།:།། :「།
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O. 8
Reference :--
885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
give effect to the measure as soon as possible, and as considerable delay might be caused if the Bill was needlessly laid before Parliament, Mr. Wingfield was to ask whether upon the case as presented you are, in our opinion, right or wrong, in considering that step to be necessary.
In obedience to your commands we have taken the matter into our consideration, and have the honour to
Report-
*
That the repeal of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59, section 32, as regards Western Australia by the Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Act, 1893, is immaterial, as this repeal does not affect any enactment in which the repealed Act has been applied.
In our opinion the provisions of section 32 of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59 have been applied to the Legislative Council and Assembly of Western Australia by the 53 & 54 Vict. c. 26, section 2 (The Western Australia Constitution Act 1890). Until the passing of that Act, Western Australia was governed by a Legislative Council to which the provisions of section 32 of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59 applied, so that any Bill relating to the matters specified in that section had to be reserved for Her Majesty's assent. and laid before Parliament. The Western Australia Constitution Act, 1890, which substituted a Legislative Council and Assembly for the old Legislative Council, while repealing so much of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59 as was inconsistent with the Act of 1890 by the proviso in the second section enacted that the provisions of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59, and 5 & 6 Vict. c. 76, which relate to the reservation of Bills for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, shall apply to Bills to be passed by the Legislative Council and Assembly. We do not think that this proviso relates only to sections 12 and 33 of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59. In our opinion it amounts to a re-enactment of the provisions of section 32 as well.
The question, however, arises whether the portion of section 32, which provides that a copy shall be laid before Parliament for thirty days, is comprised in this re-enactment. We think it is. Although this portion of section 32 is not expressly mentioned the words of section 2 of the Act of 1890 cover all provisions which relate to the reservation of Bills for Her Majesty's pleasure, and one of these is, that a copy of the Bill shall be laid before Parliament for thirty days before Her Majesty's pleasure shall be signified. We are, therefore, of opinion that the Bill must be laid before Parliament for thirty days before Her Majesty's pleasure is signified.
1
The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
3005.
SIR,
No. 128.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, February 8, 1897.
We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. E. Wingfield's letter of the 18th ultimo, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us, with reference to our report of the 4th January 1897* on the case of the suppression of the "Critic newspaper by the Government of the South African Republic, a copy of a full statement from Messrs. Guedalla and Cross, solicitors for Mr. Henry Hess, the proprietor of the "Critic," which had since been received, which set forth the case in much greater detail than Mr. Hess's memorandum, and which might induce us to somewhat modify the opinion we had already expressed.
That Mr. Wingfield was to request us to favour you with our opinion on the following questions:
-
(1.) Whether Article V. of tho Press Law of 1896 of the South African Republic authorised the suspension for six months, or in perpetuity, of the publication of a newspaper, and thereby the entire destruction of a valuable property and the prevention of its owner from carrying on his business in the Republic.
(2.) If so, whether such a law was not itself an infringement of Article XIV. of the
London Convention.
(3.) If the answer to the first question was in the negative, whether Her Majesty's Government was entitled to call upon the State President in the case of such a prohibition being enforced upon a British subject to show reasons justifying him in the opinion that the newspaper the publication of which was prohibited would contain matter contrary to good morals or dangerous to peace and good order.
(4.) Whether Her Majesty's Government were entitled to question the validity of a law of the South African Republic authorising the Executive to enforce penal measures against British subjects without trial, if it could be shown to have been irregularly passed on such grounds as were alleged in Messrs. Guedalla and Cross's letter, or on the ground that it was, as Mr. Asquith appeared to hold in the case of the Press Law of 1996, contrary to the Constitution of the South African Republic.
That you would be glad if we would advise generally, as precisely as possible, what action, if any,
Her Majesty's Government should take in this case. We were also honoured with a further letter from Mr. Wingfield, dated 21st ultimo, Sec. of State, stating that he was directed to transmit to us a copy of the correspondence with the Tel, Jan. 11, High Commissioner for South Africa noted in the margin.
1897. High Com.,
1897.
That it would be observed that the British Agent in the South African Republic Tel., Jan. 18, stated that the Government suppressed the paper. on account of failure to comply with Mandate. Dec. Articles 3 and 4 of the Press Law. That the mandate, however, specified Article V., 19, TH96. and gave as the reason for the suppression that the paper was dangerous to peace and Tel., Jan. 20,
order.
Sec. of State,
1897.
That Mr. Wingfield was also to enclose a copy of a joint opinion by Messrs. Asquith, 18 January. Carson, and Mackarness.
We were further honoured with a letter, dated 26th ultimo, from Mr. Wingfield Messrs. Gue- enclosing further papers, and stating, with reference to the telegram of 23rd January, January 23.
della & Cross, that it appeared from Mr. C. Greef's telegram of the 22nd of that month to be general High Com., belief in the South African Republic that the "Critic' was suppressed for a reason Jan. 93, 1897. which would not justify its suppression on any construction of Article V. of the Press Do. do. (3). Law,
11
Tel. (8),
1897.
We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of a further letter, dated the 29th High Com., ultimo, transmitting copy of a telegram from the High Commissioner regarding a Tel., Jan. 27, recent decision in the High Court; together with a copy of the Grondwet," or
Constitution of the Republic," therein referred to.
*
0
95386, -6. 23.-9/97.
• No. 124.