221

A.—4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [7th Day. The LORD CHANCELLOR : That is not what is meant, but this might be done of course; if it was desired that in Dominion cases there should always be a representative from the Dominion present at the hearing, we could do it in this way—we could fix a time —whatever time suited the Dominion—and take all the cases coming from it at a particular time that would suit the convenience of any representative of the Judicial Bench in the Dominion, who would come over for the piirpose of hearing them. We could do that and facilitate it instead of requiring him to spend all his time waiting here without doing other work. Or, if the other Dominions wished it, he could of course sit and try their cases, but it is entirely for them individually to say. Then there is another consideration which it seems to me, having regard to the complex nature of the jurisdiction, is probably the best, and it is this, that there should always be a wide membership of the Judicial Committee, and that there should be selection made of the judges to sit upon these cases according to the nature of the case. Now that is exactly what we have at the present moment, so far as we have the necessary judicial strength for the purpose, we try to get the most suitable judges. If there is an equity case we always have a strong equity judge present, and if there is an Admiralty case we often get those who have experience of Admiralty jurisdiction. Then there is one more matter to refer to with regard to the Privy Council, and it is this—it is for each Dominion to say on what conditions as to appeal there ought to be an appeal at all. For instance, ought there to be special leave given—ought leave to be required from the court in the Dominion ? What is the limit of amount in which there is to be the right of appeal ? What is the nature of the security which ought to be given when an appeal takes place? Now there are different rules with regard to the different Dominions upon some of those subjects, and the reason is that we have endeavoured to ascertain what is the wish of the Dominion Governments, and have settled it according" to the wishes of the Dominion Governments. So much for the Privy Council. Now, as regards the United Kingdom, the House of Lords—or rather the Court which goes under the denomination of the House of Lords—has been for a very long time the final court for all business from the United Kingdom. We are not prepared to recommend that we should change the personnel of our judicial body of the House of Lords. We can now add to the number any distinguished judge from the Dominions, as. for example, Lord De Villiers, who is now a member of the judicial body of the House of Lords, and whenever it is thought necessary that can be done. But I think I understand the ideal that is aimed at, and I sympathise with it myself, and I will make a practical suggestion. Let each of the Dominions say what is the composition of the court that they would prefer — I do not mean individual judges, that they would like this judge and that iudge, and so forth, but what class of judges do they wish to have their final appeals heard by, and what strength of the court do they think is right, and we will give you our best in the future as we have endeavoured to do in the past. Mr. BATCHELOR : In Australia, when the Constitution was originally passed, it was expressed that the final court of appeal should be in Australia. That was the wish of the Australian representatives, and that was altered by the Imperial Parliament. The PRESIDENT: I remember that; I think Lord Haldane will remember it better than I do, but I think the original Bill as presented to us destroyed the appeal to the King in Council, did it not? Mr. BATCHELOR : Yes, that meant a final court of appeal in Australia, and the Imperial Parliament put in the provision which is now to be found there. Viscount HALDANE : With the consent of the Australian representatives who were over here. Mr. FISHER : I think not.