546
يليشيا
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
HT
Reference :-
C.O.885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH——NOT TO
56
ུ་ཤྲྰི
The Hou. DAVID MILLS: I am not prepared to express an opinion on the subject on behalf of Canada.
The Hon. J. ROSE INNES: I discussed this subject with some of my colleagues before leaving the Cape, and the view we took was that we considered it very important that a Roman-Dutch lawyer of standing should be on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and if it came to the question of payment, that that would not be an insuperable difficulty. Of course, we should propose to forward it for the views of the Government.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes.
The Hon. J. ROSE INNES: We anticipated that very likely we should be asked, at any rate, to contribute a share, a moiety of the expense, and we were of opinion that that should not stand in the way. We have not consulted Parliament at all, but that was the view my colleagues took.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope that Mr. Mills understands that it is not a question of money; it is a question of sentiment.
The Hon. DAVID MILLS: Quite so.
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The real point is what would be the sentiment of the Colonies with regard to this matter. Would they be content that we should pay? Would they desire that we should pay? Or would they desire, on the other hand, to pay the whole or to pay a part of the salary ?
The IIon. DAVID MILLS: Well, without having consulted my colleagues on the matter, my impression is that the Canadian Government would at all events be prepared to pay a portion of the salary.
مصر
Mr. Justice HODGES: As you are aware, I left Australia long before any of these questions arose; consequently, it was impossible for the Ministry to consult me or for me to consult them in any way whatever. But I should think from the short cable that I got that that was not in their minds at all in any way to be dealt with. As a matter of sentiment, I could not say what the sentiment of the Govern- ment would be. I feel it would be a wild guess if I attempted it-the mercst guess. I would like to say this: I think you will notice that you used the word," representa- tive." I think, if you will notice, the Delegates have all avoided the use of that word. We do not regard, and we should not regard, any person appointed as a "representa- tive." It was for that reason we rather objected to this. We do not regard him as a representative; we regard him as an expert in the law of the country from which he comes. I think from what took place when I was present that that was the opinion of all the Delegates.
Sir JOHIN EDGE: The word "representative" has been used in the early draft recommendations as a common term to run through the recommendations which were required, but it was the general feeling of every one present, when we came finally to consider the recommendations, that the word " 'representative” should be dropped
out.
The LORD, CHANCELLOR: Yes. I think the argument of Mr. Justice Hodges rather points out that, although I think my right honourable friend used the word "representative," it was not insisted upon.
Mr. Justice HODGES: I thought not, but I wished only to guard myself. The LORD CHANCELLOR: The person from the particular Colony.
Mr. Justice HODGES: Yes, I did not want it to be the "representative" of the Colony.
The Hon. DAVID MILLS: I am sure that the feeling with us is that unless a member of the Canadian Bar would be thought eminently qualified to join the
57
Judicial Committee, we had no claim to any representative upon that Board, and the use of the word "representative" would imply, whether the party was sufficiently qualified or not, somebody had to be appointed on behalf of the district.
The LORD CIIANCELLOR : That is a view you wish to repudiate ?
The Hon. DAVID MILLS: Yes; we wish to repudiate it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; and I think that is good sense too. I should like to say for myself, not speaking for the moment on behalf of the Govern- ment, that the establishment of a great Imperial Court to absorb the functions of the House of Lords is one of those things that I myself most violently contested; and when Lord Selborne and Lord Cairns took the view that a great Imperial Court of that sort might be created, and, in fact, passed an Act of Parliament, I was one of the most strenuous agitators to get that Act repealed, and it was repealed. In that point of view, you know, am afraid-it would certainly be without the complete unanimity of the Colonies-we will not suggest that scheine again in this country.
Mr. Justice HODGES: If I may mention, it was not the vital part of the scheme, but it is no doubt what would be most acceptable to Australia. Whether the House of Lords should absorb the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is another question. That is not a point that we regard as vital. One of them would undoubtedly absorb the other, as there would be one Court only.
Sir JAMES PRENDERGAST: May I be permitted to correct what I think is a misapprehension of the position have taken up on behalf of New Zealand? intended to convey that I disapproved of the proposals of the majority of the Delegates, which was that the Privy Council should be maintained in what you may call its procedure--not so much its constitution as its procedure-as it now stands. I desired to convey the same as I conveyed in the statement that I made when the Lord Chancellor invited us to be here on the 26th June, which was that I thought the Privy Council should be maintained, but should be altered with regard not so much to its constitution as its procedure, including in the expression "procedure" such matters as these: that it seemed to me-with regard to English Colonies, which I look upon as the Confederation of Australia, the Dominion of Canada, and New Zealand, and such Colonies-that they require not a different Tribunal, but a different procedure to that which might be proper for Indian and Rohian-Dutch Colonies. We do not, in our opinion, I think I may say-at any rate, in my own opinion, and I have to speak for a Colony-in my opinion, what is wanted is something of this sort : that we should have the best that England can give us of its own, not of its specialists, such as Indian Judges and Roman-Dutch Judges, we wish to have the best that can be afforded consistently with the maintenance of the House of Lords, and such other duties such as the persons who now take their seats in the Privy Council have to perform. That, of course, may be-on occasions it would be-difficult; but that is what we desire. We can see no value to New Zealand, we can see no value to a Colony in the Confederation of Australia, in having gentlemen who would be very expert for India and very expert for the Roman-Dutch Colonies, but who have not that kind of reputation and experience which we want for New Zealand appeals. I desire to point this out in support of what I am saying. An English Judge first makes his reputation at the Bar; he then makes his reputation on the Bench, by his open pronouncements; he continues that reputation in the House of Lords; he continues to make his reputation, and that reaches us. disposed of by gentlemen who first make their reputation in India or in Roman-Dutch If our appeals are to be Colonies, and then have their mouths closed in the Privy Council, then we do not know by whom our cases are being disposed of. I therefore humbly suggest to the Lord Chancellor for consideration that there should be some kind of remodelling of the Privy Council. Such remodelling will not, in my opinion—at least, I think it would not be thought to destroy the bond of sentiment which so many of our Delegates insist upon, but that the Judges appointed should be mainly as hitherto -experienced English Judges, Judges who have made a reputation. Many of them have made a reputation, and are known throughout the British dominious. necessary, there should be a division in the Privy Council, by which special cases, such as Roman-Dutch cases and Indian cases, might be disposed of in some way by such persons as a Mixed Tribunal, but that our English cases, what I call our New
[882]
k
I
If