PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
PEPTIC.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
2
Protectorates. This could not be done without admitting that the Protectorate conferred the rights and duties of territorial sovereignty, and would, therefore, be in conflict with the principles hitherto maintained by Her Majesty's Government.
We think the preferable course would be to instruct Her Majesty's officers in the Protectorate to give facilities to the German officers to arrest and conduct within the limits of the German Protectorate any persons who are alleged by the German Consular officer to be German subjects, and to have committed criminal offences within the jurisdiction of the German Courts.
The Most Hon. the Marquis of Salisbury,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c. (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
•
4768.
MY LORD,
No. 113.
(VICTORIA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, March 7, 1888. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 20th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us (1) a copy of a petition from the Council of the University of Melbourne, praying Her Majesty the Queen to issue an Order in Council under section 17 of the Medical Act, 1886, declaring that Part II. of the Act should be deemed to apply to the Colony of Victoria; (2) a copy of the Medical Practitioners Statute, 1865, of the Colony of Victoria; (3) copy of a letter from the Council Office, pointing out that by clause 9 of the Victorian Act registration as a medical practitioner in Victoria was limited to natural- born or naturalized subjects of Her Majesty, whereas there was no such restriction in the Imperial Acts, and asking for your Lordship's observations before proceeding with the preparation of the Order in Council prayed for.
That Mr. Wingfield was to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion whether, notwithstanding that the Victorian Act precluded foreigners registered in the United Kingdom under the Medical Acts from being registered and practising in Victoria, that Colony could be considered to afford to the registered practitioners of the United Kingdom such privileges of practising in the Colony as would justify the making of an Order in Council applying Part II. of the Medical Act, 1886, to the Colony.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to-
Report
That the question raised in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 20th February 1888 involves considerations of policy rather than of law. So far as the matter is for us; there is not in our opinion any legal objection to the making of the Order in Council proposed. No doubt the Act of 1886 contemplated that the privileges to be afforded by the British possessions or foreign countries should be afforded to the resident medical practitioners of the United Kingdom, and as we pointed out in our previous Report to the Privy Council, there is, so far as we know, no restriction requiring naturalization in the case of the subjects of foreign nations applying to be registered in England. But the Act of 1886 also contemplated (see section 6) that there might be a difference depending upon local laws, in the case of rights enjoyed by medical practitioners in the United Kingdom and in other parts of Her Majesty's dominions. We doubt, therefore, whether it was contemplated that such condition as that provided by section 9 of the Medical Practitioners Statute, 1865 (No. 262 of Victoria), should be imposed, but there is not in our opinion any legal objection sufficient to justify their Lordships of the Privy Council in declining to recommend Her Majesty to make the Order in question.
It will be for your Lordship to consider whether you should call the attention of the Colonial Authorities to the point.
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c..
(Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
9.
37
tr
!!
377
52950.-13. 25.-3/88.