295
10 15:26.
Excellency had apparently come to the conclusion that the Chief Justice should be consulted as to appointments, the full meaning of that conclusion was not appreciated. It is clear from Your Excellency's despatch of 6th. Time to the Secretary of State that the baneful influence of the old tradition was still at work: but now, as it is happily removed, I feel sure that the intimate connexion between the two branches of the discussion will on reflexion become clear. The position can be stated with great clearness.
The Chief Justice must be consulted with regard to appointments in the Registry, because he is responsible for the administration of justice, in which the efficacy of the Registry is an important factor: He must also have the ultimate control of the Registry for the same reasons.
The paragraphs 13-15 of my letter are not data for re-consideration of the question by the Secretary of State: they are statements of fact which shew that no other position than the one I have taken up is tenable: a position which, in so far as it concerns changes in the distribution of work in the registry by the Chief Justice, if he thinks it advisable, is with deference to Your Excellency fully corroborated by the sentence in Sir M. Nathan's letter of 26th. June, 1905, to which I have referred.