R
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to
Report-
That we do not think that the enclosed Memorandum should be sent out to the Australian States. It is a very full and useful statement on the subject with which it deals, but many of the points raised are of a controversial nature, and if sent out it would, we think, in all probability give rise to very prolonged corre- spondence with some, at all events, of those States. There is the further objection that it is extremely undesirable that the Law Officers, whose duty it is to report on particular cases as they arise, should fetter themselves by attempting to lay down a code of general application, the bearing of which upon particular questions which may hereafter arise might have very unexpected results. It is impossible to be certain that all cases have been foreseen in the preparation of such a code, and we think to issue it would unduly hamper the present Law Officers and their suc- cessors in the discharge of their duties
It further appears to us that the issuing of the proposed Memorandum would not materially facilitate legislation such as is proposed. What is desired is that That they are con- the existing somewhat confused enactments should be repealed. fused and difficult of interpretation cannot be disputed, and any attempt to make this clear by a systematic exposition appears to us to be rather out of place in this connection, although it might be useful if it were found necessary to go on with the statutes as they exist without alteration, and even in this case it would be open to the objections we have indicated in the last preceding paragraph of this Report. (2 and 3.) We think that it would be better that the proposed Statute should define the cases in which reservation should be made. The matter may be one of some constitutional importance which should not be left to Letters Patent or In- structions,, which might vary in different cases. This, however, is really a matter of polioy, and the course suggested in paragraph 9 of Mr. Bertram Cox's letter would be an easier one so far as the passing of an Act of the Imperial Parliament is con- cerned, but might give rise to trouble afterwards in the shape of representations from the different States as to what form the Instructions should take.
(4.) We have only to add that while we fully recognise the great care and ability which have been shown in the preparation of this Memorandum, we think it on general grounds undesirable that the Law Officers should commit themselves to any systematic treatise of this kind: more especially in view of the controversy which we think its issue would be almost certain to provoke.
We would suggest that the attention of the Governments of the several States should simply be called to the complicated nature of the provisions in force, and that their views should be invited as to the legislation suggested in the last para- graph of our Report of the 8th April, 1903*.
The Right Honourable
We have, &c.,
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD. CARSON.
30520
No. 201.
(VICTORIA)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Validity of a Bill entitled "An Act to provide for the Reform of the Constitution of Victoria."]
Royal Courts of Justice,
August 15, 1903. SIR.
WE were honoured with your commands signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox in his letter of the 27th July last, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us the copy of a reserved Bill of the Legislature of Victoria, entitled "An Act to provide for the Reform of the Constitution of Victoria," together with a despatch from the Governor of that State, enclosing a petition calling in question the validity of the Bill.
That he was to request that we would take these papers into our consideration and report (1) whether in our opinion the validity of the Bill is affected by the fact that Parliament sat in a place different from that named in the Governor's Pro- clamation as the place for holding the Sessions; (2) whether the Bill was substan- tially altered after the second and third readings; (3) whether the Bill, as altered after the second and third readings, should have been presented to the Governor for assent; (4) if the answer to the second and third questions is in the affirmative and negative respectively, whether the Bill will be valid if it now receives the assent of His Majesty in Council.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
(1) No. In our opinion it was competent for the Parliament by resolution to adjourn to the Parliament House in Spring Street.
(2) We think the Bill was substantially altered after the second and third readings. The alterations in Clause 7 and Clause 20 (formerly Clause 21) are alterations in matters of substance.
(3) No.
1
(4) We think that His Majesty should be advised not to assent to this Bill. If, however, he should assent, the Attorney-General thinks the Act could not be treated as invalid in any Court. The Solicitor-General agrees with the opinion of the Law Officers, dated 28th September, 1864,* in thinking that the Act would, under such circumstances, be held by Courts of Law to be invalid.
We have, &c.,
J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
• No. 183.
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c., &c., &c.
23 Wt 1 8,03 D & S 5
15467
No. 275 in Vol. I.
R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
1|
IPC.O. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-