PRIVY COUNCIL.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19162, 19 November 1927, Page 4

PRIVY COUNCIL.

STRENGTHENING THE TRIBUNAL • (FROM 't>T7Br OWN COBBZSFONDENT.) LONDON, October 8. In the course of his address at the provincial meeting of the Law Socity, the chairman (Mr Cecil Allen Coward) referred to the proposal to strengthen the Privy Council by the addition of two iiew judges, and the Lord Chancellors-intimation that these new judges should be subject to an age limit. The desirability of the latter arrangement, he said, was open to question. The cases which now came before the Privy Council • were far greater.in.number and importance, ana came from a far greater number of countries, than in times past, and it was therefore more, important than ever to see that the decisions were those of a tribunal composed of persons of. such eminence and knowledge that their judgments should outweigh those which could be obtained from isny other tribunal. Unless the Privy Council maintained such a standard, there was risk, that our fellow-subjects boyond the seas might hesitate, t" appeal to an uncertain tribunal, and might prefer to abide by the decisions of the Courts of their own country. There was at present no age limit applicable to the members of the Privy Council and the House of Lords. This would seem to raise a question of moment. It was not clear why, if an age limit could be imposed, ft should not be applied to all appointments to be hereafter made. Mr Coward :idverted to the anomalies which may arist' through differences in opinion in the House of Lords leading .to majority aecisions. and instanced the ArcherShee income-tax case. In that case the judge of first instance decided in favour of the Crown. The three Appeal Judges unanimously reversed the decision. In the House of Lords three judges were in favour of the Crown and two were for affirming the decision of the Court of Appeal. In the result, therefore, there were in all the Courts four judges in favour of the ultimate decision and five against it. CouU that be considered satisfactory? Would it not be wiie in Mich circumstances to . "aye the. case reargued, possibly with the assistance of iudges from the ordinary Courts?