217

A.—4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [7th Day. The LOED CHANCELLOR : I think more than half. The PRESIDENT : It is more than half altogether—l 7. The LORD CHANCELLOR : You will observe that now, speaking of the Dominion apart from the Colonial Courts, Canada figures much more largely than half—in fact, a great proportion of the cases are from one court or another in Canada. The PRESIDENT : I was including that. Dr. FINDLAY : 1910 is an exceptional year. The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have given each year; I only took the last for convenience. If you go back and take 1909, Australia had 3, Canada Supreme Court 7, Cape of Good Hope 1, Natal 1, New South Wales 1, New South Wales (Vice-Admiralty Court) 1, New Zealand Court of Appeal 1, Nova Scotia 4, Ontario 7, Quebec 3, Transvaal none, and Western Australia none. The PRESIDENT : I make it 23 from Canada, that is about half, if you include British Columbia and Nova Scotia. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Yes. Ido not wish to go through this because I think it would be more convenient that the members of the Conference should have the document before them and be able to see exactly the numbers, which I believe are quite accurately taken out. Who may sit as Judges in the Privy Council 1 You see the very large scope of its work. It has to consider Canadian cases, which involve Canadian statutes which have quite their own character, and there are cases involving the old French law before the date of the French Revolution —the old French law and the rules of the French.law which was taken to Canada. They have to consider in South Africa Roman-Dutch law. have to consider also the English Common Law largely modified by Statute or considerably modified by Statute in Canada, in Australia, in NeAv Zealand, and also in South Africa. There is, of course, also Indian law, which is in itself extremely difficult and of a different kind altogether, which I have not adverted to before. Accordingly, with a body of law like that to deal with, you have to adjust the composition of the tribunal in order to accommodate it to the nature of the law which you have to weigh. The people who may sit as Judges in the Privy Council are the Lord Chancellor, the four Lords of Appeal, all those who have held high judicial office, the same as the people who sit in the House of Lords. Then there are two appointed under the Act of 1833 with special knowledge of Indian law, and in addition to that there are provisions to enable Judges in the Dominions or in the Colonies to be members of this Court as well. Sir JOSEPH WARD : How often has that been availed of ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : I was going to say—very seldom. The Act of 1895 states that any person being or having been Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Dominion of Canada or of. a Superior Court in any Province of Canada or of the Australasian or South African Colonies or of any other Superior Court in His Majesty's Dominions named in that behalf by His Majesty in Council if he is a Member of His Majesty's Privy Council shall be a Member of the Judicial Committee, but the number of such persons is not to exceed five at any time. I am sorry to say, as Sir Joseph Ward intimated rather in his question, that we have not had the advantage which I should like to have had of the assistance of many Judges under that rule. We have had the great advantage of Lord de Villiers coming, and he has come several times. Sir JOSEPH WARD : Five separate visits. The LORD CHANCELLOR : Yes, I need hardly say how welcome his presence has been. We have had the late Sir Henri Taschereau from Canada, who has sat occasionally. If my memory serves me right we had Chief Justice Way.