241

A.—4

12 June, 1911.] Imperial Appeal Court. [Ith Day. The PRESIDENT : Matters could be arranged as far as possible for his convenience. That, I think, would meet your difficulty, as none of the other Dominions desire, as far as this particular point is concerned, any change in the existing system. The LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say to Sir Joseph Ward this: I quite appreciate, if there are only a few cases—two or three cases —the suggestion seems strong that a judge should be sent from New Zealand over here to hear those cases each year, I quite agree with that. I was quite conscious of the fact that it was rather a large order to ask for such a small result in actual business. My only reason for suggesting it was that I had anxiously thought how I could meet the suggestion that appeared on the Agenda Paper, that there ought to be a New Zealand representative at all events hearing New Zealand cases because of their peculiar character. I agree it seems a large thing to do for a comparatively small result, but I can say most heartily I should welcome, and the whole Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would welcome, the presence of a New Zealand judge, and we will do anything we can in order to meet that view, especially with regard to the land cases which Sir Joseph mentioned. If there is any method of arranging it we would heartily welcome it. But if New Zealand desires to send a permanent Judge it seems equally difficult, because there is so little to do. We cannot, however, ask that the other Dominions shall have a Court composed otherwise than as they prefer. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I fully recognise the position of the other representatives. The difficulty I see in an individual judge coming from New Zealand, as suggested as an alternative, is this. It means that, preceding a case in which Maori lands are being dealt with by the Appeal Court of New Zealand, one of the judges of that Appeal Court would require to stand out when that case was before it, in order that when that case came here on appeal he might come to the Old Country to sit with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when considering that case, and my own opinion is that in practice it' would be most difficult and certainly inconvenient. The LORD CHANCELLOR : I do not know whether you are aware that in England in former times judges did sit in appeal upon their own cases. The PRESIDENT : You do not applaud that practice ? The LORD CHANCELLOR : I do not applaud the practice, but as a matter of fact the Lord Chancellor used in the olden times to sit on appeal from himself, and occasionally reversed his own decision. The PRESIDENT : Ido not think we want to go back to that system. How many judges are there in your Appeal Court, Sir Joseph ? Sir JOSEPH WARD : Six Judges. The PRESIDENT : Surely you do not want the whole six to sit there to try all cases ? Dr. FINDLAY : They seem to think so. The PRESIDENT : We should regard it as very luxurious for six judges to sit in our Court of Appeal. I should have thought you might let one stand out once in a way. However, you will try to arrange a way of dealing with that. With reference to Mr. Fisher's suggestion, which, if he will allow me to say so, is a very excellent one; perhaps you will first allow the Lord Chancellor to give an outline of what is the suggestion—not on this point—but on the first point. Mr. FISHER : Certainly.