PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TTC.O. 885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
into consideration the probable effect of exportation outside the Colony, such as the risk of creating, or aggravating, disturbances in neighbouring countries, or of involving the Colony in disputes with other countries. Such considerations must, however, be founded on the interests of the Colony and any treaty obligation binding upon it, and not on any supposed rule of international law. 4. Prohibition must be general, and without discrimination as to persons or places. except in so far as partial prohibition may be authorised by the express language of the enactment relied upon.
'The Most Hon.
The Marquess of Ripon, K.G.. &c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c. (Signed) C. RUSSELL.
JOHN RIGBY.
1075.
MY LORD,
No. 26.
(WESTERN PACIFIC.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's
Royal Courts of Justice, January 19, 1893. letter of the 30th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to thank us for our Report of the 17th of November last,* upon the draft Pacific Order in Council, and, with reference to the third paragraph of that Report, to ask whether the eighth paragraph of the accompanying draft despatch to the High Commissioner carried out our meaning and stated the law accurately, and whether that draft was otherwise correct, and might be despatched to its destination.
That the copy of the Order settled by us was returned for reference if desired, as well as a copy of a further revise (No. 6) in which our amendments were inserted with the exception of a few words accidentally omitted in Article 3. That that revise showed in manuscript some slight alterations in Articles 6 and 18, which were desired by the Admiralty; and in Articles 10 and 111 (2) verbal additions, which, if we concurred, your Lordship thought should be made.
That your Lordship also proposed to omit as superfluous the words "with or without hard labour" in Articles 54 (2) 59 and 71 (2), because as we should observe from Article 78 (4) any sentence of imprisonment under the order might be with or without hard labour as the Court directed.
That in Article 52 (1) and 67 (2) the words appeared to be necessary.
That it was suggested by the Foreign Office to whom our report was communicated, that if in Article 3 the definition of "British subject" were omitted, it would seem that the definition of "foreigner" might also be omitted with advantage, as a foreigner would then be a person who was not a British subject or a native; and that a possible difficulty might be avoided since under the present definition of "foreigner" a subject of a State with which Her Majesty was at war would not be foreigner for the of the Order in Council. That it was also suggested that the words
purposes defined" might be omitted from the definition of "native."
as herein no objection to those alterations if they met with our concurrence.
That your Lordship had
That Mr. Bramston was also to ask our consideration of the words "with the consent "of such natives or foreigners" in Article 23 the effect of which had previously escaped observation. That the Article was taken by Sir R. Wright from Article 17 of the Africa Order 1889, which being made under the foreign jurisdiction Acts, would primarily have related to transactions among British subjects, and the consent of other persons would apparently be required in order to give to the Consular Courts esta- blished by that Order, jurisdiction over such persons, at any rate in civil matters. But that the present Order was primarily directed under the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts 1872 and 1875, to the control of lawless British subjects in the Pacific. That to prescribe consent by natives or foreigners seemed unnecessary in criminal cases, and even in some cases, such as murder or manslaughter, consent would be impossible; while in civil matters consent to the jurisdiction by foreigners was provided for in Article 109.
+4
That your Lordship would propose, therefore, after the word "order" to alter the fourth, fifth, and sixth lines of the Article, so as to read "are subject to the provisions punishable or otherwise cognisable in the same manner as if " &c., &c. That the Article might possibly be omitted, but to do so now would cause great inconvenience, and some risk of error, as a full index and table of contents had been printed, which would be almost entirely upset if the numbering of the Articles were altered. That it was therefore, desirable to retain Article 23 in some form or other.
That Mr. Bramston was to request that we would be good enough to advise your Lordship
--
(1.) Whether the draft despatch was correct and might proceed?
(2.) Whether the alterations mentioned in his letter of 30th December last, might properly be made in the draft order?
74772.-4. 25.-2/93.
• No. 23.
2