A.—4,

238

Ith Day.] Imperial Appeal Court. [12 June, 1911. Dr. FINDLAY— cont. Counsel from New Zealand to see that the Privy Council are instructed on peculiar features of our law. Litigants are put at present to very great expense indeed. Lord Haldane is aware that in earlier years I came over to be associated with him, and other members of the New Zealand Bar have come over, believing it was essential that one who had spent his professional life in interpreting peculiar parts of our law should be here to add what light he could to the arguments in the Privy Council. That is a pretty heavy burden on our litigants ; and the New Zealand Government feel it is their duty to relieve litigants as far as possible of that burden. If, therefore, a judge of our Supreme Court were resident in London for a period of from five to seven years, and he had a right to sit upon appeals not only from New Zealand, but from the other self-governing Dominions, his time would be fairly fully occupied. There would be, roughly, one appeal every week to be heard. Ido not apprehend that the other oversea Dominions would object to a New Zealand judge being associated with the English judges in trying their appeals, any more than they object now to a judge who has spent his life in India having a seat on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. If the burden were borne by New Zealand, I apprehend there would be no objection on the part of the British Government. So the first question really is, I suppose this : are the oversea Dominions agreeable to a judge from New Zealand sitting upon their appeals if we in turn are agreeable to a judge from their Dominions sitting upon our appeals, the expense, of course, to be borne as I have suggested ? There is another feature of this matter which, I think, meets the objection which Mr. Asquith made. Why should the Imperial Court of Appeal be entirely paid for by this country ? The Privy Council is as much part, I take it, of our judicial system as it is of yours. If a tribunal of that kind is to be maintained, is it anything unfair to ask us to contribute our portion in the shape of paying one of the judges of that tribunal ? I apprehend on any fair conception of the burden of Empire there should be no objection. We feel strongly that the presence of one of our judges would be helpful in more directions than the one of interpreting our law. He would possibly be able to confer with the Judges from Australia, South Africa, Canada, and Newfoundland in helping to bring about that uniformity of law which forms a large part of this Agenda Paper ; and, again, meetings of the Judges from the oversea Dominions would be a substantial contribution to closer Imperial unity. Their presence in London for five or seven years, in more or less daily contact, would be a great gain to the growth of real Imperial unity, and to the devising, possibly, of some closer means of making that unity effective. There is, moreover, this phase of it. If a judge coming from Australia or New Zealand could spend five or seven years here, it would be to him an education in your system, and possibly the light he might bring from the New Zealand judicial system might be some addition to the light of the judges on this side. There have grown up with us, as must be the case in every British country which is following its own destiny, divergent lines between your law and ours, and it is probably difficult for a lawyer in London to completely understand our judicial system, as it is sometimes difficult for our lawyers to thoroughly understand yours. If, then, there could be this union of the judges of the oversea Dominions in London, I urge upon the members of the British Government present, that it would have more than the aspect of membership of this tribunal; it would be some contribution, and a valuable one, to a better understanding of the oversea Dominions, and possibly to the discovery of a closer organized system of Imperial unity which Sir Joseph Ward has been trying to impress upon us at earlier meetings. For those reasons I should like to know whether Canada, Australia, South Africa, and Newfoundland would object to the system of a judge from each of those selfgoverning oversea Dominions, sitting upon the appeals of each of the other countries, so that these five judges should be associated with the judges of the Privy Council to hear appeals from all these oversea Dominions, and, if you like, from the Crown Colonies as well. If, so, there would be enough to do, I take it, all the year round, and the other advantages I have mentioned would flow from the proposal.