CO885-(7-8) — Page 386

529

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

7

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

42

been pronounced, notice of appeal be given, and then the appellant has four months in which he may attend before the Court of Appeal. In these days of rapid communi- cation I think the time is perhaps a larger proportion than is necessary, that the time should be shortened, and in other ways the appeal more quickly heard and decided. The only other point in connection with the Council upon which I have heard any desire expressed from the Colonies is that it is felt that it would be desimble that some Colonial representative, or representatives, should be added to the Judicial Committee. I do not think it necessary to-day that I should give, after all what would only be my own view, as to what representatives should be added to the Judicial Committee, or as to how they should be selected. I may say that I do not think any temporary appointment is desirable, except temporarily in this sense I think an appointment might be made for a period of ten years on the understanding that the representative of the Colonies should then retire.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Not renewable ?

Sir W. J. SMITII: Not renewable. I think, in the majority of cases, the Judge who was selected to be a member of the Privy Council ought to be pretty well advanced in life, and, after ten years' labour in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I think it desirable that he should retire. I think I may say, on the part of the Colonies I represent, that they do not desire any appeal to the House of Lords. They would prefer that the appeal should be maintained to the Privy Council, or, if for any reason it is desirable that a change should be made, it should be in the direction of an Appellate Court of Appeal, and not withdrawing it from the Privy Council.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I need not say I am very, much indebted to you all for giving your views; I need not say they will receive very serious consideration. I thank you very much and very heartily for the kindness you have shown in coming and giving us your views.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As to the future, I suggest that we might consider what has been said by the gentlemen here; but possibly we might prepare a series of Resolutions to submit to a subsequent meeting. If some of you thought we could put it in form-the different propositions which you have raised, so that we might have a decision upon the points-important points--we could, of course, prepare

them in a form.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: The difficulty I have about that is, you see, this is not a matter which could possibly be decided by a majority. We might have the greater number of the Colonies satisfied, we will say, and a very important minority not satisfied. am not quite certain that you would not emphasize that divergence. That has occurred in the different Colonies by a proposition by which they would be called upon to vote aye or no, or any of the opinions that we have heard given. There has been some divergence of thought among them all.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: This is the first opportunity we have had of meeting one another; we might discuss them together.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, if these gentlemen themselves would like to have a conversation by themselves, they might afterwards submit to us what they thought.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was going to suggest that possibly the delegates might care to meet one another, talk it over, and then, after an interval of, say, a week, we might meet again.

His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: I might have instructions, too, from Australia which would enable me to discuss the matter. My letter of instructions has not come yet.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If they would like to have a private meeting in that way they can have it at any time that would be convenient to them.

43

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I mean some general view. I think one gathers at present, I take it-I do not know that I am absolutely right in saying so, but I take it-that the general view is that the Privy Council should be retained as a separate Tribunal.

His Honour Mr. Justice HODGES: I think so.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: The general view of the whole. On the other hand, a good many of the matters that have been discussed-I do not say unduly discussed—are really matters of detail, having no reference to the broad question which we are met here to discuss.

The Hon. DAVID MILLS: In reference to the individual Judges giving expres- sion to their opinions in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that seems to me to change its character altogether; it would cease to be a body giving advice; it can only speak with one voice.

The LORD CILANCELLOR: That is no doubt a very important observation, and one which I may say the late Lord Selborne had a very strong view indeed upon. Of course, that question of delivering separate judgments has been frequently mooted. Some of the dissentient members have been very anxious to explain the reasons for their decision; but, as you have just said, that would change the whole character of the Tribunal, and make it an ordinary Court, instead of being one giving advice to the King.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: I do not see why the Court should not be changed in some respects.

The LORD CHANCELLOR : I am not arguing the question at present; I am only saying it is most important.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: It was changed by Lord Brougham from what it was in 1828 and 1832. The same objection was then taken that it could not be changed. They have changed the whole Constitution, even the Judicial Tribunal.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: It was supposed to be a legal Tribunal. Lord Brougham gave it form.

The IIon. DAVID MILLS: I do not very well see on what the members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could base their advice if they all gave sepa- rate Judgments.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Of course, these are points of detail.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As regards the main point, I gather the great majority-the majority certainly is in favour of retaining the Privy Council as distinct from the House of Lords, and against any attempt to set up a new Court. The question which seems open for discussion, possibly among the Delegates themselves, at another meeting, if they desire it, is how far there should be any attempt to give representation to the Colonies, and how far possibly the Crown might have power, at the request of the Colony, if the Colony desired to have representation on the Privy Council, on appeal from a Colony, to make some provision for that. Possibly some conference among the Delegates before we meet again might enable them to ascertain one another's views upon that point. I gather there is a certain amount of discrepancy at present.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: Under the present law there can be a Representative from a Colony on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I may say, of course, this Conference. was called not to impose upon it, or upon the Colonies, any views of His Majesty's Government, but to elicit the views of the Colonies. If it were the fact that the

G 2

[882]

}