and beneficial wherever the British laws prevail, and under
which the memorialists , if they do not regard the expense, as they assert, can
have all the convenience which they desire.
That your petitioners are at a loss to understand the conviction of the me-
morialists, that in a young and small community there should be but one class
of practitioners , when it is borne in mind that in such a young and small com-
munity there has been introduced, under the auspices of the present Attorney-
General, and there is now in full operation, all the technical, artificial, and
complicated machinery of the law as existing at Home, with the addition of
the numerous local laws which the position of this Colony has rendered ne-
cessary .
That the memorialists appear to have overlooked the fact, that in England
there is not only the distinction of barrister and attorney and solicitor, but
that the subdivision between barrister and barrister in different branches of
the law is as distinct as between barrister and attorney. There are the Com-
mon Law barrister, the Equity Draughtsman , the Conveyancing Counsel,
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency and Criminal Law Counsel, and the Advocate
of the Admiralty Court, and again there are special pleaders and convey
aucers, who, not being counsel, relieve them of some of their most difficulty
duties.
That the attornies, solicitors, and proctors are the general practitioners, who
are not expected to possess profound knowledge of any particular branch of
law, but to have a general knowledge of all, and to be expert in collecting
and arranging facts with a view to the application of the law to them in
every branch, which latter duty devolves on the barrister.
That there
has been no public demonstration or expression of opinion ,
other than the above mentioned , -no complaint has been made against your
petitioners ' branch of the legal profession , and your petitioners have been in-
formed , and have good reason to believe, that the memorial emanated from
two individuals only , and that by means of house to house solicitation , and
friendly persuasion , several of the memorialists were induced to subscribe the
memorial , in the belief that the solicitors of Hongkong were favourable to
the amalgamati , and many who could know nothing of the effect of the
on
proposed change, added their names for the simple reasoir that others had
sigued before them , and your petitioners affirm that such memorial is no
reasonable or intelligent reflection of the matured opinion of any part of the
community possessing competent informatio on the subject upon which they
n
solicit the interference of the Legislature, and that, moreover , but few of them
have law business of any magnitude to transact .
That your petitioners submit , that even if such memorial were a bonáfide
exposition of the sentiments of the community, it was, having regard to he
want of representation in the Colony, an unconstitutional course to adopt,
with a view to such an important legislative measure as the destruction.
of the relative distinctions between barristers and solicitors, without reason
or evidence, and without regarding the rights of those most interested in the
question, and your petitioners humbly but firmly remonstrate against the fact,
that two members of the Legislative Council were the first to sign a memo-
rial to the Attorney-General, himself a member of the Council, and not a
disinterested person in the present question, to solicit an alteration which they
themselves would , in their legislative capacity, be called upon to make,—the
signatures of those two members of the Legislative Council being, as your
THE HONGKONG LAW SOCIETY AGAINST AMALGAMATION. 485
petitioners assert, the principal, if not sole cause, of the signatures which Chap. XXII.
--
followed, and tending materially to influence other members of the Council. 1858.
That bearing in mind the fact, that the barrister in this Colony has to un-
dertake advising in every branch of the law, your petitioners submit that the
necessity for a division of the profession is greater here than in England, and
that the advocacy of " unrestricted competition " in legal knowledge between
barrister and attorney, in the circumstances above detailed, merely shows
that those who advocate it have not made themselves competent to form a
judgment on the subject.
That your petitioners believe the memorial to have originated in a spirit
hostile to their branch of the profession, -covertly supported by certain mem-
bers of the bar, and the real object of the memorialists is to benefit those
members of the bar at the expense of your petitioners, -a real and complete
amalgamation being, as your petitioners submit, simply impossible, and an
imaginary one, being destructive of the rights and privileges of your petition-
ers, to which they are entitled in exchange for their disabilities, the super-
vision by the Courts in which they practise of their conduct and charges, and
a laborious and expensive training.
That your petitioners doubt the competency of a Colonial Government to
make the change proposed, but they humbly submit that, before any attempt
should be made at legislation on the subject, your Honourable Council should
appoint a Committee to take evidence, before which Committee the persons
who signed the memorial, and others could be examined , and state their
views and grievances, and your petitioners might be allowed to defend them-
selves against that which is intended to cause destruction to their branch of
their profession, without giving them any compensation, and deprive them of
the undoubted right of every Briton, that of being heard before being con-
demned .
That, as an additional reason for proceeding with all caution in such a
proposed change, your petitioners would beg respectfully to call the attention
of the Council to the fact that, in Canada, where an amalgamation of the pro-
fession nominally, although not really, exists, a call is being made at the
present time for a distinct separation of the two branches.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the said memorial and this
petition may be referred to an independent Committee or Commission
to take evidence, and report thereon , before any attempt be made to
legislate on the subject of the memorial. And your petitioners in
duty bound will ever pray, etc.
THE HONGKONG LAW SOCIETY,
By their Secretary,
EDWARD K. STACE,
The Chief
5th June, 1858. Justice
presents the
memorial
On the 10th June, the Chief Justice by leave presented the of the
foregoing memorial to the Council, which, after having been read, Hongkong
was ordered to be printed . On the same day the Governor tothe
laid on the table the draft of " An Ordinance for Practitioners Council.
in Law " which was read a first time. The Council then ad- The Governor
lays on the
journed to the 12th June. On that day, after the minutes of table the
draft of ' An
the last meeting had been read and approved , the Attorney- Ordinance
General remarked that notice of the most important part of a for Practi-
tioners
note from Mr. Cooper Turner had been omitted in the minutes . in Law."
486 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap. XXII, The Governor read some correspondence which had taken
1858. place with regard to Mr. Parsons having been deputed by the
Hongkong Law Society to represent them before the Council.
Discussion A letter from Mr. Parsons was read, stating that, although
upon the
memorial the printed accounts of what he had said to the Council were
and as to pretty correct, they were not altogether so ; that Mr. Woods
Mr. Parsons
having been had stated to Mr. Gaskell the same reason for signing the
deputed petition as to himself, viz. , that it was because he had seen the
by the
Hongkong names of so many great houses down , and that Mr. Woodruff
Law Society assigned the same reason . A letter from Mr. Cooper Turner
to represent
them. was read to the effect that he had read the memorial of the
Hongkong Law Society hurriedly, and returned it accompanied
with a note, stating he thought it would do, with one or two
Exorbitant exceptions - the letter not stating what exceptions. Discussion
charges
of the followed with regard to the exorbitant charges of lawyers in
lawyers Hongkong, and instances were cited in which Europeans had in-
discussed .
terested themselves in Chinese cases, and had got their bills
taxed -one case, where the charge was reduced from $250 to $ 70.
The Governor The Governor stated that he felt for the Chinese who had to
and Mr.
Anstey pay so exorbitantly, and called upon the Council to assist him
upon the in making the law as cheap as possible.
Chinese.
The Attorney - General remarked, that he formerly wished to
introduce a wholesale system of taxing, by which, if a lawyer's
bill, when taxed , should exceed the scale by one- sixth, he should
forfeit his fees, and have to pay all costs ; and that it was the
abominable cowardice of the Chinese which prevented thei
from taking advantage of the present system.
Mr. Jardine proposed that an advertizement should be inserted
in The Government Gazette, concerning the taxing of lawyer's fees.
The Ordi- The Governor then put the question that the Ordinance “ for
nance for Practitioners in Law " do pass.
Practitioners
in Law.
(Ayes. 8 ) (Noes. 2 )
Mr. Dent.
Mr. Lyall. Chief Justice.
Mr. Jardine. Colonial Treasurer.
Surveyor - General.
Chief Magistrate .
Attorney- General .
Acting Colonial Secretary .
Lieutenant - Governor.
The Hong- At the adjourned meeting of Council on the 15th June, the
kong Law Chief Justice moved , seconded by the Attorney- General , and it
Society
heard in was carried unanimously, -" that on the question for the second
Council.
reading of the ' Ordinance for Practitioners in Law,' the Hong-
kong Law Society be heard personally or by counsel ; and
MR. PARSONS UPON THE PROPOSED AMALGAMATION. 487
that the Council then receive such evidence as the petitioners Chap. XXII,
may then produce in support of their petition . " 1858.
Accordingly, on the 24th June, the Council met pursuant to Firstsion on
occa-
adjournment. It was the first time , since the date of its consti- which press
tution , that the Legislative Council was attended by members reporters
attend the
of the Press. The Governor being absent on account of ill- health, Legislative
Council.
a letter was handed to the Council by the Lieutenant- Governor ,
written by Sir John Bowring, requesting that in his absence
the chair should be taken by Colonel Caine, the Lieutenant-
Governor, which was accordingly acted upon. The following
is a condensed report of the proceedings in Council relating to
the discussion which took place on the question of the amalga-
mation of the two branches of the legal profession when Mr.
Parsons was heard on behalf of the Law Society. The discus-
sion is also of interest as showing that at this period the Court
had, as yet, no library worthy of the name, if at all, and that
Government made no contribution towards one, although some
years back, Chief Justice Hulme had started a law library by
presenting some of his own valuable books. *
" The minutes of the last Council were then read. This day being appointed
for taking the evidence on the amalgamation of the branches of the legal
profession, Messrs. Parsons, Hazeland, and Stace were present in support of
the Hongkong Law Society, ' and at the suggestion of the Attorney- General
were permitted to be heard.
Mr. Parsons said that he had been deputed to speak for the Law Society
on this occasion, and as he had had no notice whatever of this meeting, he
felt himself in an awkward position, as he had not yet been able to give any
time for preparations he might have wished to make. As no one was present
either to take their evidence, or to report that evidence, they were under
many disadvantages. He was called on to defend his profession, and as he
considered the motion in contemplation was most unconstitutional, he simply
asked a fair hearing. The public were about to take away his life , for they
were going to do what was as bad , take away his means of livelihood, and to
destroy his prospects entirely, and the object was merely to substitute barris-
ters for attorneys. It was true that the Council had been memorialized on
the subject, but in what way was the memorial got up ? He would go through
the memorial. The amalgamation had been moved by Mr. Douglas Lapraik
and Mr. Edwards, and Mr. Douglas Lapraik and Mr. Dixson, of The China
Mail, had carried it about for signature. The names of many firms appeared ,
whereas, in most instances, only individuals were actually meant. In the
multitude of councillors there is safety.' The memorialists seek to reverse
that maxim . He usually sent his clients to counsel for that reason, and never
objected to their seeing each other. He had introduced them to counsel so
frequently that if the amalgamation should occur he should lose all his clients .
The attorneys had actually taught their clients to think the barristers better
than themselves. Then counsel were admitted into society from which
attorneys were excluded [ sic ]. What will result ? Why personal friend-
ships have sprung up, and if the amalgamation occurs the bar will get all the
business. The idea of fusion was absurd. But this measure went further
still. It actually usurped the functions of His Grace the Archbishop of Can-
terbury. It makes an attorney a notary.
* See antè Chap. VIII. § I., p. 161.
Now a favourite quotation with Mr. Parsons. See antè Chap. XX. § 11., p. 458,
488 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXII. [The Attorney-General denied this. ]
--
1858. Mr. Parsons said if documents went Home, and the notary's name were
not on record there, they were worth nothing.
[The Attorney- General asked how that would affect foreign tribunals ?]
Mr. Parsons doubted the power of a Colonial Government to affect them.
The measure should have emanated from Home. It was not competent for
the Council to deal with it. Besides, the memorial assigned no reasous for the
measure. As far back as the reign of Henry III., there was a law which
spoke of attorneys, and in the reign of Henry IV. there was a law making
an examination for an attorney imperative. It showed what an ancient class
of men attorneys were, and surely men of such high standing should not be
lost sight of, without some better grounds than simply the instigation of a
class of ignorant men.
[ The Attorney- General.- When the Colony was first established any one
was allowed to practise as an attorney in the absence of legitimate practi-
tioners. ] *
Mr. Parsons continuing :-They had no right whatever to starve any
member ofhis profession. The house of Mr. D. Lapraik was the rendezvous
of all gossiping gentlemen. The gentlemen, who were the principal movers
in this amalgamation, had been cunning enough to keep their names away
from the head of the list, knowing that, when seen, it would instantly con-
demn them ; but although this had been done, they had not been wise enough
to separate their names. He thought, as any person else would think, that
the order of signature would have had some reference to the locality of those
signing ; but on looking down the list about half-way would be seen (all
together) the names of Mr. Douglas Lapraik, Messrs. Edwards & Balley,
and A. Shortrede & Co. , the latter signed by Mr. Dixson, who perhaps was
not aware that his partner was altogether opposed to such a step as this
amalgamation . He could not suppose that Messrs. Dent, to whom he was
standing solicitor, intended to abolish him, although their names appeared at
the heading of this sham list. He had made it his business to ask all he met
why they had signed this, and went as far as to ask some passengers he occa-
sionally met in the steamers the same question.
There were two parties who had signed the memorial, and he very much
questioned their right so to do ; one, Mr. Cohen, in the absence of Phillips ,
Moore, & Co., and an assistant of Messrs. Bowra & Co. The memorial was
signed without any reason by those who signed it.
(The Chief Magistrate then asked Mr. Parsons, if he meant to infer that
the firms who had signed this memorial had done so, not believing all the
while in what they were signing. Give us some palpable case, said Mr.
Davies, and then we shall better understand you.)
Mr. Parsons replied by doing so instanter, and commenced with the firm of
Messrs. Pustau & Co. Mr. Brodersen, their representative, merely said he
did not know that the attorneys were opposed to it, and he had signed because
the other principal firms had done so, and on explaining the matter, Mr.
Brodersen proved entirely ignorant of the whole affair. With reference to
Messrs. Birley & Co., he asked the representative of that firm why he had
signed it ; why he had signed in fact his (Mr. Parson's) death warrant ?
The answer was, " why don't you have all the same charges," or something
to that effect ?
Mr. Parsons brought another case forward : he had asked Mr. Woods
why he had signed it. " Oh," said he, " I saw so many great names
already down, I put mine down too, as I do not like to be behind hand."
Mr. Gibb, on being asked, said , he was induced to sign the memorial,
* See list of Proctors, Attorneys, etc , infrà, and section 11 of Ordinance No. 6 of
1845. Also antè Chap. III. § 11. p. 74.
MR PARSONS BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL. 489
because he had been led to believe that the attorneys were not opposed to it. Chap. XXII,
-
(The Attorney-General here asked Mr. Parsons to give his authority for this 1858.
statement.)
Mr. Parsons gave Mr. Stace, who, on being asked, said he had heard so,
but not directly from Mr. Gibb.
Dr. Bridges wished to know why the attorneys had not presented a counter
memorial.
Mr. Parsons said they were not aware of a memorial having been drawn
up until they saw it in The Government Gazette, and that the moment they
did see it, they challenged those concerned in it in the very next Government
Gazette to give proof, but that that proof had not been forthcoming. Mr. G.
Duddell, a clear-headed and clever man, told Mr. Cooper Turner that he only
signed it, on the express understanding that Messrs. Jardine should sign it ;
and, moreover, said that he was entirely opposed to it.
Mr. Parsons continued : -Here we come to somewhere about twenty-four
Parsees. What on the face of the earth can Parsees know about barristers
and attorneys ? How can they know their different distinctions ? We all
know that they are very frngal people, and to say that a Parsee did not look
after his coffers, was equal to saying a Chinaman did not care for a dollar ;
and that this memorial results in the signature of many gentlemen who might
hare known what they were signing, if they had only taken the trouble to
inquire. Even the members of the Council, unless they were those connected
with the legal profession, could not possibly know the relative duties of bar-
rister and attorney. He would reduce the signatures to the English members,
rejecting Parsees, Frenchmen, Americans, and such like, and then what
would it come to, as these parties could not be supposed to know much about
the English legal distinctions. * Mr. Parsons here expressed his opinion ,
that the case ought to be referred to a Committee, chosen expressely for the
purpose, and composed of disinterested parties.
The Attorney-General asked, who were more proper persons than the
Council.
Mr. Parsons thought that Mr. Anstey, for one, should not form one of the
Committee, as he certainly was not a disinterested party.
The Attorney-General here moved to the Chairman, that he should put a
stop to such personal allusions to members of the Council, as Mr. Parsons
did not appear there to question what they were doing.
The chair here admonished Mr. Parsons, who apologized for what he had
said, and proceeded.
At this stage of the proceedings a conversation arose, from an observation
made by Mr. Parsons, who said that it would cost him a good round sum
yearly to keep up his law library.
The Attorney-General said it only cost him about £ 10 .
Mr. Parsons : " Yes ; but you forget what an excellent library you have in
your head, and therefore do not require so many books. "
The Chief Justice said , his library cost him £70 to keep up per annum.
The Lieutenant-Governor, who had previously complained of indisposition ,
was here obliged to withdraw.
The Chief Justice proposed an adjournment at once “ sine die.”
The Attorney-General moved that a Committee be now formed to continne
the proceedings, and that it do now consist of all the members present.
The Chief Justice opposed it ; the members divided, -all voted " Yes," with
the exception of the Chief Justice, and the motion was carried.
The Attorney-General then moved that the Chief Justice should take the
chair, which was seconded by the Chief Magistrate, and acted upon .
* This impertinent allusion to the Parsees and other ' ignorant residents ' called forth
the most vehement remonstrance from the local press at the time.
490 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap. XXII. Mr. Parsons then proceeded and said, that on account of having had no
time he could not give such satisfactory evidence as he wished , as it was only
1858.
half an hour before attending the Council, that he had been deputed to speak.
Mr. Parsons then brought forward, in a rambling manner, technicalities and
examples.
The Attorney-General here made a lengthy speech concerning attorneys,
etc., in the Reigns of Henry III. and George IV.
Mr. Parsons mentioned a letter he had heard of, which had appeared in
The China Mail, which he had been told was written by Mr. Lapraik, and
thoroughly revised by the Attorney- General.
The Attorney- General, with great warmth, at once denied this accusation,
and said, that whoever said it, it was a scandalous falsehood. He then said ,
and for the last time, that Mr. Parsons should not be allowed to say such
things, and make such personal attacks ; that Mr. Parsons had been warned
of it before.
Mr. Dent here spoke and said, that Mr. Parsons had far exceeded his
license of speech, and that what he said was most scandalous.
The Chief Justice here interposed, and suggested to Mr. Parsons, that he
should confine himself entirely to matters connected with the purpose he was
present for.
The Attorney- General here demanded of Mr. Parsons, the name of the
party who had informed him concerning the letter, and after some little hesi-
tation Mr. Parsons gave the name of Mr. Moresby.
The Attorney-General instantly despatched a note to that gentleman, which,
however, failed in bringing him to the Council Room .
Mr. Parsons then made very ample apologies to the Attorney- General and
other members of the Council, for what he had said. He then proceeded to
read a letter from the Upper Canada Law Journal, showing that a call had
there been made to separate the two branches of the profession.
The Attorney-General then wished to know whether Mr. Parsons had any
evidence to bring forward (except that anonymous letter just read ) in support
of what they stated in their petition, about a ' call ' having been made, to
which Mr. Parsons replied they had not at present, but might be able to do
so if time were given them . Here Mr. Parsons made a long speech concern-
ing Ordinances , etc., and read the oaths that a Notary Public had to take
before the " Archbishop of Canterbury."
The Ordinance concerning " Practitioners in Law" was then gone into
by Mr. Parsons and the Attorney-General.
Mr. Parsons said here, that their prayer simply asked that a Committee be
formed to receive any evidence the " Law Society " may be able to produce ;
should this be denied them, their only alternative will be to petition the
Secretary for the Colonies to reject the Ordinance, so that it should not be
brought to bear upon the attorneys. Mr. Parsons having nothing further to
say, the Committee adjourned till twelve o'clock of Tuesday, the 6th instant.
Before leaving the room, the Attorney-General said, that Mr. Moresby not
having vouchsafed to either answer his (the Attorney-General's) note, or to
appear personally, the slander rests on his head, and that his honour would
not benefit by what had been said ."
At the conclusion of Mr. Parsons ' speech, it was unanimously
resolved that the Committee report progress to the Council, and
the Committee then broke up.
The whole
Colony Certainly the mercantile community were much better judges
calls for of what was best for it in this matter than the interested and
amalgama-
tion. alarmed attorneys, and for once the whole Colony called for the
MR. PARSONS TURNED OUT OF THE COUNCIL ROOM . 491
change. It may not be inappropriate therefore to reproduce Chap . -XXII.
here what was said on the subject by the leading exponent of 1858.
The local
public opinion at the time and which is so much to the point :
press upon
the subject.
"What is there gained by keeping the two branches separate in this place ?
There are no such great demands made on the legal knowledge and acumen
of either branch that either, in order to accomplish its work properly, need
confine itself to its peculiar department. The very alarm of the solicitors is
an indication that the present division is not founded on the requirements of
the Colony, but is only sustained artificially. We are not aware of the nature
of the call ' which is said to be made in Canada for a separation of the two
branches, but it is evident that, as regards the matter in hand, that old co-
lony, with its large cities, cannot be any rule for this, except in so far as it
proves that even an old and populous colony can advantageously dispense
with the separation.
The solicitors advance the supervision of the Courts, in which they prac-
tise, of their conduct and charges as entitling them to exclusive privilege
in their branch of the legal profession. Is this not like a criminal putting
forward the fact of his confinement as entitling him to levy toll on all visit-
ors to the gaol ? When the Court, as it did lately, has to cut down a soli-
citor's charges from $255 to $47 , it is evident that the necessity of this
restriction exists among the solicitors themselves, and that so far from cutit-
ling them to any exclusive privilege, it constitutes a very strong reason why
they should not have any monopoly secured to them.
We have been so sickened with Committees and Commissions of late* that
there is no chance of the petitioners of the Law Society having a Committee
before which they might be allowed to defend themselves, but if such an op-
portunity were given, their memorial and petition would be among the most
damning documents that could be put in against them. "
The Legislative Council re-assembled on the 6th July, Mr. Meeting
Parsons being present, and now came the farce. Mr. Parsons, of the
Legislative
it appeared, had really never been deputed to represent the Council
attorneys as a body, quite apart from the way in which the upon the
amalgama-
memorial alleged to have emanated from the Hongkong Law tionquestion.
Society, was alleged to have been got up , and he now met with
his deserts, being practically turned out of the Council room.
Mr. Parsons
The Attorney - General said that he was prepared to show, disowned
by the
that the Council had been imposed upon at its last meeting ; Hongkong
and he then produced and read a letter from Mr. Cooper Turner, Law Society,
and ordered
saying that Mr. Parsons had not, at any meeting of the Law to withdraw
Society, been deputed by that Society to speak for them in their Council. from the
behalf.
Denial of
certain
His Excellency the Governor then read a letter from Mr. attorneys
as to Mr.
Hazeland, saying he was not a member of the Law Society, and Parsons
denying his concurrence in their petition. representing
them .
* There had been actually two Commissions appointed recently, one to inquire into
the charges against Dr. Bridges, the acting Colonial Secretary, regarding the opium mono-
poly (ante Chap. XXI., p. 472) , and the other still pending (Chap. XXIII., ubi suprà) into
the charges brought by Mr. Anstey against Mr. Caldwell, the Registrar-General,
492 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG.
Chap. XXII. A letter was then read also by His Excellency from Mr.
--
1858. Woods, denying in toto that Mr. Parsons had asked any ques-
tion of Mr. Woods relating to his signature to their petition ,
and denying that he had given the answer ascribed to him.
The Chief Justice reported progress of the proceedings had
at the Committee on the 29th June, and the following account
shows how the petition, alleged to have emanated from the
Hongkong Law Society, was finally dealt with : --
The Governor then inquired of Mr. Parsons, who was in attendance, whe-
ther, having finished his address, he was now prepared to complete the
evidence in support of the petition.
Mr. Parsons stated that, finding himself disowned by the Hongkong Law
Society, he must decline to take any further trouble in the matter.
The Governor then reprehended the conduct of Mr. Parsons, and on the motion
of the Attorney-General, nemine contradicente, he was ordered to withdraw
from the bar.
No other person appearing in support of the petition, or otherwise,
It was moved by Mr. Dent, and seconded by the acting Colonial Secretary, --
" That it appearing that neither the attorneys or solicitors of Hongkong in
general, nor the Hongkong Law Society in particular, authorized Mr. Am-
brose Parsons , one of their number, to appear at the bar of this Council, in
support of a petition purporting to be sigued by Mr. E. K. Stace, for and as
Secretary to the Hongkong Law Society, being the ouly petition which has
been presented against the Ordinance for Practitioners in Law ;
And it further appearing that the said petition did not in fact emanate
from, nor was authorized by, the said Society ;
And it further appearing, that the said attorneys and solicitors in general,
and the said Society in particular, did nevertheless tacitly connive at the said
unauthorized assumptions of the said Messrs. Parsons and Stace, by not re-
pudiating them, nor even protesting against the highly contemptuous and
improper language and tone of the speech made by the said Mr. Parsons at
the bar of this Council in pretended support of the said petition, and in the
name of the said attorneys and solicitors, and of the said Society ;
And lastly it appearing that the parties concerned in the said petition have
not only failed to substantiate any one of its allegations, but have themselves
disproved some of them :
The Council The Council declares the said petition to have been a fraud upon its pri-
declare vileges, and rescinding its former order that the same do lie upon the table,
athe petition determines to proceed to the second reading of the said Ordinance.”
fraud
upon its
privileges.
This done, the Governor stated he would propose the pass-
Correspond-
ence relative ing of the Ordinance at the next meeting of the Council on the
to Mr. At this
Parsons' 12th July. On this date the Council again met.
conduct meeting the following correspond ence was referred to and
and the read :-
alleged
petition
from the (1.) A letter, of the 8th July from Mr. Parsons to the Governor, reiterat-
Law Society ing his assertions, that Mr. Woods stated to himself and Mr. Gaskell, that he
and his
having been signed the memorial for the amalgamation of the two branches of the legal
deputed to profession, because he saw so many names of the principal mercantile houses
represent it . attached to the memorial.
THE CONDUCT OF MR . PARSONS . 493
(2. ) Also , a communication of 8th July, from Mr. Gaskell to Mr. Parsons, Chap. XXII.
corroborating the said assertions, and giving the additional statement as made 1858.
to them by Mr. Woods, that he thought the change would benefit their branch
of the profession .
Read a letter, of the 7th July, from the acting Colonial Secretary calling
upon Mr. Cooper Turner, as Crown Solicitor, for an explanation of the inconsis-
tency between his letter of the 4th June to Mr. Parsons, and that of the 26th
June to the Attorney-General, as well as with the statements made in his
name by the said officer.
(3. ) Reply, of 10th July, from Mr. Cooper Turner, to the following
effect : -" That he was not present at the inception nor at the drafting of the
petition ; that the same was sent to him in a hurried way for his perusal, and
he returned it without considering it much at the moment, with the note
dated 4th June last, -' I think the petition will do well,' there being no ob-
jection whatever to some portions. That in using those words he did not
intend to give an unqualified approval, or debar himself from giving the mat-
ter further consideration or reflection, -for on the same day, or the following
morning, having well considered the matter, he had an interview with the
acting Secretary of the Hongkong Law Society, and stated to him that he dis-
sented, for many reasons , from the petition ; that some of the points were
good, but that if the statements therein could not be proved, it would mili-
tate much against them. That he also expressed his dissent to two of the
profession. That the letter to the Attorney-General, dated 26th June, had
reference generally to the above interview. That with regard to the state-
ments made by the Attorney- General in Council, he could offer no remarks,
as he was not present, nor had he been informed of them. As to the address
of Mr. Parsons to the Council, -that he (Mr. Turner) was not aware that
gentleman was deputed by the Law Society to protect the interests of the
profession, or that there was a meeting called for that special purpose."
Read a letter, of the 9th July , from Mr. Stace, stating, with reference to
the letters from Messrs. Turner and Hazeland, read at the last meeting of
Council, -" That all the members of the Hongkong Law Society concurred
in selecting Mr. Parsons to address the Council in support of the prayer of
their petition. That Mr. Turner promised to accompany Mr. Parsons and
himself to the Council room, but afterwards deputed Mr. Hazeland to attend
in his stead, who " (Mr. Stace remarks) " made no disavowal at the time. "*
(4.) Draft letter, of this date from the acting Colonial Secretary to Mr.
Cooper Turner, acknowledging his letter of the 10th instant, and forwarding
for his explanation copy of Mr. Stace's letter of the 9th instant above re-
ferred to .
(5.) Letter from Mr. Douglas Lapraik to the Clerk of Councils, forwarding
an original communication from Mr. Parsons to himself, dated the 24th
March, 1858, on the subject of his bill of costs and allocatur as attorney for
--
Chinkoo, wherein Mr. Parsons states that Magisterial business is no matter
of taxation ; that he informed Chinkoo that his charge was $25 a day for
attending, and that he agreed to those terms.--That, as there were many
days in which nothing was done, he had charged only $ 15 on those days." The Gov-
ernor's
remarks
After the reading of the above correspondence and in refer- upon the
ence to the last-quoted letter, the Governor remarked upon the ch enormous
arges
necessity of checking the practice still going on of such enorm- imposed
ous charges being imposed upon the Chinese ; and, on the Chinese. upon the
* All this correspondence will be found set out in The Daily Press of the 20th July,
1858 ; see also The Government Gazette, of the 9th October, 1858.
494 HISTORY OF THE LAWS , ETC. , OF HONGKONG .
Chap. XXII. motion of the Chief Justice, it was resolved , that a notification
1858. in the Chinese language be published in The Government Ga-
Resolution zette, announcing to the Chinese that bills of costs are taxable
on motion of
Chief Justice by the Registrar of the Supreme Court as Taxing Master, and
Chinese that they should apply to him when necessary . *
thatnotified
be
in Govern
ment Gazette The Attorney-General then inquired whether the Secretary
that bills of of State, in his despatch conveying the recent confirmation of
costs are
taxable. Ordinance No. 13 of 1856 [ An Ordinance for the admission
Mr. Anstey of candidates to the rolls of practitioners in the Supreme Court
and Ordi- and for the taxation of costs ] , had made any remarks on his
nance No. 13
of 1856. report of the 8th February last, upon the operation of the said
Ordinance, the inference from this question therefore being
that the Government had adopted the course of not commu-
nicating to Mr. Anstey the views of the Home Government as
regards the Ordinances passed by the Legislature, and which , it
will be remembered, had been the cause of an unpleasant scene
between Mr. Anstey and Dr. Bridges in open Court in May,
1857.†
The Governor stated that Lord Stanley had made no remarks
on such report. His Lordship only referred to certain doubts
entertained by his predecessor, but had thought proper to allow
Ordinance
No. 12 of the Ordinance without any change. The Ordinance " for Prac-
1858 • for titioners in Law " was then passed and numbered 12 of 1858.
Practitioners This enactment was neither more nor less than an Ordinance to
in Law'
passed. empower barristers to act as attorneys. The barrister relin-
The outcome. quished none of the privileges except that of being heard in
Court, in the event of a case coming to trial. With the pass-
ing of this Ordinance, ended another of those stirring episodes
for which the year 1858 will ever stand out so prominently in
the annals of Hongkong. §
Mr. Anstey Whilst the inquiry into the amalgamation question was being
renews his
application held by the Council and a Commission actually sitting upon the
for Police
charges , hereinafter referred to, which he had brought against
protection .
Mr. Caldwell, the Registrar- General, Mr. Anstey renewed his
application, of February last, to the Governor for a policeman
for his special protection . ||
* No such Notification appears to have ever been published.
Ante Chap. XVIII., p. 432.
With reference to the conduct of Mr. Parsons, in particular, regarding this matter,
at a meeting of the Legislative Council on the 4th October, the Clerk of Councils read a
letter from Messrs. Cooper Turner and Hazeland, repudiating Mr. Parsons' opposition to
the Ordinance amalgamating the branches of the legal professions, following which a let
ter from Mr. Parsons was read denying that he had been ordered (as was stated in the
proceedings of the Legislative Council published in The Government Gazette of the 9th
October) to quit the bar of the Council room. Following this came a letter from Mr. F.
Woods, complaining that upon the above occasion Mr. Parsons had placed an improper
construction upon a conversation that had occurred between them. See further as to Mr.
Parsons, Chap. XXXI., infrà.
$ Upon the subject of the two professions, sec further Vol. 11. , Chaps. XXXVII ,
XXXVIII., XLIX., LVIII.
See antè Chap. XX. § II . p. 465.
CONDITION OF AFFAIRS IN HONGKONG. 495
On the 18th June the Governor caused Mr. Anstey to be Chap. XXII.
informed that " he could not allow a special policeman to the 1858.
Attorney- General on the groundof his occupying a solitary The Gov-
ernor's
house, with which the Government had nothing to do, but the reply.
Police may be instructed to do what they were able in the distri- Mr. Anstey
bution of their force ." Dissatisfied with this reply, Mr. addresses the