PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
an Order in Council, whereby Her Majesty would continue to secure to the Combined Court the privilege of a free and unreserved discussion of the Annual Estimates of Colonial Expenditure which had been enjoyed by the Combined Court since the passing of the late Civil List in 1836, although not specially confirmed and ratified by His late Majesty.
And whereas, by an Ordinance passed in the year 1841, provision was made for a Civil List Establishment for a period of seven years, commencing from the 1st day of January 1841, and the same has been duly confirmed by Her Majesty:
It is therefore ordered by Her Majesty, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, that during the continuance of the said Civil List Ordinance, but no longer, the Court of Policy, with the Financial Representatives of the Inhabitants of British Guiana in Combined Court assembled, shall be, as they are hereby declared to be, entitled, and shall have and possess full power and authority, to discuss, in detail, freely and without reserve, the several items of the Annual Estimate of the Colonial expenditure; subject always to the terms and conditions of the said Civil List Ordinance.
And it is hereby further ordered, that it shall not be necessary for the Governor to attend the meeting of the Combined Court when assembled for the purpose of framing the Ways and Means to meet the amount of the annual Estimate of Expenditure, but that the said Court shall at such times consist of all the remaining Members of the Court of Policy, with the Financial Representatives, or a majority of them, and that all discussions touching and concerning the framing and raising the said Ways and Means shall take place in such Court, and not elsewhere.
And it is hereby further ordered, that all votes passed by the Combined Court for the payment of money, shall be paid out under the authority of a Warrant or Warrants, under the hand of the Governor and not otherwise.
And the Right Honourable Lord Stanley, one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, is to give the necessary directions herein accordingly.
(Signed)
Wx. L. BATHURST,
NOTE. This Order in Council has been renewed on the passing of every Civil List Ordinance since 1841.
BRITISH GUIANA.
No. 2.
Copy of the Civil List Ordinance, 1890.
No. 3.
COMBINED COURT.
Annual Session, 1895.
Whereas a difference of opinion exists as to whether the Court of Policy has the power to impose a licence duty for the privilege of selling and purchasing raw gold and other substances taken from the Crown lands of the Colony, or whether such power is not vested in the Combined Court:
Be it resolved. That His Excellency the Governor be requested to appoint a Com- mittee of this Court to state a case on the subject for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in England.
Passed in Combined Court, on the 1st day of March 1895.
CHARLES T. Cox,
-Clerk.
12303.
MY LORD,
No. 103A.
(WESTERN PACIFIC_HAWAII.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, March 4, 1896.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bertie's letter of the 30th January last (hereto annexed), we have considered the questions therein submitted to us, and have the honour to--
Report
That, according to international law, the Government of any country has the right to request and compel an alien to leave the country. The exercise, however, of this right may form the ground of international remonstrance and demand for compensa- tion if it has been employed in a high-handed or oppressive manner.
no
A rebellion took place in Hawaii, and, under such circumstances, it is very difficult to draw a line at the point where the enforcement of what is called martial law longer necessary or justifiable. At the time of the outbreak it would not be disputed that the Government were entitled to put martial law in force, and that they were also entitled to continue martial law so long as there was reasonable ground for supposing that the rebellion might again break out.
Martial law, however, ought to be employed only for the purpose of meeting and overcoming immediate danger, not for the purpose of mere punishment, and certainly not for the purpose of inflicting punishment and inconvenience upon political
adversaries.
The perusal of the documents before us is calculated to leave on the mind the impression that martial law was used by the Government of Hawaii, in some, at all events, of these cases, not for the purpose of meeting immediate danger but for the purpose of harassing and compelling to leave the country residents who were known to hold pronounced Royalist views.
The persons whose claims are before us, although resident for a very long time in Hawaii, had not ceased to be British subjects, and are, therefore, entitled to the protection of Her Majesty's Government if they have been unjustly dealt with. The fact, however, that they were domiciled in Hawaii must be taken into account as bearing upon the question how far it is expedient that Her Majesty's Government should intervene on their behalf, and what compensation should be claimed, when it is alleged that they have been guilty of sedition, and of conduct unfriendly to the established Government of the country.
It is extremely difficult to fix any amount which would represent the damages which it would be proper to demand for the claimants. The amounts which are mentioned must be taken merely as a rough approximation, and possibly it might be expedient that the question of amount should form the subject of arbitration. With these observations we proceed to the consideration of the particular cases.
1. Thomas.-This man is shown to have indulged in a good deal of loose talk hostile to the Government. We think that, under the circumstances, no reasonable complaint could be made of his arrest, but we fail to see that there was any real ground for his imprisonment for so long a period, namely, from the 7th January to the 7th March. There seems to be no trustworthy evidence against him of anything more than loose talk of a seditious character. We think that in his case 2001. would be ample compensation, considering that by his conduct he, to some extent, conduced to his misfortune.
2. McDowall. We think that in this case 1001. may be claimed as compensation for the imprisonment. We do not think that any compensation for leaving the country can be fairly insisted on, inasmuch as McDowall seems to have indulged in language very hostile to the existing Administration, and we think that, in his case, it was not unreasonable that he should be compelled to leave the island.
He was
3. C. W. Ashford.-It appears to us that this man was really arrested and driven out on account of his political opinions, and not because there was any real apprehension of danger from him. The case is, in our opinion, a somewhat serious one. subjected to imprisonment, and forced to sign an agreement to leave the country. The proceedings were high-handed, and we think that he ought to obtain substantial damages. As a rough approximation we would suggest 5007.
• 90586.-19. 25.-6/06.
!
2