CO885-(15-16) — Page 179

8147

:

SIR,

No. 129.

(GENERAL-NEW ZEALAND.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Position of Judges in the Scale of Precedence.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

February 25, 1902.

We were honoured with your commands signified to us in Sir Montagu Om- manney's letter of the 13th instant, stating that with reference to our Report of the 29th October last,* on the questions submitted to us in the letter from the Colonial Office of the 9th of that month in regard to the altered position assigned to the Chief Justice of New Zealand in the Table of Precedence proposed by the New Zealand Government, he was directed by you to transmit to us a copy of an opinion by the Solicitor-General of that Colony on the subject, together with copies of the Supreme Court Act, 1882, and Lord Carnarvon's circular despatch of the 29th August, 1877, to which the Solicitor-General referred; and Sir Montagu Ommanney was to enquire whether after the perusal of those documents we saw any reason to modify the opinions expressed by us in our Report above referred to.

That Sir Montagu Ommanney was at the same time to observe that among the changes affecting the Judicial body made by the proposed Table, the Speaker of the Legislative Council, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Heads of Religi ous Bodies were placed above the Puisne Judges, whereas in the General Table of Colonial Precedence, the Puisne Judges were placed above the Speakers of the two Houses.

Also, that retired Chief Justices, to whom Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, by Lord Carnarvon's despatch of the 29th August, 1877, granted precedence next after the Chief Justice and before Puisne Judges, and likewise retired Puisne Judges, who were by the same despatch granted precedence next after the Puisne Judges, were omitted from the proposed Table.

That it would seem from the Solicitor-General's statements in the 'second and tenth paragraphs of his Opinion that the Clause as to precedence in the Chief Justice's Commission had always appeared in the Commissions of the Judges, and that the same considerations would seem to apply to their case as to that of the Chief Justice.

That you would accordingly be glad if we would further advise whether it would be a proper exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown to alter in the manner proposed, the precedence granted to the Puisne Judges on their appointment, and also whether retired Chief Justices and retired Puisne Judges could properly be deprived of the precedence granted to them by Her late Majesty in 1877.

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and in obedience to your com- mands, have the honour to

Report-

That (1) We see no reason to modify the opinion we expressed in our Report of October 29th, 1901.

(2.) We think the same considerations are applicable also to precedence granted to Puisne Judges, and to retired Chief Justices, and Puisne Judges, and we do not think it would be a proper exercise of the Prerogative of the Crown to lower such pre- cedence.

We have, &c.,

The Right Honourable

Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

• No. 110.

11176-25-2/02 Wt 352 D & S

5

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

.15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO