A.—3

The necessity for a statute consolidating and amending the law relating to divorce is apparent, and no doubt your Excellency's Advisers will duly consider the subject. Your Commissioners believe that, if the code they have drafted be brought into operation, the expense to suitors will be lessened, and speedy settlement of actions will be obtained. Your Commissioners would recommend that Registrars of the Supreme Court should be professional men of experience, and this can only be provided for if the salaries paid to these officers be increased. Your Commissioners beg to refer your Excellency to the resolutions passed by them as the expression of their opinion on matters not specially mentioned in this report. Your Commissioners have given great attention to the subject of costs. Although the question is a difficult one, they have arrived at the conclusion that an entire change should be made in the mode of taxing and assessing costs in litigated cases. Your Commissioners are of opinion that in all cases a fixed sum should be allowed, such sum to be calculated according to the scale annexed to the code, but that the presiding Judge should have power to decide all questions of costs, not only as to the mode in which the costs should be borne, but also as to the amount of costs to be allowed. No doubt this is an innovation; but, the present practice of taxation having been found unsatisfactory, owing probably to the fact that the services of properly-trained officers have not been always obtainable, your Commissioners have seen no other course to pursue in framing rules as to costs than that which they have recommended. The following papers are forwarded to your Excellency herewith :*—(l.) The Minutes of the Proceedings of the Commission. (2.) Supreme Court Bill. (3.) Supreme Court Code of Procedure. (4.) Local Courts Code of Procedure.f (5.) Court of Appeal Bill. (6.) Court of Appeal Rules. (7.) Law Amendment Bill. (8.) Criminal Law Bill. These last two Bills do not in any way alter the existing law, but are put into the present form in order to separate enactments relating to substantive law from those affecting procedure only. James Prendergast. R. C. Barstow. Alexander J. Johnston. Robert Stout. C. W. Richmond. George Harper. Thomas B. Gillies W. Gisborne. (Subject to memorandum). A. Devore. Joshua Strange Williams. John N. Wilson. Ered. Whitaker. C. D. R. Ward. W. S. Reid. Allan Holmes. J. E. Macdonald. Martin Chapman, Secretary to the Commissioners.

RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMISSIONERS OTHER THAN THE JUDGES. Your Commissioners are fully aware that, by the code proposed by them, increased labour and responsibility will be thrown upon the Judges of the Supreme Court, and, although they are aware that the Judges will cheerfully accept the additional burden thrown upon them, still your Commissioners think it right to express to your Excellency their opinion that, if, as your Commissioners apprehend, the facilities afforded by the measures proposed are largely taken advantage of by the public, two questions will at once arise: (1) Whether the salaries of the Judges shall not be increased; (2) Whether the number of the Judges shall not also be increased. Considering the salaries paid to the Judges of the Supreme Courts in the Australian Colonies, and the additional duties which will be cast upon the Judges

* The Bills are printed separately, in the usual form for laying before Parliament. The Supreme Court Code of Pro cedure and the Local Court Code are appended in the form of Schedules to the Bills to which they severally relate. + The Local Courts Bill was drafted since the Report of the Commission was sent in, and is included among the Bills mentioned in the previous note.

3