551
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
7
66
it
may
be said
Majesty's Government, I am sure that I am entitled to tender to all the gentlemen who have been good enough to come, and to their Governments, our hearty thanks for the assistance which they have rendered us; and although, in a sense, that the conclusion arrived at is not unanimous, yet, at all events, so large a majority of the Conference are agreed upon the main principles, that they have afforded to His Majesty's Government a very clear suggestion as to the course of action which they should take, and for that we are greatly obliged, and we consider?
that the Conference has fully achieved the object with which we invited it.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite agree. No doubt, so far as the interven- tion of what I might call the legal clement of His Majesty's Government aro concorned, I think we are very greatly indebted to those gentlemen who have come, and no doubt they have given us a very sufficient and very clear guide as to what our action ought to be.
The Conference then concluded.
26315.
No. 39.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
រ
Tuesday, August 6, 1901. MR. BRYCE asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it was intended to present to Parliament any papers relating to the recent Conference at the Colonial Office with Representatives of the self-governing Colonies on the subject of a final Court of Appeal; and, if not, whether the discussions had advanced so far as to enable any general conclusions that may have been already reached to he stated to the House.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN in reply, said: "The Conference was invited for the purpose of eliciting the opinions of the Colonies and of the Government of India in regard to a final Court of Appeal. No scheme or suggestion was laid before the Conference by His Majesty's Goverument, but a general expression of opinion was asked for. After a preliminary discussion at the first meeting it was agreed that the Colonial Delegates should meet separately and formulate resolutions for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the full Conference. The majority of the Delegates, after several private meetings, submitted resolutions to the effect that appeals should continue to lie from the Colonies and from India to His Majesty in Council, and that appointments to the Judicial Committee should from time to time he made from the Dominion of Canada and Newfoundland, the Commonwealth of Austrália, New Zealand, South Africa, the Crown Colonies, and India, that the persons so appointed should, if Judges, vacate any judicial office held at the time of such appointment, should hold office for life or a term of years, and should be paid an adequate salary. It was further suggested that arrangements should be made for securing a larger attendance of Lords of Appeal at sittings of the Judicial Com- mittec, and that the Colonies should suggest such alterations of procedure as might tend to the avoidance of delay, the simplification of procedure, and the lessening of costs. Mr. Justice Hodges, who represented the Commonwealth of Australia, was, however, of opinion that there should be one Imperial Court of Final Appeal in which should be vested the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords and Privy Council. Mr. Justice Emerson, representing Newfoundland, agreed with the majority of the Colonial Delegates subject to the above proposal for one final Court of Appeal. Sir James. Prendergast, representing New Zealand, while also agreeing with the majority of the Colonial Delegates, considered that the time might arrive at no remote date for the establishment of a new final Court of Appeal for the whole Empire, but he saw no reason for any colonial representation on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of Colonics whose legal systems were substantially the same as that of England. It appeared from these opinions that, while not absolutely unanimous, the great majority of the Delegates were opposed to any drastic changes in the present Court of Appeal; and, accordingly, His Majesty's Government do not propose to suggest such changes, although they will, in accordance with the resolutions of the
67
Conference, ask the various Governments concerned to suggest such alterations of pro- cedure as may seem to them desirable."
MR. BRYCE: "The Conference will not meet again ?” MR. CHAMBERLAIN: "No, it is finally determined."
26447.
No. 40.
MR. CHAMBERLAIN TO THE GOVERNOR-GENERALS OF CANADA AND AUSTRALIA,
AND THE GOVERNORS OF NEWFOUNDLAND, THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE, NATAL, AND NEW ZEALAND.
(1.) Canada, General, No. 1.
(2.) Newfoundland, General, No. 1.
(3.) Cape of Good Hope, General, No. 1.
(4.) Natal, General, No. 1.
(5.) New Zealand, General, No. 1.
(6.) Commonwealth of Australia, General, No. 1.
MY LORD, SIR,
Downing Street, August 10, 1901. WITH reference to my despatches Nos. (1) 16, (2) 5, (3) 18, (4) 17, (5) 17, and (6) 11, of the 15th February, 1901," I have the honour to state, for the information of your Government, that the delegates who, in reply to the invitation contained in that despatch, were selected by the Governments of the Colonies to which that despatch was addressed, have duly met and considered the question of the more effective and continuous representation of the Colonies in the Final Court of Colonial Appeal.
2. It is unnecessary for me to recapitulate the recent history of this question. IIis Majesty's Government were strongly of opinion that it was very desirable to ascertain the view of the Colonies upon the question, and in inviting your Government to send a delegate, they had no wish to suggest, still less to press upon the Colonies, any views of their own, but were anxious to clearly ascertain what the views of the Colonies might be upon the question. Had it proved to be the case that the Colonies unani- mously, or by a great majority, desired that changes of importance should be made in the Constitution of the Final Colonial Court of Appeal, which in their view would add strength, influence, and authority to that Court in the Colonies, His Majesty's Govern- ment were anxious to do all in their power to meet the views at which, after full con- sideration the Colonies might with practical unanimity arrive; but it was entirely contrary to the wish of IIis Majesty's Government to press any change upon the Colonies which would not be in accordance with their desires.
3. The Conference held its first meeting at the Colonial Office on the 26th June last, the Lord Chancellor prosiding, and, in addition to the Earl of Onslow and inyself, the following gentlemen attended :—
Sir R. B. Finlay, K.C., M.P. (His Majesty's Attorney-General).
Sir Edward Carson, K.C., M.P. (His Majesty's Solicitor-General).
The Honourable David Mills, Minister of Justice in the Dominion Cabinet (repre. senting the Dominion of Canada).
His Honour Mr. Justice Ilenry Edward Agincourt Hodges, of the Supreme Court of Victoria (representing the Commonwealth of Australia).
The Honourable James Rose Innes, K.C., the Attorney-General of the Cape of Good Hope (representing Cape Colony).
Sir James Prendergast, late Chief Justice of New Zealand (representing New Zealand).
His Honour Mr. Justice George Henry Emerson, Judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland (representing Newfoundland).
Mr. William Boase Morcom, K.C., M.L.A. (representing the Colony of Natal).
Sir William James Smith, Chief Justice of British Guiana (appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies as Representative of the other Colonies at the Conference).
• No..4.
[882]