CO129-447 - Governor Sir May - 1918 [1-3] — Page 166

S

•VIRI,"adot60 .haß (gnozyno¤

COPY.

.1900

M

Enclosure

10.

16079

REC

163

Reat 2 APR 18!

Supreme Court, Hongkong,

27th. December, 1917.

sar,

+Iɗamonoll T

• Yzatomed Iałmolod af.

is rat tot unt to Iglooat anh lon be of FH I

718

„om25kw £899 #13 to #1\0818 at 5 vog metai 03 satikawod yr yď beseerib ma I od medtai yr move to à Agarnaraq at obam adesoemoe old jait vino ton piggs of behanduk ston „VIVI „Jauma bol ads to wor ym to 8 drømnatag ni oë barretan suas ražuoliraq sit of od Tilereneg oila tud taugua bič 6:13 26 rodded a1an$$bus00

•ynodynɔ“ to frwad „merqua eit at aaaao to doubaco ext

(+85 əvad I

*

-TZ83975 06

· TOH

+

I have the honour to revert to Your Excellency's letter of the 4th September, relating to the amalgamation of the two banches of the legal profession and to the extension

of the jurisdiction of the Summary Court.

2.

I note with regret that Your xcellency is not

prepared in the light of the views expressed by both branches

of the profession to entertain sither of the proposals. I

respectfully invite Your Exosllency however to re-consider in

particular the question of extending the jurisdiction of the

Summary Court.

3.

Your Excellency will remember that in an interview,

which you sooorded me before submitting my proposals, I intimated

that any scheme of amalgamation would probably be strongly

opposed by both Counsel and Solicitors alike the opposition of

the Bar in the circumstances fe not unnatural, whilst that of

the Solicitors is mainly directed to the difficulties which would

arise owing to the limited number of competent practising

barristers, and to the fact that a firm taking such a barister

into partnership would place other firms at a serious disadvantage. There is much force in this conication, and the difficulty would

have to be met by the firme in future following the proccdents

of other places by ssouring from home a barrister partner, who

is an accomplished advocate.

I will not pursue the point further unless the

#xisting conditions undergo some change, but I venture to predict

that some alteracion is ultimately certain whic will scoure

either an increase in Counsel in the manner indicated, or the

right of audience by Solicitors in Original Jurisdiction.

4.

In regard to the proposal as to extending the