§ LORD LUDLOWMy Lords, I rise to ask the Lord Chancellor whether his attention has been called to observations made by Sir Robert Stout, Chief Justice of New Zealand, as reported in The Times of July 17tn, to the effect that he was surprised that the Colonies endured the present state of things under which cases were delayed by the Privy Council for two or three years; whether, in his opinion, the complaint as to the delay in the administration of justice in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is well founded, and, if so, what remedy he proposes.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)My Lords, my attention had been called to the statement before the noble Lord put down his Question, and I had directed a Return to be made of causes which had been before the Privy Council during the last two years. I regret very much the information which has been given to the Chief Justice of New Zealand, and I very much regret that he should have used the words attributed to him. I can hardly believe that they were correctly reported. But what is most material is what foundation is there for the observations? I do not pretend that the state of things is absolutely satisfactory—I have had to adjourn the judicial sittings of this House several times in order that I might sit in the Privy Council, as there are not enough of us to form two Courts in very important cases—but the statement of the 894 Chief Justice, if correctly reported, is wholly and absolutely inaccurate.
With regard to the list which I have had prepared, I think it will be well to explain that, where a case comes on appeal from New Zealand, or, indeed, from any other colony, the date on which it is set down for hearing is entirely the act of the parties, and the tribunal has no control over it at all. Of the whole of the cases heard from New Zealand, three cases were decided in less than two months, including not only the hearing, but the judgment; two cases in between two and three months; one case between three and four months, and three cases between four and five months. There was one case which occupied about nine months i these circumstances. There were three consolidated appeals, which began to be heard in the beginning of August. After hearing the appeals for two days, and after consultation with the counsel, it was felt to be impossible that the case could be finished until after the long vacation. That case lasted, if we count the whole of the long vacation in, about nine months before judgment was given. There was another case in the list for February and March of this year, but it was adjourned from time to time until June by, and for, the convenience of the parties.
In view of these facts, I think it will be seen that the statement of the Chief Justice—if he really used the words attributed to him, and I should be very sorry indeed to think he did use them—was manifestly a ridiculous exaggeration. I trust to lay the Return which I have quoted on the Table of the House, and I hope notice will be taken of it, because it seems to me that, although it does not disclose an entirely satisfactory state of things, it shows that the delays in the law are not so remarkable in these days. The Privy Council, through its Judicial Committee, hears cases not only from New Zealand, but also from India, Canada, Australia, and other colonies, and, therefore, I do not think the extreme limit I have mentioned is extraordinary delay. I hope this matter will be brought to the attention of the Chief Justice, and that he may see reason to correct the observations he is reported to have made, 895 attributing to the Privy Council the habit of delaying cases for two or three years. There is not the smallest foundation for such a statement.
§ EARL CARRINGTONMy Lords, I should like to say one word on this matter. I am certain that Sir Robert Stout is the very last person in the world who would be guilty of ridiculous exaggeration and—
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. I suggested that there was some mistake or that the Chief Justice had received inaccurate information. I should be very sorry indeed to say he was guilty of wilful exaggeration.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI did not the least understand the noble and learned Earl to say that. I only wished to say that Sir Robert Stout is the very last person who would make any statement that could be described as a wilful exaggeration, and I agree with the Lord Chancellor that there must be some mistake in the report. I should like to call the attention of the House for one moment to what lies behind all this. Sir Robert Stout also complained, as far as I understand, of the fact of these cases having to come to England to be tried at all, and I think the House might take notice of that. I am well aware that in this country most people, and especially those who have never been to the Colonies, look upon the Supreme Court of Judicature as the last link which joins the mother country to the Colonies, and they would be very sorry to see it interfered with; yet that is not altogether the way in which the Colonies consider it. I remember that when I was in New South Wales a land case was decided one way by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, but when it was sent home to be adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court in this country the decision went the other way. The result of that was that when the decision was telegraphed out a Bill was passed unanimously through both Houses of Parliament in New South Wales and Australia making it a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment to d—what?—to do exactly what had 896 been stated to be the law by the Supreme Court of the Empire. I think it is as well that it should be known that there is some little dissatisfaction amongst people in the Colonies on that score, more especially at the Cape, where, as your Lordships are aware, the law is Roman law.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORRoman-Dutch law.
§ EARL CARRINGTONWhere the law is Roman-Dutch law and quite different from the law in this country. I think we have had an object-lesson to-night. The debate earlier in the evening turned on the great dissatisfaction felt in Scotland at the reversal of the decision of the Supreme Court in Scotland as regards Church matters; and when we hear such language as was used by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, Lord Rosebery, who talked, apparently with the approval of the entire House, of the anomaly of the law, of the agony of the decision, of the disorder in which the Church had been put by the law—
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI must ask the noble Earl whether he considers he is in order in going into the Scottish Church Bill in this discussion.
§ EARL CARRINGTONAm I not in order?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think not.
§ EARL CARRINGTONThen I will not say another word.
§ LORD LUDLOWI may state that I put the Question down with the sole object of learning what was the state of things. I was careful to refer to the observations made by Sir Robert Stout "as reported in The Times."