(A.) Count Hatzfeldt
*
(B.) Draft to Home, Colonial, and India Offices
June 19, 1893. June 29,
"
(C.) Home Office
July
(D.) Colonial Office
(E.) India Office
July August 12,
02.
"
16541.
(F.) Extradition Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. cap. 52).
(G.) Treaty between Great Britain and Germany, May 14, 1872 (Treaty
No. 536).
T
L
"
LLIC.O.
885
MY LORD,
No. 43.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Law Officers' Department,
Royal Courts of Justice,
September 28, 1893. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's letter of the 5th August, stating that a question had arisen in the Straits Settlements as to the power of the Legislature of that Colony to repeal portions of an Imperial Statute, and that he was directed by your Lordship to invite our consideration of the enclosed Memorandum by the Colonial Attorney-General, but that it was unnecessary to trouble us with the rest of the correspondence.
2. That your Lordship would not ask for an opinion upon the general question, as the Colonial Attorney-General based his argument upon the special terms of the Act 29 & 30 Vict. c. 115. That the words in the 2nd section, "any law statute or usage "to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding" were also found in the 1st Section of the Act 6 & 7 Vict. c. 13, to which, and to the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c. 121, both since repealed by the British Settlements Act, 1887, Mr. Bramston was to refer us. That it was suggested that this exception meant that the powers of legislation conferred by the Act might be exercised notwithstanding that Parliament was the authority primarily charged with the making of laws. That it was also suggested that the persons to whom Her Majesty might be pleased to delegate powers of legislation could only exercise those powers subject to the limitation contained in the 2nd section of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 63.
3. That the main question arose upon the 4th Section of the Act 29 & 30 Vict. c. 115, which the Colonial Attorney-General contended had the effect of conferring special powers in this respect upon the Legislature of the Straits Settlements. That it would be observed that there was no similar section in the Act 6 & 7 Vict. c. 13, or the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c. 121.
That your Lordship desired to be advised whether the persons to whom Her Majesty had delegated her powers of legislation in the Straits Settlements by the Letters Patent enclosed herewith had the power under the 2nd Section of the Act 29 & 30 Vict. c. 115, or under the 4th Section to repeal an Imperial Act-
(a.) Of earlier date than that Act;
(b.) Of later date.
That Mr. Bramston was also to ask whether the laws of the Colony were subject to the limitation contained in the 2nd Section of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 28 & 29 Vict. c. 63.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your Lord- ship's commands have the honour to
Report
That we are of opinion that the persons to whom Her Majesty has delegated her power of legislation in the Straits Settlements by the Letters Patent of the 30th December 1891 have no power under either Section 2 or Section of the Act 29 & 30 Vict. c. 115, to repeal an Imperial Act, whether (a) of earlier or (b) of later
date than that Act.
We are further of opinion that the laws of the Colony are subject to the limitation contained in the 2nd Section of the Colonial Laws Validity Act (28 & 29 Vict. c. 63), that is to say, the legislative powers conferred by the Act 29 & 30 Viet. c. 115, do not
0 74772.-28. 25.-10/99.
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- CUFTRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO