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.
