PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference
TLIITICO.885
7
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
30
think if the proposition that there should be one Court of Appeal for the Empire were adopted then we would go on, and I would say that Court of Appeal should show by its constituent clements that it is a Court of Appeal for the country, and. not a mere English, Irish, or Scotch Court of Appeal. Then, it would be going rather rapidly if I proceeded to say how the individuals of that Court should be constituted. Of course I want to know, to start with, are we considering an ideally perfect Court, or are we going to consider only such a Court as is attainable, because I have been reading during my spare time the 1873 Act and the disenssions in Parliament which brought about the suspension of that Act. Of course I do not know what would be possible, whether it would be possible to make it a modification of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the House of Lords as distinguished from the paz Hone of Lords body, or whether it should lie a new Court altogether in which should be vested the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, and the appellate jurisdiction of the King in Council. Those are matters upon which I should like to see the one propesi- tion confirmed before I proceed to indiente what my opinion should be. going very rapidly,
It would be
The LORD CILANCELLOR: You do not quite follow what my Honourable friend means. You see there are two schemes. Now your view is in favour, no doubt, of one Court.
Iis ilonour Mr. Justice IIODGES: One Court.
The LORD CILANCHELOR; Tak, i understand, but assuming for other con- siderations it should be thought right fed h two should still enfient le merise
their respective jurisdictions. Have you muggling to say about the improverrot, or the possible improvement of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as at present constituted?
Ilis Ionour Mr. Jastier 10DNES. Well, i think I should have.. I did not under stand that to be the Right Honourable gentleman's inquiry, but if it were to be limited to an alteration of the Privy Coune! I think possibly to start with, I would indicate one of the Acts. Your Lordship's recollectini varies somewhat from min, One of the Acts which suggests to us in that is giving not only too great a projan. derance to Indian consideration, but it is phasing unless that Act has been dedited -one person in place of two.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: #!p wop, first of all there were two, then when that particular class of appointnients came to an end, ultimately it came out that there were four Lords of Appeal who should sit in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is how it came to puts. 11 va y done quadually, and it is quite pasaldie that in the language of the statult same prec, tane» might be given to the House of Lords.
His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES; i am speaking of the other one my Lord, I am speaking of the Act which authorizes two retired members from the Bench or the Crown Colonies to be appointed to the Privy Council with salaries of 1007, a-year in addition to any retiring allowance which they might have.
That is what I was referring to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That permits two persons to be appointed, and then besides that the Crown has the power to appoint two other persons without salaries.
His Honour Mr. Justice IIODGES: Yes.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: But I think what we should like to hear would be assuming the condition of things not to be so alteral, as your view is not in favour of I know, but supposing there should be still the continuance of the two Tribunals, have you anything to suggest as to the mode in which the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council still being retained as the Court for the determination of Colonial appeals should be strengthened or altered ?
31
His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: I should like before I answer that, a little time to considez, Lecause, if the question is to be narrowed down to that it becomes a very arrow one, and it becomes a very difficult thing to say how the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be alted so as to give it additional
trength.
The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Thon supposing the other view were
taken.
Tis Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: That is what I understood.
The Right Hon. T. CILAMBERLAIN: And we were to create, say, a now Court, manbining the functions of the House of Lals and the Judicial Coinmittee of the Pivy Council in that euse. I will assure you would desire that there should be some Representative of the Colonies upon that Court.
His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: Undoubtedly.
The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: You are aware at the present moment we have endeavoured to secure some Representative by appointing as Privy Councillors three distinguished Judges of the great Colonies or groups of Colonies. We know that that is open to some objection, and we sind in practice it has not worked very well. What I meant to ask you was what would you suggest in place of that or in addition In what way would you secure the permanent representation of the Colonies on any Court, as it stands, which would be safi Factory to the Colonies ?
to that ?
His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: I have not, of course, had an opportunity of iscussing that matter with the Representatives of Australia, I know the feeling is hat Colonial representation in the Privy Council is illusory; there is nothing in it. It is impossible for a man discharging his duties in one of the Colonies to discharge his duties in the Privy Council also. He has to attend to either the one or the other, nd, of course, he has to attend that plnen f,respect of which he receives his salary, und he must either resign his Colonial appointment or practically give up attending the Judicial Cominiitee of the Privy Council. We regard that as entirely useless and if there is to be Colonial representation in the Privy Council, in the view of the Australian people, I am sure they would say persons who sit in the Privy Council must practically sit there on the same basis and on the same formasi But when you ask how we propose that that should be strengthened, that is one of the questions which, if it is to be carried, I should like a little further time to consider how it could be sufficiently strengthened. At present I see difficulties, for the moment, and for future questions I see great difficulties in strengthening in a way which would be satisfactory to all parts of the Empire. I might suggest a way of strengthening it which would be satisfactory to Australia, but in my opinion that would not be fair to other places. That is the part where the difficulty arises.
The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Personally, I should like to ask you what your ideas are as regards Australia-confining yourself to Australia,
His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: Well, confining myself to Australia, Australia would say,
if the Privy Council is to be an Appellate Court, the final Court of Appeal of Australia, it should be represented by a permanent official of the Colony. When I say a permanent official of the Colony, I do not mean persons who are dis- charging their duties in another place and who would give whatever time they might have to spare from that to discharge the duties of the Prity Council. We do not regard that as satisfactory.
The Right Hon. J. CILAMBERLAIN : Should it be for life?
His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: That is one of the great difficulties. The feeling of Australia-I think, throughout Australia-is that a man should have nothing to fear and nothing to hope for when once he takes his seat on the Bench. If it is a temporary appointment, we feel that a man has something to fear and some- thing to hope for, and the confidence which is felt in the Bench of Australia I think is largely due to that fact. The men there, when once they take their seat on the
539