38124.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
6
། ?། ཟ། ། ། mmimimC.O. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
SIB,
No. 110.
(NEW ZEALAND.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
October 29, 1901. We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 9th instant stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us a summary of correspondence, telegraphic and otherwise, which had passed between him and the Governor of New Zealand with reference to a proposed Table of Precedence, of which Mr. Cox was to enclose a copy.
That Mr. Cox was also to enclose a copy of the General Table of Colonial Precedence.
That in the General Table the Chief Justice was placed next after the Bishop. That in the Table proposed by the New Zealand Government he was placed lower down, His Majesty's Ministers holding Cabinet rank being placed above him; whereas in the General Table they were placed, as Members of the Executive Council, below him.
That it would be seen from the accompanying Commission, which was dated the 22nd of June, 1899, and was issued by the Governor, appointing Sir Robert Stout, K.C.M.G., to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, that he was to hold the office "during good behaviour together with all and singular_the_rights, privileges, powers, authorities, rank and precedence whatsoever to the said office and place belonging or in anywise appertaining." That it would be observed that the Commission did not contain any provision reserving the power to alter, revoke or amend it.
That the precedence attached to the office of Chief Justice at the date of the appointment of Sir Robert Stout was, as now, that given in the accompanying General Table.
That Mr. Cox was to state that you would be glad to be favoured with our opinion
as to :-
1. Whether the present Chief Justice had had conferred on him by Commission the precedence enjoyed by his predecessor ?
and
2. Whether there was power to alter that precedence during his tenure of office ?
3. Generally.
That Mr. Cox was to add that Lord Onslow verbally consulted the Lord Chancellor, who had the papers before him, but entertained doubts on the subject.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
1. That we think the Chief Justice had conferred upon him the then existing precedence which was that enjoyed by his predecessor.
2. We do not think it would be a proper exercise of the prerogative of the Crown
to lower the precedence granted to the Chief Justice on his appointment.
We think any change made should be applicable only to persons appointed to the office of Chief Justice after the date of such change.
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
10188-25-10/1901 W889 D&S
3
We have, &c.,
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.