A.—9

2

and the great Imperial tribunal. I can only express a sincere hope that the unmerited words unfortunately used by Lord Macnaghten may not have the effect of weakening the feeling of reverence for the Privy Council which has always reflected itself in New Zealand's conception of a wise Imperial policy. I have, &c, The Eight Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Office, S.W. W. P. Beeves.

Telegram from the Eight Hon. the Premier of New Zealand to the Agent-General. Wellington, New Zealand, 27th April, 1903. Strictures passed by Privy Council on the New Zealand Court of Appeal in the Porirua case have caused so much indignation in this colony that I am sending you, for as wide publication as possible, the following precis of the pronouncements recently made by the Chief Justice and Justices Williams and Edwards : — Porirua Appeal and the Privy Council. In the recent case of Wallis versus Solicitor-General of New Zealand, the Privy Council in effect stated that the Court of Appeal of New Zealand denied the appellants justice and degraded its dignity and independence by subserviency to the Executive Government. These charges, never, at any rate, made in New Zealand against its highest Court, have provoked much general excitement and indignation; and the Chief Justice, Sir Eobert Stout, at the Court of Appeal on Saturday last, delivered a masterly and exhaustive refutation of their Lordships' aspersions. He pointed out that he would not be credited with any personal resentment, since he was not one of the Judges who tried the appeal in question ; and, moreover, such view as he had expressed as one of the Judges of first instance was expressly approved by the Privy Council. He then proceeded to take the Privy Council judgment passage by passage, and in a survey of the facts, law, and history of the whole case, he showed how complete has been the Privy Council's ignorance of our legal procedure and our statute law. This survey occupies six columns of the newspapers, but the following are a few of the points made : First, the Privy Council makes the cardinal blunder of assuming that the Maoris could dispose of their lands ; but Eoyal Charter and Instructions of 1846, issued by authority of 9 and 10 Vict., c. 103, as well as three New Zealand statutes, clearly prohibited the disposition of even Maoris' occupancy titles. Second, the Privy Council shows its ignorance of the fact that the title was in the Crown, that only by a grant could the Bishop in question obtain the land, and that the Crown was for the foregoing reasons a donor. Third, the charge of misconduct made by the Privy Council against our Solicitor-General was made in ignorance of the fact that by our procedure the SolicitorGeneral, being defendant, had a right to show in any suit to settle a scheme that the land had reverted to the donor and was not a bequest of general charity. Fourth, the amendment in the pleadings asked by the Solicitor-General, which the Privy Council so severely condemn, w 7 as made by the Court with the consent of both parties. Fifth, the Privy Council rely in aid of its conclusion upon a Maori war where a war never existed, and also on the absence in England of Bishop Selwyn, when in fact the Bishop did not leave New Zealand for nine years after he had given up the trust. Sixth, the colonial Court in this case is charged with grave misconduct, although this alleged misconduct consists only in following its own numerous precedents extending beyond 1847, and which are treated unquestioningly by the Courts and legal profession as settled law. Seventh, the Court did not, as the Privy Council declares, decline jurisdiction, but determined that the land had reverted to the Crown. The Chief Justice then, in proof of the Privy Council's ignorance of our laws, gives a series of blunders they have made, most of them in recent years, in deciding other New Zealand appeals. One case, that of Plimmer's, is cited in which the Privy Council, in ignorance of a colonial statute of 1854 expressly forbidding the making of a certain class of contract, decided that such a contract could be made. Sir Bobert Stout's observations conclude in these words : " The matter is really a serious one. A great Imperial judicial tribunal, sitting in the capital of the Empire dispensing justice even to the meanest of British subjects in the uttermost parts of the earth, is a great and noble ideal; but, if that tribunal is not acquainted with what they are called upon to interpret or administer, they may unconsciously become the worker of injustice, and, if such should unfortunately happen, that Imperial spirit which is the true bond of union amongst His Majesty's subjects must be weakened. At present we in New Zealand, as far as the Privy Council is concerned, are in an unfortunate position; it has shown that it knows not our statutes, our conveyancing terms, or our history. What the remedy may be or can be for such a state of things is not at present within my province to suggest." A protest from Mr. Justice Williams, who presided when the appeal was heard here, was read by the Chief Justice. He also showed how erroneous were the grounds, fact, history, and statute law on which the Privy Council had proceeded, and his protest concluded as follows : " The Judges in New Zealand were exposed to a public opinion as vigilant and a criticism as keen as the Judges in England. No suggestion of the kind such as contained in their Lordships' judgment had ever been made here, and it had been reserved for four strangers sitting fourteen thousand miles away to make them." Mr. Justice Edwards also delivered a vigorous protest, stating that while the charges made were baseless, they nevertheless were so grave that if they had been true the Judges who constituted the Court would deserve immediate removal from office. There was a large attendance of the Bar, and, at the conclusion of the Judges' observations, the oldest member of the profession stated to the Court that the whole profession wished to join in the protests just delivered. The leading counsel for Bishop Wallis, who succeeded in the Privy Council, has also declared in the public Press that the attack made by the Privy Council on our Court of Appeal was abominable.