CO129-290 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [1-4] — Page 525

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed
Series Prev Next

C.O.

12279

ENCLOSURE 2

Read

515

COPY

9th March, 1899

My dear Chief Justice,

I do not think I can usefully be present at the proposed meeting of the Profession this afternoon. If I attended it would be with a view to moving the previous question, i.e. whether it is or is not desirable that the Chief Justice of the Colony, practically the sole interpreter of the law, should himself take an active part in the making of the law. I do not think it is. The Chief Justice was mainly removed from the Legislative Council for that reason. Of course there were other reasons but that was one. I admit that there is precedent for the judges framing laws regulating procedure and a certain amount of justification for it, but it is one thing for the whole body of the Judges in England to concur in framing rules of Procedure, another, for a sole Judge in a distant Colony, far removed from Judicial assistance and counsel to be himself the maker and the Interpreter of the Law to have to sit in Judgment on the law he has himself made. If there was any necessity for it, as there is for your sitting in judgment on yourself in the local Court of Appeal, I should not object, but in regard to preparing a new Code there is no such need. It is not your function or duty. There is the Attorney General whose proper work it is. There are plenty of other persons to do the work.

Edit History

2026-05-30 15:37:55 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
C.O. 12279 ENCLOSURE 2 Read 515 COPY 9th March, 1899 My dear Chief Justice, I do not think I can usefully be present at the proposed meeting of the Profession this afternoon. If I attended it would be with a view to moving the previous question, i.e. whether it is or is not desirable that the Chief Justice of the Colony, practically the sole interpreter of the law, should himself take an active part in the making of the law. I do not think it is. The Chief Justice was mainly removed from the Legislative Council for that reason. Of course there were other reasons but that was one. I admit that there is precedent for the judges framing laws regulating procedure and a certain amount of justification for it, but it is one thing for the whole body of the Judges in England to concur in framing rules of Procedure, another, for a sole Judge in a distant Colony, far removed from Judicial assistance and counsel to be himself the maker and the Interpreter of the Law to have to sit in Judgment on the law he has himself made. If there was any necessity for it, as there is for your sitting in judgment on yourself in the local Court of Appeal, I should not object, but in regard to preparing a new Code there is no such need. It is not your function or duty. There is the Attorney General whose proper work it is. There are plenty of other persons to do the work.
Baseline (Original)
C.0. 12279 ENCLOSURE 2 Read 515 COPY 9th. March, 1899. My dear Chief Justice, I do not think I can usefully be present at the proposed meeting of the Profession this afternoon. If I attend- ed it would be with a view to moving the previous question,1,e. whether it is or is not desirable that the Chief Justice of the Colony, practically the sole interpreter of the law, should himself take an active part in the making of the law. I do not think it is. The Chief Justice was mainly removed from the Le- gislative Council for that reason. Of course there were other reasons but that was one. I admit that there is precedent for the judges framing laws regulating procedure and a certain amount of justification for it, but it is one thing for the whole body of the Judges in England to concur in framing rules of Procedure, another, for a sole Judge in a distant Colony, far removed from Judicial assistance and counsel to be himself the maker and the Interpreter of the Law www. to have to sit in Judgment on the law he has himself made. If there was any ne- cessity for it, as there is for your sitting in judgment on yourself in the local Court of Appeal, I should not object,but in regard to preparing a new Code there is no such need. It is not your function or duty. There is the Attorney General whose proper work it is. There are plenty of other persons to do the work
2026-05-30 15:37:55 · Baseline
View content

C.0.

12279

ENCLOSURE 2

Read

515

COPY

9th. March, 1899.

My dear Chief Justice,

I do not think I can usefully be present at the

proposed meeting of the Profession this afternoon. If I attend-

ed it would be with a view to moving the previous question,1,e.

whether it is or is not desirable that the Chief Justice of

the Colony, practically the sole interpreter of the law, should

himself take an active part in the making of the law. I do not

think it is. The Chief Justice was mainly removed from the Le-

gislative Council for that reason. Of course there were other

reasons but that was one. I admit that there is precedent for

the judges framing laws regulating procedure and a certain

amount of justification for it, but it is one thing for the

whole body of the Judges in England to concur in framing rules

of Procedure, another, for a sole Judge in a distant Colony, far

removed from Judicial assistance and counsel to be himself the

maker and the Interpreter of the Law

www.

to have to sit in

Judgment on the law he has himself made. If there was any ne-

cessity for it, as there is for your sitting in judgment on

yourself in the local Court of Appeal, I should not object,but

in regard to preparing a new Code there is no such need. It is

not your function or duty. There is the Attorney General whose

proper work it is. There are plenty of other persons to do the

work

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.