Question negatived.
The Honghong Government Gazette.
[JUNE 12, 1858.
JUN
The Governor put the question,-That the word "Seven" before the word " Years" be struck out, and that the word
Three "be substituted.
Connell divided.
Ayes (5).
MR LYALL.
CHIEF MAGISTRATE.
SURVEYOR GENERAL,
COLONIAL TREASURER.
Noes (3.)
MR DENT.
ATTORNEY GENERAL. CHIEF JUSTICE.
Question passed.
ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY.
The Governor put the question,-That the said Clause as amended stand part of the Ordinance. Council divided.
Question passed.
Ayes (5).
COLONIAL TREASURER.
MR DENT.
ATTORNEY GENERAL.
ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY.
CHIEF JUSTICE.
Section 6 made Section 5, and amended.
Sections 7 and 8, renumbered as Sections 6 and 7, and adopted.
Noes (3).
MR LYALL.
CHIEF MAGISTRATE.
SURVEYOR GENBRAL.
Ordered, that the said Ordinance as amended be published it the Government Gazette.
1
The Governor laid on the Table Draft Ordinance "for the Prevention of Offences touching Securities, Sales, and
Deposits."
It was read a first time, and ordered to be circulated amongst Members.
The Governor laid on the Table Draft Ordinance "for Practitioners in Law," and the same having been read a
first time,-
The Chief Justice, by leave, presented the following Memorial and Petition of the Hongkong Law Society,
To the Honourable JOHN WALTER HULME, Esquire, Chief Justice 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 amalganïation of the two Branches, thereby pretending 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 Attornies, and the advantage gainel to the Community thereby, and that the assistance which the Court expects, and so often receives, from the learning and research of an intelligent 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 hardly lose sight of the fact, that an Attorney was addressing you in one ease, 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 expected of humanity that you should pay equal regard to them.
We conceive that an amalgamation would be very přejudicial 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, and we humbly request your Lordship to give such effect to the prayer thereof in the Legislative Council, as your Lordship may deem just and equitable. We have the honour to be, your Lordship's obedient servants,
THE HONGKONG, LAW SOCIETY,
And It wo
Orde
The
5th June, 1858.
No..
By their Secretary,
EDWARD K. STACE.
JOH
of H
Supe
The
ürmi:
To His Excellency SIR JOHN BOWRING, Governor of Hongkong, and its Dependencies, &c., &c., &c., in Legislative Council.
Sheweth,
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE HONGKONG LAW SOCIETY.
That in the Hongkong 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, addressed to the Attorney General, in which aŭ opinion was expressed that the distinction between Barristers and Solicitors in this Colony was unnecessary, and that great benefit would result to the Memorialists, and their fellow citizens, were an amalgamatian 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 proc-elings, 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 confide 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.
That no reasons are given in the Memorial, except the convenience of confiding 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 England at least ever since the time of King Henry the Taird, and has been found convenient and beneficial wherever the British Laws prevail, and under which the Memo- rialists, if they do not regard the expense, as they assert, can have all the convenience which they desire.
That your Pettioners are at a loss to understand the conviction of the Memorialists, 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 community there has been intre duced, under the au idees of the present Attorney General, and there is now in full operation, all the technical, artificial, and compli cated machinery of the Law as existing at hoine, with the addition of the numerous local laws which the position of this Colony has remiered tuPENSITY
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 sub division between Barrister and Barrister in different branches of the Law is as distinct as between Barrister and Attorney. There are the Common 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 Conveyancers, who, not being Counsel, relieve them of some of their most diflicult duties.
afore
No.
Come
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.