Hon. Colonial Secretary,
I regret that I cannot agree with the statements of the Retrenchment Committee to the effect that since private practice was disallowed to the Attorney-General the work of Acting Attorneys General has been satisfactory to the Government.
I may claim to have been "behind the scenes" for the last 10 years, and my experience is that the appointment of a Barrister in private practice to act as Attorney-General is a most unsatisfactory arrangement. It is of course necessary that one of the leaders of the Bar should be so appointed; it follows that the appointee is a very busy man with a number of important private cases to attend to, and he is obliged therefore to do the Attorney-General's work in odd moments and at great pressure.
The result is that, whilst no doubt urgent matters have been promptly dealt with and skilfully handled, the bulk of the routine work is either postponed or passed on to the Crown Solicitor whose advice is sought on questions which ought certainly to be referred to the Attorney-General.
Further, a busy practising Barrister cannot possibly find the necessary time for drafting Ordinances, and consequently legislation is either postponed or dealt with without sufficient consideration.
So long as the Attorney-General's department is run on its present lines, I am convinced that private practice should not be allowed.
A private barrister is able to advise on many points and to settle many drafts because, in the first case, the facts leading up to the question on which advice is sought are properly digested and laid before him in a case; in the second case, the draft ordinance or other document has been prepared by a properly qualified person who is experienced in such matters.
4.
Rcc
C.O. 24936
547
Rec'd 26 JUL 1923
1.079
60P Y.