CO885-(7-8) — Page 387

540

ןחון

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :----

། ། །

C.O.885

7

}

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC.

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

44

Colonies unanimously, or by a great majority, desired that some possible change in the constitution of the Court of Appeal should be made, which in their view would add strength, influence, and authority to that Court in the Colony, then His Majesty's Government were in the position of persons who would favourably view any suggestions which were so unanimously coine to. But, of course, if it should appear that the majority of the Representatives are already satisfied with things as they are, the great majority of the. Representatives, or at least, that there is no agreement as to any particular change which should be made, it certainly would not be in the view of His Majesty's Government to press any such change upon them against their will. It would only be adopted by His Majesty's Government in the event of there being something like a general desire on the part of the Colonies for some change; and iny suggestion was after the subject had been discussed to put it in the form of resolutions for the purpose of ascertaining clearly whether there was any such unanimity or whether there was any such general opinion in regard to any of these matters. Now I would take one illustration on a point of detail, but as far as i gathered the Conference are absolutely unanimous upon one point, and that is that if there are to be Representatives from the Colonies they are not to be Peers.

The LORD CILANCELLOR: That is clearly an unanimous opinion.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is clearly the unanimous opinion. Then the other points were, as the Attorney-General has said, the question of the maintenance of the Judicial Committee and the form of the Appeal to the Crown, which is undoubtedly favoured by the great majority of those who have spoken.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think by everybody.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I think Mr. Justice Hodges suggested a new Court.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: I would agree with Mr. Justice Hodges to that extopt, and I would only agree to the other view provided the other Court would not be statutory.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: But with the exception of Mr. Justice Hodges and Mr. Justice Emerson, I think all who have spoken have been in favour of the Judicial Committee. Then, as regards any addition at all of Colonial Representa- tives, I have only noted Mr. Justice Hodges, Mr. Morçom, and I think Sir William Smith, as having spoken in favour of it.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: My objection to the Colonial Representatives was only upon the lines of the present Colonial representation. If they were to be the Chief Justices of the various Courts, and they were to sit in their own Courts, and in the Court of Appeal, I think it the most objectionable form of representation-in fact, I do not know anything more objectionable than a Judge of a Colonial Court sitting in the Court of Appeal.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Taking the case of Newfoundland, it is a very small Colony and would be unlikely to have a Representative of its own.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: I recognize that.

The Right Hon. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Taking the case of such a Colony, would you feel, would your people, and your lawyers have greater confidence in the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, say, because a Canadian or an Australian Judge were placed on it?

*

Mr. Justice EMERSON: I am speaking in the abstract; another Colony may have that view.

The Right Hon, J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am only asking you.

Mr. Justice EMERSON: As regards Newfoundland we are not likely to have a Representative upon it, therefore I cannot consider it from that point, but I am

45

looking at the mere abstract question of having a Chief Justice of a Colony sitting on a Court of Appeal. Aliugh he might not take part in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it woulEbe very objectionable to have him sitting in both Courts. He might be a permanenz offieer of the Court, and could be brought from the Colonies only for the purpose of informing their Lordships in the Court of Appeal on any question of peculiarity ↑ › the laws of the Colony.

Mr. ROSI: 4NNES: What is common cause and otherwise 7

The Right Hon. 1. CHAMBERLAIN: Do you agree that it would be desirable that

you should meet?

Agreed.

The Right Hou. J. CHAMBERLAIN : Then perhaps you would arrange with Mr. Cox.

Mr. COX: Perhaps you would name a day now which would be convenient to yourselves.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Could you not do what you did with the Australian Delegates--put a room at their service, where they could meet every day at any time? That was attended with great advantage.

Mr. COX There can be a room at their disposal at any time.

I think we can manage it.

has a room.

Lord Milner

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It might be as well if it could be done.

Mr. COX If they wish they can have a room at their disposal on any day, it is for the Delegates themselves to say whether they would like a room.

The Conference then adjourned.

872

SIR,

S.

',

No. 35.

MR. DAVID MILLS (Chairman of Delegates) TO MR. CHAMBERLAIN. (Received July 4, 1991.)

July 4, 1901.

THE Delegates on the Conference on the Colonial Court of Appeal having clected me as their Chairman, I have the honour to forward herewith the Resolutions which have been adopted at meetings which the Delegates have held since their meeting on the 26th ultimo.

The Delegates will be glad to learn at what early date in next week they may have the honour of again discussing the questions with the Lord Chancellor and yourself.

I have, &c.

Enclosure in No. 35.

RECOMMENDATIONS.

DAVID MILLS, Chairman.

1. APPEALS should continue to lie from the Colonies and from India to His Majesty in Council.

2. It is desirable that appointments to the Judicial Committee should be from