PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
PEPELTIC.O.885
COPYRIGHT
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
No. 107. (NEWFOUNDLAND.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
We were honoured with Mr. Meade's letter of the 12th August last, stating t he was directed by you to inform us that a question had arisen in Newfoundland o the use by certain British subjects, in the sea, within three miles of the coast, of ain fishing ongines called "cod traps," which might be taken to monopolise the ing-ground where they were placed, and thus seriously interfere with the fishing *ations of other persons both French and British.
Royal Courts of Justice, November 10, 1887.
hat we were aware that the French had certain rights of fishing off the coast of foundland, under treaties which were set out in the first three pages of the mpanying Blue Book, C.-4641, and that the French Government had made formal
plaint of the use of those engines, which, it was admitted, were not the method of ving on the fishing at the date of the Declaration of 1783. at certain British subjects had also established factories on the shores of New- dland, within the limits of the French fishery, for the purpose of preserving ers; and that the French Government demanded that those factories should be ressed as being an infraction of the treaties above referred to, and called upon Majesty's Governmont to cause them to be removed as being "fixed settlements."
at the Newfoundland Government had not taken, and, it was apprehended, might e prepared to take, legislative or executive action, either for the removal of the er factories or for the prohibition of the use of cod traps on the coast in ion, and that Mr. Meade was to request that you might be informed whether, in pinion, assuming for present purposes that (a) cod traps, (b) lobster factories, contrary to treaties with France, Her Majesty's Government had the consti- right to act within Newfoundland, which was a self-governing Colony, for ng out such treaties, and might legally take measures for (1) the forcible al of cod traps and their confiscation. (2) the compulsory closing of the r factories; and further, whether the Colonial Government might lawfully, it express legislative power, which did not exist, take measures for the forcible al of cod traps within Colonial waters, and their confiscation, or for the com- y closing of the lobster factories.
t Mr. Meade was to add that you would feel obliged for any advice that we be able to give you generally upon the subject.
were also honoured with a letter from Mr. Bramston, dated 25th ultimo, stating 1 reply to a letter from this Department, he was directed by you to transmit
opies of the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions of 28th March 1876, which uted the present form of Government in Newfoundland.
Compliance with the request contained in Mr. Meade's letter, we have the
to
Report
neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Colonial Government has the itional right of taking the measures required for carrying out the treaties ance, unless empowered by Imperial or Colonial legislation. Such power was > the Crown by the 28 George III., chapter 35, but this statute was repealed by tute Law Revision Act, 1871, probably because the Act was regarded as with the treaty (see Hertslet, Vọl. IX.,
page. 252).
event of it being necessary to interfere with the cod traps or lobster factories, to give effect to the Convention of 1885, it is, in our opinion, expedient that should be had to legislation.
tempt should be made to obtain a Colonial Act, but should the Colonial ure decline to pass such a statute, a Bill, to restore to the Crown the necessary should be submitted to the Imperial Parliament.
ight IIon.
ir Henry Holland, Bart., M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.
(Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
458.-3. 93,-8,91.
24,058.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
FELTEC.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
SIB,
No. 108.
(NEW SOUTH WALES.)
LAW OFFICERS to ('OLONIAL OFFICE.
Law Officers' Department, Royal Courts of Justice, 26th November 1887.
WE were honoured with Mr. Bramston's letter of the 22nd instant, stating that he was directed by you to express your thanks for our Report of the 7th November on the New South Wales "Bill to amend and extend the Law of Divorce," and to enclose a copy of the Bill and of that Report for convenience of reference.
That it might be convenient that Mr. Bramston should state, with reference to the case of Niboyet v. Niboyet (L.R. 4 P.D. 1.), cited by the Attorney-General, that the - New South Wales Act, 1873 (No. 9), establishing the divorce jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, contained sections practically identical in their terms with sections 2. 27. and 31 of the Act 20 & 21 Victoria, chapter 85. That a copy of the New South Wales Act was enclosed.
That, referring to the Law Officers' Reports of 1877 and 1878. sent with the previous rase, and again transmitted for our convenience, Mr. Bramston was also to enclose copies of a Memorandum, dated 22nd May 1878, by Lord Chancellor Cairns, of despatches by Sir Michael Hicks Beach, dated 15th July 1878 and 25th June 1879, declining to advise Her Majesty to assent to the New South Wales Bills of 1877 and 179, and of a despatch from Lord Kimberley, dated 22nd June 1880, written iu accordance with a confidential minute by Lord Selborne, then Lord Chancellor (copy of which was enclosed for our confidential information), in which the Secretary of State, after explaining the objections to the measure, stated that Her Majesty's Govern- ment were confident that the Colonial Legislature would not object to such an amendment of the Bill as might secure that the fact of domicil should, in all cases, be substantiated as a necessary condition of the exercise of the jurisdiction, and that if that should be done Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to advise Her Majesty to give Her assent to a Bill passed in that form.
That, with reference to the last-mentioned despatch, Mr. Bramston was to state that the Bill was amended, as suggested by Lord Kimberley, and was subsequently assented to by Her Majesty in Council on the 15th July 1881.
That it would thus be seen that the decision finally turned upon the question of domicil, and, that Her Majesty was only advised to assent when that condition was secured.
That you felt considerable doubt whether Her Majesty's Government would be justified in advising Her Majesty to assent to a Bill which reduced tho domicil required in 1881, to two years now proposed, even if that Bill had not gone further in allowing other and wider grounds of divorce than the New South Wales Bill of ISSI. That it might, however, be pointed out that, as the New South Wales Bills of 1877 and 1879 only adopted the Scotch law as to adultery alone being sufficient ground of divorce, so the present Bill. so far at least as regards the question of domicil, appeared also to adopt the Scotch law in making residence sufficient to sustain a decree of divorce.
That we were good enough in our Report of the 7th instant to advise in accordance with the opinion of our predecessors, that so far as legal considerations were involved, and apart from questions of policy, no sufficient reason had been assigned for advising Her Majesty to withhold Her assent from the present Bill; but that, as the subject was one of great importance, Mr. Bramston was to request us to be so good as again to take the subject into our consideration, and with reference to the papers transmitted with his letter, to favour you with our advice whether the Bill might, in our opinion, properly be submitted for Her Majesty's sanction, and with the grounds upon which that opinion was based.
That Mr. Bramston was further to ask that the matter might receive our early consideration.
• SUO69.-37. 25.-12/87. E. & S.
* No. 106.
2