CO885-(7-8) — Page 396

549

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference-

TILTIC.O.885

7

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

The SOLICITOR GENERAL: Yes.

62

The LORD CHANCELLOR: A very distinguished member of the Bar comb from America, and was admitted an English barrister within twelve months of his arrival here.

The Hon. DAVID MILLS: Who was that?

The LORD CHANCELLOR: Mr. Benjamin.

Šir JOHN EDGE: After three terms.

'

I am

Mr. Justice HODGES: I am sorry to be obliged to press the matter. asked to press it by my Government, and I must do it. I must bring this before this or another Tribunal. They want it. I am obliged to the Solicitor-General and to your Lordship for what you have said, but we want the matter settled.

Mr. ROSE INNES: Is not this only one aspect of a very big question, namely, the position of all the Colonial Bars. Had it not better he considered as a whole; this is a very small matter, that of appearing before the Privy Council; the large matter is the question which will ultimately come up some day to be considered: the question of all the Colonial Bars throughout the Empire. At present, of course, au English barrister is entitled to be admitted to the Bar of any Colony.

Mr. Justice HODGES: No, he is not.

-

Mr. ROSE INNES: I do not know any Colony where he is not entitled. Mr. Justice HODGES: I will tell you in my own Colony ho is not.

Mr. ROSE INNES: Not entitled ?

Mr. Justice HODGES: Certainly not.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Entitled to be admitted.

Mr. Justice HODGES: He is not entitled to be admitted; he has to come before the Court, and the Court has to be satisfied that the-examinations that he has passed are equivalent to the examinations prescribed in Australia. It is a most elaborate provision, and he is not entitled. I have had to caution people coming here to Oxford that they are in jeopardy when they return. So it is not so. It is not a question of their being entitled at all. That is the reason, we say here, it should be part of this question of reciprocity which leaves the Australian Bar to move in the direction they

have.

Mr. ROSE INNES: It seems to me the best ground to press this proposal is, I think, you have admitted every English barrister.

Mr. Justice IIODGES: Oh, no.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: It rather inverts the argument now that an English barrister is not entitled to be called in Australia.

Mr. Justice HODGES: I am not contending that the Australian barrister is entitled to be called here.'

The LORD CHANCELLOR: No; but I think practically you are, because if you come to analyze it what you contend is that an Australian barrister coming here arguing in an Australian case, and some Canadian solicitor giving him a brief to argue a Canadian case, he is entitled to argue it before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: If the comity is that a barrister of the British Empire is allowed to plead before that Tribunal that is understandable, but if you insist in Australia upon the re-examination of an English barrister before he is allowed

to

63

appear before an Australian Court, with what face can you ask the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to hear somehody coming from Australia to argue a Canadian case?

:

Mr. Justice HODGES Just in the same way, my Lord, as you allow an English barrister who is not admitted in an Australian Court to appear in the Court which is hearing an Australian appeal, and which for the time being is the Appellate Court of Australia, and you allow an English barrister to appear in that Court who would not be allowed to appear in the Australian Court, and to argue there, and it is only to that extent that I ask the reciprocity. It is perfectly mutual, on exactly the same lines as fn as I can see, equality exactly on both sides.

The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes; I think I can see an answer that would be suggested to you, that this is an English Court practically advising the King in Eband. However, I confess these questions seem to me more rightly Mions for debate than any practical good effect that it would have.

raise ested that such a thing is common.

It is never I have never heard of such a case arising. In quite imagine, as Mr. Justice lodges has said, it might raise a very large

tion indeed, in my opinion, of all the English advocates all over the world.

Mr. Justics HODGES: Just in the same way that the English require the Colonial barrister to be examined before he is admitted in England, so the Australians require the English barrister to be examined before he is admitted in Australia.

Sir JOIN EDGE: I rather think that you are under a mistake about that, because my impression is that the Inns of Court will now call them to the English Bar-a member of the English Bar who has practised for a certain time in the Conics-that is my impression.

Mr. Justice ПODGES: I think not.

Sir JONN EDGE: That is my impression.

}

Mr. Justice HODCES. I had a conversation with a leading member of the Bar

the other day, and he said not.

Sir JOHN EDGE: Well, I can satisfy you on that point if you like to go to the Middle Temple.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: They will not call an Irish barrister without eating terms.

Sir JOIN EDGE: The question came up a short time ago about Colonial barristers. Have you ever known a member of the English Bar being refused admission to the Bar of your Colony on any ground except character?

Mr. Justice HODGES: Yes; I am pretty sure I was on the Bench when he was refused.

Sir JOHN EDGE: On any ground except character ?

Mr. Justice IIODGES: Yes.

Sir JAMES PRENDERGAST: They are not entitled in`any of the Colonies.

Mr. Justice HODGES: I can show you the Act of Parliament. There is no doubt about it. There is no need to discuss a thing of this kind. The Act of Parliament is as straight as it can be, and it was brought in—

Sir JOHN EDGE: I am not asking about the power to refuse; I am asking whether, in fact, it has ever been held that the examinations here were not sufficient for call to the Bar in the Colony.