23
.1.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
6
19
Reference :-
C.O. 885/
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
22
TABLE (D.)—APPROXIMATE ŠTATEMENT of TOTAL MILITARY and NAVAL EXPENDITURE of COLONIES (received up to April 4).
(In reply to Telegram addressed to various Colonial Governments, 10th January 1987.)
Cape
!
Colony.
l'eriod.
Military Forces.
Armaments. Miltary
Works, and including
Navy,
P'ersonnel.
War.
Subsidy to Imperial Troops.
Buildings.
Victoria
ť
C
+
1877-1885 1,524,59
3,214†
1,413,276
£ 12,0411
1870-188G
Remark-.
* Includes constabulary,
+ Special defensive works only.
Ceased 1880-81,
Includes submarine mines. Further expenditure of 436,000%, contemplated.
824,741 255,495*
Go0,974†
South Australia
1870-1880
3631,181
121,913*
New Zealand
1878-188G
Queensland
Western Aus
tralia
1869-18HG
184,285 333,812*
239,195 38,/77*
40,344+
* Includes submarine mines.
(Includes submarine mines.
†Torpedo boats.
127,595
1881-1886
16,470
—
* Includes submarine mines.
SECTION II.—LEGAL QUESTIONS.
(Colonial Judgments, Bankruptcy, Probate, und Administration.)
No. 8.
ENFORCEMENT OF COLONIAL JUDGMENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND RE-SEALING OF COLONIAL PROBATES.
the case.
COLONIAL OFFICE MEMORANDUM.
The trading relations of the United Kingdom with the Colonies are so vast and important, and their greater development is so much to the benefit of both, that any obstacle to their freest exercise deserves careful investigation with a view to removal, if such a course be possible and justifiable. Lord Stanley of Preston and Lord Granville viewed with favour a suggestion which had been made for providing by legislation an easy method of enforcing in this country judgments of Colonial Courts, without putting the Colonial judgment creditor to the expense and trouble of further litigation, as is now The accompanying Bill was accordingly prepared. It has been suggested by the Lord Chancellor that such legislation, if adopted at all, should be made reciprocal, and he was of opinion that it should follow rather than precede Imperial federation. It is requested that the members of this Conference will read the accompanying papers, and state whether, in their opinion, the Colonies which they represent would wish that a measure of this nature should be proposed to the Imperial Parliament, and would be prepared to pass similar laws for the enforcement within the Colonies of the judgments of the Superior Courts of the United Kingdom, and for the adoption of a similar principle in Bankruptcy matters and orders under the Joint Stock Companies Acts. It is considered that such a measure should not, at any rate in the first instance, extend to judgments of Inferior Courts.
As connected with this subject there will be found in this paper correspondence upon the question of resealing Colonial probates, upon which the views of the Conference are also desired.
Colonial Office,
March 1887.
SIR,
Enclosure in No. 8.
F. T. PIGGOTT, Esq., to COLONIAL OFFICE.
2, Doctor Johnson's Buildings, Temple, E.C., October 5, 1885.
I VENTURE to submit for your favourable consideration the accompanying draft of a Bill for the more speedy execution in the United Kingdom of judgments obtained in Indian and Colonial Courts. I think the time is ripe for, and the commercial necessities of the age require, such a piece of legislation: England, Scotland, and Ireland are now, by a series of Acts, practically one country so far as the execution of judgments and orders are concerned; and there seems no reason why the benefits accorded to creditors and others in the United King lom should not now be extended to those who are resident in any part of Her Majesty's dominions. Some of the Colonies have already made progress in this direction. The Australasian Colonies have for some time executed one another's judgments on a principle similar to that adopted for the United Kingdom in the "Judg- ments Extension Act, 1868." In not a few Colonies, probates emanating from the courts of the United Kingdom are rendered effectual by re-sealing; and, lastly, New Zealand, by the Act 46 Victoria, No. 29, has admitted judgments of courts in Her Majesty's dominions to execution by means of registration. The accompanying Bill adopts this principle. It seems unnecessary here to dwell on the commercial benefits which would accrue both to Colonists and residents in the mother country if the suggested Bill should become law-it is sufficient to indicate the scope of the proposed legislation. By means of the simple process of registration it will enable execution to be issued on Colonial judgments, and thus the expense and delay occasioned by an action on the judgment, which is at present necessary, will be avoided. Up to the present time Colonial judgments have been considered on the same footing as foreign judgments. It has already been announced in Parliament that the subject of foreign judgments will shortly engage the attention of the civilised states of the world with a view to obtain the speedy execution by the courts of one country of judgments obtained in another. The subject of foreign judgments is complicated by national prejudices, from which the question of according execution to Colonial judgments should be entirely free. true that different systems of law are administered in different Colonies, but the same may be said of England and Scotland. The Colonial Bench is recruited largely from the English Bar, and the decisions emanating from it are tempered with the fine sense of justice which characterises those of our own courts. But above all it is important to notice that the procedure against absent defendants adopted in the great majority of Colonies is based on one or other of the three systems which (in the years 1852, 1875, and 1883 respectively) have been promulgated in England. Thus the difficulty of recognising judgments against non-residents, which figures so largely in the question of foreign judgments, is virtually removed.
It is
Some question may possibly arise as to reciprocity. From the study which I have given to Colonial legislation, I have no hesitation in saying that if the proposed Bill should become the law of the United Kingdom, it would speedily be adopted by all the Colonies. Moreover, the mother country in passing the Bill would be following the example already set by one of her Colonies, New Zealand.
upon
Passing to the provisions of the Bill, it may be said generally that it is based the "Judgments Extension Act, 1868," and the "Inferior Courts Judgments Extension Act, 1882."
The material variations are two: first, the inclusion of judgments in actions of detinue; secondly, the incorporation of the rules as to attachment of debts and equitable execution. There is no reason why these changes should not be made: they are essential to the completeness of the benefit to be conferred, and rather than that they should be struck out, the Acts of 1868 and 1882 should be amended where necessary, in order to make the three enactments uniform.
The extension of the principle of the Bill to bankruptcy orders, to orders made in company matters, and to probate and administrations, corresponds with the principles already adopted for England, Scotland, and Ireland, in the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the Companies Act, 1862 (section 123), and the Probate Acts, 1857 and 1858, respectively. The sections of the Bill dealing with these matters virtually recognises what has for some time been the practice of the English courts with regard to Colonial orders and probates.
C 4