6
526
which he requested should be laid before the Council,
and at the same time (November 17th) he demanded a
personal interview with myself. In these he argued at
Great length,
(a) That the proposed method of re-constituting the
Appeal Court was impossible of success, and entirely bad.
(b }
That unless the Executive Council on full re-
consideration decided that it was feasible and the best
course to be adopted the reason for his retirement fell
to the ground and he would stay on.
(c) That they were therefore bound to reopen the
whole matter, and must take the opinion of the Legal
profession before deciding.
(a)
That in any case the Secretary of State was wrong
in saying that his retirement was advisable before the
new Court was inaugurated because he had actually assisted
in preparing the draft Ordinance and pointed out the
faults in the original draft, and would of course accept
the new Court however instituted.
(e) That the Executive Council had acted 'ultra vires,
that its decision was influenced by the desire of the
Secretary of state that the Chief Justice should retire
before the introduction of the new Appeal Court, and was
not therefore independently and reasonably exercised.
(f) That it was incumbent on the Executive Council
to Live reasons for its decision where they so affected
the interests of an individual.
5.
He said he altogether declined to be "discharged
like a Chinese coolie" and much more to this effect,
In accordance with his request his long
letters were circulated to Members of the Executive
Council. In so far as these letters refer to the question
of the Appeal Court I am enclosing them in a separate
despatch