C.O. 24936 509 Rece Rage 26 JUL 09
Chambers, Supreme Court, Hongkong, 10th June, 1909.
Sir,
I am honoured by Your Excellency's letter of 26th May in which Your Excellency enquires whether I concur in the recommendation of the Retrenchment Committee that the salary of the Attorney General be reduced from £1,500 to £1,000 per annum, and that that officer be allowed the privilege of private practice. I have the honour to report that I am entirely opposed to it, and consider that it would be most prejudicial to the public service.
I must premise that I base the remarks I have to make on my experience as Law Officer in Mauritius. There a staff of two substitutes, two Crown Prosecutors, a Crown Attorney, and an articled clerk, as well as a large staff of clerks. My hands were full of work from morning till night, and from year's end to year's end, including Saturdays, Sundays, and Public Holidays, and my staff was always very busy. Your Excellency will therefore readily comprehend my inability to understand how one Law Officer, who has only a Crown Solicitor to help him, can have any time for private practice.
If the Attorney General is to be allowed to have private practice, it is to be presumed that he will have a considerable amount. He should be leader of the Bar,
E.Sir Frederick Lugard, K.C.M.G., Governor of Hongkong.