15,764,
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
No. 22.
(GENERAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to ADMIRALTY.
FURTHER CASE.
COLONIAL NAVAL Defence Act, 1865.
A case and opinion thereon laid before the Law Officers and Mr. Staveley Hill in January last is left herewith.
A copy of this opinion having been communicated by the Admiralty to the Colonial Office, the Secretary of State for the Colonies raised the question if the opinion were not limited to seagoing vessels, and did not, therefore, touch the point as to power of Colonial Governments to provide vessels for harbour or other local defence
service.
The Admiralty replied that the opinion did not appear to be limited, as suggested by the Secretary of State, but intimated their willingness to submit a further case to the Law Officers and Mr. Staveley Hill should the Earl of Derby still think it necessary to do so.
The Secretary of State accordingly proposed that a further opinion should be obtained on the following questions, not being satisfied that the opinion given in January last, when the attention of the Law Officers was directed mainly to the provision and equipment of the gunboats then being built in England, was intended to cover the points now raised. The letter from the Colonial Office to the Admiralty is as
follows:-
SIR,
Downing Street, June 9, 1884.
WITH reference to your letter of the 15th of May, 1160, I am directed by the Earl of Derby to state that his Lordship still thinks it advisable to refer to the Law Officers the question whether Colonies possessing responsible Government are not at liberty (with or without an Act of the Colonial Legislature, but in either case inde- pendently of an Act of the Imperial Parliament) to provide and equip armed vessels for harbour defence or other service within Colonial waters, and if the Law Officers should reply in the affirmative, his Lordship would be glad to be informed whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are aware of any objection to such vessels carrying a blue pendant, as well as vessels provided under the Colonial Naval Defence Act.
2. I am to point out that although the previous reference to the Law Officers may seem to include the point now in question, yet, as their attention was then only directed to the provision and equipment of the gunboats then building in England, and about to sail for Australia, Lord Derby does not feel satisfied that their opinion was intended to cover this point.
3. I am to observe that these Colonies have power to make laws for their own peace, order, and good government, and that the Colonial Naval Defence Act, 1865, does not appear to contain words restricting this power in the manner which the opinion of the Law Officers would seem to imply, if their language is to be taken without any qualification.
4. Having regard to possible occurrences among the Pacific Islands, Lord Derby thinks it would be desirable to submit a further question to the Law Officers, viz. :—In the event of a Colonial armed vessel, duly equipped under section 3 of the Colonial Naval Defence Act, being present at a South Sea Island at a time and under oircum- stances in which the commander of one of Her Majesty's ships would be justified in proceeding against the natives by act of war, what would be the legal position of such Colonial vessel if the commander were to proceed actively against the natives by shelling their villages, landing armed parties, or taking other similar steps against the inhabitants of the island.
I am,
&o., JOHN Bramston,
The Secretary to the Admiralty.
(Signed)
^
15987-48. 35.—19/85,
|