A.—4

218

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Sir JOSEPH WARD : In 1897. The LORD CHANCELLOR : One year was it \ Sir JOSEPH WARD : Yes, 1897. The LORD CHANCELLOR : And Sir Henry Strong, too, when he was Chief Justice. I must say that the fruits of that Act have not been copious at all events. We should have liked to have had more of that kind of assistance, and I will refer to the difficulties in a moment. In addition to that the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1908, which was passed in accordance with the request of the Conference which was held in 1907, gives power to direct a colonial judge to act as an assessor to the Judicial Committee on the hearing of appeals from his Colony. Sir JOSEPH WARD : He has no vote, of course ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : It has never arisen, 1 was going to say, unfortunately; 1 do not know whether he would have a vote or not, I think he would, but I am not sure —at all events, it has not been operative. Sir JOSEPH WARD : If he attends as an assessor, he does not have a vote as an assessor. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I have not thought about it, but I am not sure that he would. I think Sir Joseph Ward is right, and that probably he would not have a vote. At all events, this was what was asked at the last Conference; the members of it will remember that after discussion the proposal made was exactly this, and we carried it out by Act of Parliament; we did not go further, because the Conference did not ask us to go further. Of course, it has been fruitless, and we have not had the advantage of any judge. Mr. BRODEUR : Do you get any assessors when you have one of the judges from the Dominions on the Bench ? I suppose not. The LORD CHANCELLOR : We have no one except those I have been referring to under those different Acts. I have not attempted—it would weary the Conference and obscure the subject if I were to enter in detail into all the Acts of Parliament, but I have given you roughly the composition of those who are entitled to sit. Now, in practice those who do sit are the same men who sit in the House of Lords, with the addition, which I am afraid we are now going to be deprived of, of Sir Arthur Wilson, who has for years sat constantly, and who is unquestionably a judge of the very highest ability; but I am afraid we are about to lose his services immediately. With regard to the Indian cases, we always have the assistance of an Indian judge, and at the present time it is Mr. Ameer Ali, who sits only in Indian cases. For the rest what happens is that the same men who are available in the House of Lords either sit in the Judicial Committee when the House of Lords is not sitting, or, if the House is sitting at the same time, a distribution is made, and I have to do it myself, my colleagues intrust me with the duty. I can assure you that the utmost effort is made to equalise the strength between the two courts —between the House of Lords on the one side and the Privy Council on the other. For myself, I always, or nearly always, sit in the House of Lords when it is sitting at the same time, but in cases of importance, for instance, cases from the High Court of Australia of late years, my colleagues have always wished me to be present in the Judicial Committee, and I always have been present in any case of great importance, either with regard to Australia or Canada. Whether that strengthens the Board or not it is not for me to say. I think that whenever the two courts sit together there is an absolutely fair balance of judicial strength between the two courts, at least, this is my object.