despatch No. 84 of the 5th ultimo.
2. I should, however, be glad to learn why it is not considered desirable to include the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 281 and section 3 of 18712. The latter enactment, and chiefly prescribes a fee of $150 for the admission of articled clerks.
I have3 are embodied in this Ordinance; and why, in regards section 21, no reference is made in the Attorney General's report to the previous legislation on the subject of admission to practise which is contained in Ordinance
has been rewritten to:despatch No. 84 of the
5th ultimis.
2. I should, however, be glad to
beam why
t is not
Considered dessiable
to include the A finor of sections 17 and 18 of
33 and 34 Vict. c. 28'
the other,
amory ofthe Imperial Auf
the
sections parsian which
That one
3 of 1871. Jobswe
thek
refealianecchei
449
that
cheadhy
enactment, and chundy
prescribes a fee of
$150 for the admission of articled
clerks.
I havet.
!
are
embodied ui this
0rduiance; and
why,
regards sechi 21,
no reference
is made in
the Attorney General's refat to the pasion
bgislation of the subject of admission to
practise which is
contained in
Ordinance
despatch No. 84 of the 5th ultimo.
2. I should, however, be glad to learn why it is not considered desirable to include the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 281 and section 3 of 18712. The latter enactment, and chiefly prescribes a fee of $150 for the admission of articled clerks.
I have to ask why the provisions are embodied in this Ordinance; and why, in regard to section 21, no reference is made in the Attorney General's report to the previous legislation on the subject of admission to practise which is contained in Ordinance
Here is the final output in HTML as requested:despatch No. 84 of the 5th ultimo.
2. I should, however, be glad to learn why it is not considered desirable to include the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 281 and section 3 of 18712. The latter enactment, and chiefly prescribes a fee of $150 for the admission of articled clerks.
I have to ask why the provisions are embodied in this Ordinance; and why, in regard to section 21, no reference is made in the Attorney General's report to the previous legislation on the subject of admission to practise which is contained in Ordinance