CO885-(7-8) — Page 394

547

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.,885

7

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

58

Zealand and the Australasian cases, English cases and Canadian, should be disposed of by men whom I have already indicated, men who have made a reputation, and who are maintaining their reputation, by their open pronouncements. I suggest this, and I suggest further that the procedure should be so far altered that, if necessary, cach Judge might be permitted, if he chose, to give separate reasons for his conclusions. I specially desire to correct what, I fear, has been a misapprehension arising from the short dissentient note that I attached to the Report.

૧

The LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say with reference to the one question of course the pronouncing of one Judgment, or allowing each Judge to give his Judgment separately-that it is a subject of considerable difficulty, and has, I think, been the subject of discussion-very frequent discussion in the Privy Council itself. But with reference to the other matter, the class of Judges appointed, I think there is a little fallacy in supposing that the Judges-the Indian Judges I will take formple-are persons only familiar with the Indian procedure and the Indian law. Le me take an example; Sir Barnes Peacock, who for many years was presiding, son times presiding, at all events taking a part in the Privy Council, was a most disguished English advocate, both as a lawyer and as an advocate, before he went to Calcutta. He did not lose, I hope, the reputation that he had already acquired in England when he went to Calcutta, and came back again and sat in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The same class of person-I am speaking now specially with respect to Indian administration-the same class of person whom you hav, properly described, I think, as being persons presumably capable of being selected as Judges, do go from this country to India, and they are not the less fit and proper to decide questions outside mere Indian law because they have learned something additional, and been acquainted with the different forms of administration in India. We have not had so many of the cases of the Roman-Dutch law as to form a sort of class, but I must say of all the Judges who have come to us, certainly not the least in reputation is De Villiers, who has come from the Cape, who, I think, every member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will say is one of the ablest Judges we have had to assist us, and I rather repudiate the necessity of having somebody particularly fitted in his training as it were to form a member of that Tribunal, and the separation which I think you have been good enough to suggest as to some sitting for Roman-Dutch law, and some sitting for Indian law, and some sitting for English law, is one that is calculated rather to impair the authority of the Tribunal itself. At present I think one reason why there is confidence in it is that I think it is felt that we each of us may learn something from each other.

Sir JOHN EDGE: I do not wish to say anything as to the qualifications of the Indian Judges, but Sir James is evidently not aware that a Judge in any of the ligh Courts in India has to deal from day to day with that very same English law which is administered in Australia, New Zealand, the Cape, and Canada.

Sir JAMES PRENDERGAST: I was not speaking about the Indian, I was speaking about the confidence to New Zealand litigants.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think what Sir James meant was that they had no opportunity, say, in New Zealand, of forming any opinion of Judges-Judges who would be selected from India because their reputation is not known to then in the same way as that of English Judges, and when they went to the Privy Council they did not as a rule deliver oral Judgments; it was not the individual himself.

Sir JOHN EDGE: We considered, my Lord Chancellor, the question in our meetings as to whether a recommendation should be made that each member of the Judicial Committee should express his reasons for his conclusions, and that was lost.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, as I said, that has been a subject of very grave consideration. Lord Selborne took the very strongest view against it, and I am bound to say I think he was a good deal actuated by the difficulty of satisfying public opinion in India rather than in this country. The sort of notion was that the dissentient Judges' opinion might be made the subject of great discussion in India, and would be rather likely to promote litigation. Some of the qualifications and disagreements that you occasionally find in the Judgments in the House of Lords he thought might be very safely left to expert opinion in England to form a judgment

59

upon, but he did not wish that,)particularly by comparatively half-educated Hindoo lawyers; people might be encouraged to appeal and promote litigation in the manner that the one Judgment was not open to. "I think that was one of the views thrt be entertained, and he entert uined that view very strongly, but, as I say, I ought with all candour to admit that his view was so strong, in view of the notion of Indian appeals, that he thought it would sacrifice a great part of the value of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council's Judgments in that class of cases if separate Judgments could be given.

Mr. Justice IIODGES: There is one other matter that I was desired by the Government to bring before this Conference, and that was as to the right of appearance in the Privy Council. The question was put by a barrister to the Council of the Law Society here as to the right of a Colonial barrister to appear in a case which was not under appeal from his own Colony, and the Government have expressed their desire that that matter should be dealt with in some way or another in order that as they put it the Colonial barrister may have the right to appear in the Privy Council in any case. I may put it in this way. It is a kind of natural reciprocity. If that particular body remains as at present, an English barrister appears there on an appeal from a Court in which he has no right to appear. He appears in that way. Well, they say, why should not a Colonial barrister appear in that Court also in an appeal from a Court in which he has no right to appear if the parties desire it? I do not know that this Tribunal can absolutely deal with it,

The LORD CHANCELLOR: It is rather a different category of thought.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I spoke to the Attorney-General, who I am sorry is not here. I do not know whether he has spoken to you.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, he has not. He has been prevented from coming here to-day by a Law Committee.

{

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Justice Hodges showed me the telegram which came from his Government, and I spoke to the Attorney-General about it. He expressed, I suppose, an individual opinion, but his own opinion was that there would be no doubt whatever that the Privy Council, as at prescit constituted, would hear a Colonial barrister in such a case.

Mr. Justice HODGES: I think the intimation was-I have got an answer given here that the case had not arisen; but it was improbable that they would refuse to hear him. That is the reply of the Privy Council. I understand that answer did really come, although they did not say so, from the Registrar of the Privy Council. The reporters put it in that form.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: If it did, it was without my authority, and, as I am the judicial Head of the Privy Council, I doubt very much that the Registrar would have dared himself to have given such an answer without consulting me.

Mr. Justice IIODGES: I did not mean to say that the answer in that form was given, my Lord; I mean that there is some suggestion from the way the cases were dealt with there that it was unlikely.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: Well, practically, it is an unlikely question.

Mr. Justice HODGES: I think it is.

The LORD CHANCELLOR : Because, presumably, the man who belongs to the Colony is brought to argue the case, because it has arisen in the Colony, he is a barrister there, or anybody who is permitted to plead in those Courts undoubtedly would be allowed to plead in the Appeal Court in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. CILAMBERLAIN: As I understand, my Lord Chancellor, the theory, the hypothesis is that a Colonial barrister comes over here to appear in a case from his own country?

Į 2

[892]