A.—s

203

far as I know their opinion, to prefer that method of disposing of their cases. It is not so much on grounds of this character that we put forward this plea for a single Court of Appeal, but rather on the ground that what we all desire, and should desire, is the establishment of the very best Court of Final Appeal that can possibly be constituted. We believe that even the wealth of legal knowledge and experience in this country, supplemented as it might be from the Outer Empire from time to time, can scarcely be divided into two Courts without one being less effective, or, what is almost the same, obtaining less confidence than the other. Of course the fact that those members of the House of Lords who are Law Lords participate in the Judgments of the Privy Council has added the great weight which they bring. In the Judgments of the Privy Council, which are understood to have been much appreciated in the Dominion of Canada, it was generally, 1 believe, considered that the most prominent purl in shaping them was taken by Lord Watson, a very eminent and distinguished Judge, whose services were at least equally available in the House of Lords. Consequently, with the aim of obtaining if possible the very best Court which the Empire can furnish, and making it the strongest Court of Appeal without rival or fellow, we are attracted not merely by the symmetry of the proposal liiii by the fact that it would afford an assurance which we consider we do not at present enjoy, that in regard to appeals from Australia, for which alone I claim to speak, we would receive the benefit of the very best and strongest Court available. Comparing the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as we see it, with the House of Lords, our opinion is that of the two the latter is the more desirable Court. The present proposal has become complicated of course by the fact that the representative Conference which assembled in 1901, although it consisted of delegates only, did, by a majority, decide in favour of the retention of the appeal to the Privy Council. 1 haslen to say that nothing is further from our intention in making this proposal than while both Courts remain to require those communities who prefer to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be diverted to any other tribunal on our account, or for the reasons which commend themselves to us. I have, therefore, by way of supplement, to say that our desires would be satisfied if His Maiesty's Government could provide, by Order in Council, or if not by Act, that it should he possible for any of the King's Dominions which intimated its desire in a forma] manner to transfer its appeals, while the present system of two Courts is maintained, from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to the I louse of Lords I nder that plan those who for one reason or another are satisfied to lie within the jurisdicl ion of the former, would remain as at present, their appeals following the existing course; while on the other hand the Commonwealth of Australia, and any other dominion which on the whole, taking all things into consideration, prefers to have the law interpreted in the lad resort by the House of Lords, which have the benefit of coming under its jurisdiction That, I take it, would in no sense disturb either system. It would make some further demands upon the Lords of Appeal: it would increase the amount of business before them, though, I think, having regard to the lists with which they already deal, that it would not be by any means a serious increase, that is to say, sufficiently serious to render ii a matter of moment It would be a source of satisfaction to us in Australia. It would not interfere with the equally free choice of any other part of the Empire. Although I feel some difficulty in alluding to the Judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, to which I have already referred,

Seventh Day. •26 April 1907.

Imperial COUBT op Appeau (Mr. Deakin.)