PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
། ། ། ། ། །
سلنللسا
Reference :-
C.O. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
recommended for consideration by the War Office Council, that it would be more satisfactory to deal with the matter in a more comprehensive way by extending the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882, generally to all British possessions, thus making the Reserve forces ruisable and maintainable over the whole Empire, and not only in the United Kingdom. The Parliamentary Counsel has pointed out the difficulty and far-reaching character of this proposal, and has suggested that it should be referred to the Law Officers to consider, and in accordance with that suggestion the Treasury Solicitor has been requested so to refer it.
It is difficult to formulate the exact question which it is desired to lay before the Law Officers, and it has been thought necessary to lay before them copies of all the Minutes which have passed on the subject as showing what has been passing in the minds Bundle A herewith contains copies of Minutes of those responsible for the matter. leading up to the passing of the Act of 1899. Bundle B contains Minutes commenting on the insufficiency of that measure and relating to the proposed general scheme, and to its acceptance by the Government of India and its rejection by the Australian and New Zealand colonies. Bundle C contains copies of the Minutes which led up to the reference now directed. The first Minute of this bundle contains a summary of the question compiled by the Adjutant-General's Department. It would seem to be doubtful whether the statute of 1899 and the proposed Bill of this session would enable the Secretary of State by regulation to confer upon an Indian or Colonial Court jurisdiction to summon and punish an Army Reserve man, resident in India or the colony, committing an offence under the Reserve Forces Act, 1882. If it is desired to attain that result, it is worthy of consideration whether it would not be necessary to enact concurrent legislation in India and in the Colony in question for the purpose of making the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act run in those places.
The Law Officers are requested to advise :—
(1) Whether the Act of 1899 and the proposed Bill of 1902, coupled with the signature of conditions, section B, p. 15, would render a reservist resident in India or a Colony liable to punishment there for an offence under the Act of 1882 ?
(2) If not, what, if any, course can be suggested which would have that effect? (3) Whether they recommend the proposed suggestion, that in lieu of the proposed Bill the Reserve Forces Act of 1882 should be generally amended so as to extend to the whole of the British Empire?
(4) The Law Officers are also requested to make any further remarks that may
suggest themselves to them the
upon papers.
Opinion.
1. We do not think that the Act of 1899 has this effect with regard to the men transferred abroad-to whom alone the Act applies. We think that the draft Bill might have this effect, but that it is open to very grave objection both in point of substance and of form.
If the Imperial Parliament is to legislate for the punishment of men in India and the Colonies, it ought to do so directly and not by delegation to the War Office of the power inherent in the Imperial Parliament to legislate for the whole British Empire. We, therefore, cannot advise that any Bill on these lines should be introduced.
2. But we think that the proper way of effecting the object in view is that there should be concurrent legislation here and in the British Possessions where these reservists reside. Power might be given by Act, here, to the War Office to frame regulations for the purpose, such regulations to apply in the case of those British Possessions which by local legislation provide for their enforcement.
3. We are hardly in a position to express an opinion on this proposal —it would require some working out of details-but we may point out that it would be difficult in practice to give effect to it without the co-operation of the local legislatures in the British Possessions.
4. We have nothing to add in the way of general observations.
Law Officers' Department,
R. B. FINLAY,
EDWARD CARSON.
22556
No. 154.
(TRANSVAAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Pretoria-Pietersburg Railway: Liabilities of His Majesty's Government.]
Royal Courts of Justice,
SIR,
June.6, 1902. We were honoured with your commands signified to us in Mr. Bertram Cox's letter of the 20th of May last stating that he had been directed by you to transmit to us copies of correspondence which had passed between your Department and the Pretoria-Rietersburg Railway Company with reference to the liabilities of His Majesty's Government in view of their decision to recognise the Concession of that Company.
That Mr. Cox was further to enclose a copy of a case submitted by the Company to Counsel, and a copy of the opinion of Mr. Arthur Cohen, Sir Edward Clarke, and Mr. P. B. Abraham thereupon, and that he was to request us to take the matters raised in that case into consideration with reference to our report of the 27th of November, 1901,* and to advise you whether in consideration of the opinion of the Counsel who had advised the Company we saw any reason to vary any of our previous reports with reference to the Pretoria-Pietersburg Railway Company.
We have taken the papers and opinion of Counsel into our consideration and have the honour to
Report-
That we do not see any reason on a perusal of the opinion of the Counsel who have advised the Company to vary any of our previous reports. The only specific objection taken in the said opinion to the letter of the Colonial Office to the Company dated February 18th, 1902, is with reference to the claim of the Company to be indemnified by His Majesty's Government against the judgment recovered by the Contractor against the Company of £125,000. With reference to this, we would point out that the letter of the Colonial Office does not accurately represent the statement contained in paragraph 2 of our report of 27th November, 1901. That statement is not in conflict with the opinion of Counsel for the Company, and there are no materials presented to us to enable us to give any opinion on the question whether the claim is in substance one in contract or for tort. With reference to the last paragraph of the opinion relating to the arbitration clause contained in Article 49 of the Concession, we do not think the question raised as to the indemnity is within the terms of it.
We have, &c..
The Right Honourable J. Chamberlain, M.P..
&c.,
&c.,
• No. 115.
&c.
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
† Nos. Si and 113.
5th June, 1902.
25
Wt 3641
YO D&S
21439