the Hon. R. Rowett, supported by the Hon. Ph. Ryrie, and by a letter (August 7, 1873) signed by various merchants and bankers, moved, that for the convenience and in the interest of the public, it was desirable that all Barristers at Law, admitted to practise as Advocates of the Supreme Court in this Colony, should be permitted to take business from clients personally without the intervention of attornies in all cases except those in which litigation has actually commenced in the Supreme Court. The Attorney General, however, supported by the Hon. J. Whittall and all the official Members of Council, objected to this revival of the old amalgamation question. Accordingly a compromise was resorted to in the shape of Ordinance 15 of 1873 (confirmed January 31, 1874), which slightly modified the existing practice but did not go far enough to satisfy the community. In November 1873, the Coroner took to selecting three out of five jurors instead of leaving the selection to be decided by ballot. This measure caused the burden of Coroner's juries to fall on the more intelligent portion of them. The unofficial Members of Council took the matter up and in consequence of their representations (made privately) the ballot was thenceforth resorted to, but doubts were freely and generally expressed as to the utility of Coroner's juries altogether. There is yet another case on record in which the influence of unofficial Members of Council manifested itself. On 22nd April, 1870, a Bill, to allow the China Traders' Insurance Company to subdivide its shares, was under the discussion of the Council. The three unofficial Members (Ryrie, Keswick and Lowcock) strongly objected to the principle of the Bill. But the Bill was passed and all they could do was to lodge a formal protest against the confirmation of this Ordinance (4 of 1876). The result was that the Secretary of State disallowed the Ordinance (July 25, 1876) on the ground that it would be better that any measure dealing with the question of subdivision of shares should have a general application. As the Secretary of State, however, approved of the general principle of the Ordinance which he disallowed, the Legislative Council (September 21, 1876) substituted for it an amendment
