PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE,, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
The boundaries of New South Wales rest on a statutory basis 18 & 19 Vict. c. 54, and § 46 of the Bill scheduled to that Act defines the limits of New South Wales with a cortain defined power of variation by Her Majesty. Even if the annexation of Norfolk Island could be deemed a question of boundary, we do not think that, in view of the Statute 18 & 19 Vict. c. 54, it can be safely effected by Order in Council.
We therefore think that, even if the Colony consented, the annexation by Order in Council would be invalid.
*
2. In the case supposed, the consent of New South Wales would require a vote of the Legislature.
3. If the annexation could be effected by Order in Council, we think that Her Majesty could under 18 & 19 Vict. c. 56 make use of the power thereby conferred to declare what law should be in force in the Island when it becomes part of New South Wales, and to create special powers of legislation till the New South Wales Legislature should provide otherwise; provided that the Legislature of New South Wales by Act consented to these conditions of annexation, but not otherwise.
4. We think that in the case supposed it would require both an Order in Council and
a Colonial Act to make special provision for the Island after annexation.
But as we have stated in answer to the first question, we cannot advise annexation by Order in Council, even with the consent of the Colony.
We think that the object in view should be effected by Acts of the Imperial Legislature and of the Legislature of New South Wales. The Imperial Act should authorise Her Majesty to make an Order in Council annexing with the consent of the Colony, and making provision for interim government.
The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&o.
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
1478/97
SIR,
No. 119A.
(WESTERN AUSTRALIA,)
LAW OFFICERS to TREASURY.
CASE.
BRANCH MINT AT PERTH.
Treasury Chambers, September 11, 1896.
I AM directed by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to trans- mit (in duplicate) (I.) the draft of an Order in Council and Proclamation to establish a Branch of the Royal Mint at Perth in Western Australia, and (II.) a Memorandum thereon by Sir Henry Jenkyns, together with (III.) a copy of a letter of the 25th ultimo from the Deputy Master of the Royal Mint.
Their Lordships request that you will prepare and submit to the Law Officers a case for their opinion on the legal points raised by Sir Henry Jenkyns, especially with regard to the precise form to be adopted for Article 5 of the proposed Proclamation.
Two copies of the "Extension Order," referred to in the Memorandum, are also enclosed, together with a copy of the Perth Mint Act, 1895, which has received Royal I am to add that information has not yet reached their Lordships respecting the publication of the Extension Order in the Colony, but that it may be assumed to be in force.
Assent.
The Solicitor.
I am, &c.
FRANCIS MOWATT.
(
Copies of the documents mentioned in the Treasury letter are left herewith.
The Attorney and Solicitor General are requested to advise on the points raised by Sir Henry Jenkyns, especially as to the form to be adopted for Article 5 of the proposed Proclamation.
OPINION.
We think it very doubtful whether section 15 of the Coinage Act, 1870, would apply
to the Branch Mint at Perth (see the definition of Mint in section 2). And we think that the Proclamation should provide for the appointment, &c. of officials.
We think that the Proclamation must itself provide for the charge to be made for coinage, and that this cannot be deputed to the Governor in Council. We, therefore, recommend that the alternative clause 5 should be adopted, but with the omission of the words making the obligation to coin subject to local regulations.
We think that authority may be given to the Governor in Council to fix a charge for assay and refining as distinct from the charge for coinage.
In our opinion, the Colonial Government could not lawfully waive the payment at
the Mint of the charges for coinage fixed by the Proclamation.
Section 11 (8) gives power to the Queen to determine the application of the charge
for coinage, and we think it would be well that the Proclamation should state that the charge is to be applied in the manner provided in the Colonial Act.
We do not think that section 12 of the Coinage Act, 1870, would of itself apply to the Branch Mint of Perth, and we think that the Proclamation should make provision for the trial here of gold coined in the Perth Mint separately from gold coined in the Mint here. The sixth clause of the Proclamation gives power to require the trans- Inission of specimen coins to England, but it would appear desirable that these coins should be tried by themselves, and we suggest that the Proclamation should provide for the place and mode of trial.
Royal Courts of Justice,
October 31, 1896.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
ROBERT B. FINLAY.
0
73480 -4.
25.-1/07.
*