CO885-(7-8) — Page 379

532

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:→→→

LICO.885

7

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

28

Colonics and elsewhere. That matter has not yet been finally decided, and, indeed, hefore we determined to do that or anything, we desired rather to hold a sort of open Conference, a conversational examination rather than put before you any actual concrete propositions. For that reason we have asked you to come here to hear what you, all of you, have to say, and what view you yourselves would take in respect of both these questions-whether you prefer the continuance of the present systerh and the strengthening by additions or otherwise of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or the absorption of both Tribunals into one, so as to have one Tribunal representing the whole Empire. These are questions which naturally would arise for discussion, and that is really what we desire to hear, the opinions of all of you. On that subject, I would ask Mr. Mills, the Representative of Canada, to express his views first.

1

The Hon. DAVID MILLS: My Lord Chancellor, I may say that the Govern- ment of Canada are entirely satisfied with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as at present constituted. They do not desire any change in its constitution nor will they favour the substitution of the House of Lords as an ultimate Court of Appeal for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That feeling is due to the fact that for a long series of years the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have been eminently satisfactory to the people of Canada, especially as they say in the interpretation of our Constitutional Act.

We think that the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council have gone a long way to make that Act workable, and the people of Canada are highly satisfied with these decisions not only when examined critically as decisions of law, but they feel that the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Conneil have made the working of the British North America Act as free from friction as the written constitution well can be. They also feel that in the history of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as an Appellate Court they appeal to the Sovereign. They seek the decision of the Sovereign, and the present form of judgments of that Tribunal are more satisfactory to the people and to the Government of Canada than the substitution of the House of Lords as a Court of Appeal would be.

So far as we › are concerned the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has worked highly satisfactorily and we are disposed to let well enough alone.

His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: am sorry at the outset to take a diametrically opposite view to that of the gentleman who comes from Canada, but Australia undoubtedly, and I can speak for the great Continents who are interested in the subject, Australia desires one Court of Appeal for the Empire, and Australia cannot understand why the Tribunal which is good enough for a London or a Manchester Case should not be good enough for an Australian Case, and why the Tribunal that is good enough for an Australian Case should not be good enough for a London Case. They can see, in theory, no reason for there being two final Courts of Appeal. They recognize, as I think has been recognized by your Lordship's predecessor in office the undesirability of there being two final Courts of Appeal, which may have inconsistent and conflicting decisions, and they are very anxious that that should not exist. With regard to the satisfaction with the Privy Council, it is hardly becoming perhaps, of one who is at present sitting on the Australian Bench, and consequently whose judgments are subject to review, to speak of the constituent parts of the Court, and I do not propose to do it, but I might shortly indicate in the way in which that Court is at present constituted under the statutes, the objections which we feel lie to that Court. In the first place, I have forgotten the year of the statute but one of the recent statutes appointing certain Lords of Appeal, provides, that, subject to their discharging their duties in the House of Lords they should appear in the Privy /Council and discharge their duties there, but that is House of Lords first, Privy

Council afterwards.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: We do not think the statute makes that distinc- tion.

His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: Well, I will be glad to have the Act here. I think you will find my Lord it is put in this way, that it is subject to their discharging their duties in the House of Lords they are to attend the Privy Council. I fancy that is it.

20

The LORD CHANCELLOR: At the present moment I do not remember; but certainly, if it is, I do not think I am speaking for one who has for some years had to administer it-anybody puts the one before the other, we are equally under the same obligation to attend.

His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: That may be so in practice, but we have a feeling that the general tendency is that the House of Lords gets the preference. Where there are the two Tribunals sitting at the same time the House of Lords gets the preference and the other Tribunal is apt to be weakened. We do not say that there is anything wrong with the other, except that it does not give that satisfaction which is given by one Court, and no distinction is made whether the case comes from the Colonies or from the home country, Another Act provides, if I recollect rightly, for two Judges who have served in the East Indies and who have a retiring allowance having a salary of 4007. a-year and discharging the duties of one of the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Well, without saying a single word against any of the gentlemen who have sat on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I am only speaking now of their constitution by statute, what we say is this, we do not feel satisfied that our causes should be tried by men who have spent the better part of their lives in the administration of laws in India under an exhausting climate, and when they have earned their retiring allowance that they should come back to relearn laws that to some extent will have been forgotten and to some extent will be remembered—should come back to the Privy Council to decide matters upon them. This is looking at the constitution of the Court by statute without saying one single word about the individual members. While I might say with Mr. Mills that their Judgments in individual cases may be satisfactory, we feel that if the Judgment be satisfactory and the Court as at present constituted is satisfactory, it would be infinitely more satisfactory under the altered constitution of a Supreme Court of Final Appeal for the Empire. We say that would be infinitely more satisfactory, and we venture to think that even those cases in which the decisions have been satisfactory- I believe the decisions of Lord Morris are supposed to have given great satisfaction in Canada-I presume the same decision would have been given if there had been one Court of Appeal for the Empire. I do not want to trouble your Lordship to look at the section.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: Looking at it, I do not see any such precedence given to the House of Lords in any of the sections; it is the merest accident that it is so. The duties of the Judges, who are the paid Judges of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, are administered with perfect impartiality, two and two. We take two for one set of sittings and theu two others to take another set of sittings. Two sit in the House of Lords and two sit in the Privy Council.

His Honour Mr. Justice IODGES: I do not remember the section.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: It is quite possible that you may be right, that there is in the order in which they are mentioned the House of Lords and the Privy Council; but I do not believe any one of the members who sit in the Privy Council have the least notion of any precedence.

His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: My recollection may be inaccurate, but my recollection is that it is subject to their discharging their duties in the House of Lords that they are to attend the Privy Council.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: It may be; I will not say it is not, practically it really is of no consequence. That is my opinion of the manner in which the matter is administered, after an experience of fifteen years at all events on the Bench, and a good deal longer in practising before the House of Lords.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Justice Hodges has spoken of the importance of creating a single Court, but he has not told us anything as to the composition of that Court.

His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: Well, I avoided that because I thought the first question was the one. I think it would be premature to discuss what the constitution of that Court, should be, but I should say, speaking generally, first, L