CHAP. III] THE CONFERENCE OF 1911 15629 
could not be done without an amendment of the Constitution, 
and he was not prepared for an Australian judge to be sent 
home to sit on the Judicial Committee. Mr. Malan? 
emphasized the fact that under the South Africa Act, 1909, 
appeals lay only by special leave, and that accordingly 
appeals would be very rare, and the Government of the 
Union would not be prepared under these circumstances to 
send a man home to sit on the committee. Sir Edward 
Morris 2 stated that Newfoundland was perfectly satisfied 
with matters as they stood, and that they could not go to 
the expense of providing a judge. 
The Conference accordingly accepted a resolution substi- 
buted by Mr. Fisher for his original resolution, to the effect 
that, having heard the views of the Lord Chancellor and 
Lord Haldane, the Conference recommended that the pro- 
posals of the Government of the United Kingdom should be 
embodied in a communication to be sent as soon as possible 
to the Dominion Governments, and Mr. Asquith laid stress 
on the offer made by the Lord Chancellor that cases from 
the Dominions should be grouped together so as to permit 
of their all being dealt with with the assistance of a judge 
from the Dominion itself under the Act of 1908, an arrange- 
ment which he thought would meet the desire of the Govern- 
ment of New Zealand that a New Zealand judge should sit 
in cases concerning Maori lands. 
The memorandum? circulated as the outcome of the 
discussion contained nothing new. The Imperial Court of 
Appeal will consist of two divisions, the House of Lords, and 
the Privy Council. It will consist of practically the same 
members varied to suit the cases they have to deal with, and 
it will receive additional strength through the addition of 
two judges. The decisions of the Judicial Committee will 
as hitherto be issued as one decision, but dissenting judges 
may intimate the grounds of dissent. 
+ Cd. 5745, pp. 231, 232, 245. * Ibid., p. 239. 
* See Parl. Pap., Cd. 5746-1, p. 236 ; for the Bill, see House of Lords 
Debates, ix. 1130-2. It is condemned by Mr. Glynn, Commonwealth 
Parliamentary Debates, 1911, p. 178.