CO885-(10-11) — Page 247

7279.

Cap. 8.

No. 199.

(BRITISH HONDURAS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Temple, July 22, 1863. MY LORD DUKE,

We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 13th instant, stating that he was directed by your Grace to transmit to us for our consideration the accompanying Act of the Legislature of British Honduras, entitled "An Act to render unsworn testimony admissible in certain cases."

Sir Frederic Rogers was also pleased to state that he was directed also to enclose a copy of the report of the Acting Attorney General of the Colony upon this Act.

And to observe that the Act 5 Vict. c. 22. appears to your Grace only to anthorise the admission of unsworn testimony when the persons "destitute of the knowledge of are "barbarous and uncivilised," but that the Act God and of any religious belief

4x

now forwarded extends the privilege of giving evidence not on oath to all persons so destitute, whether civilised or uncivilised.

And that your Grace would be glad to be informed whether this Act can, in our opinion, be properly or lawfully sanctioned by Her Majesty.

In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have taken these papers into consideration, and have the honour to

Report

That we are of opinion that the Act of the Legislature of British Honduras, entitled cannot be properly "An Act to render unsworn testimony admissible in certain cases and lawfully sanctioned by Her Majesty. In 1843, when the 6 Vict. c. 22. passed, it was thought so doubtful whether it was not "repugnant to the law of England" to dispense with an oath, even in the case of "tribes of barbarous and uncivilised people destitute of the knowledge of God and of any religious belief, that that statute was enacted expressly to empower Colonial Legislatures to that extent and within those limits, to alter, within the territories, the law of the mother country. It would, there- fore, in our opinion, be dangerous to say the least of it, to assume that it is not "repugnant to the law of England," and is therefore within the competence of a Colonial Legislature to dispense with the oath in the case of persons not coming within the description of "barbarous and uncivilised." But this the Act in question professes to do.

We have, &c. (Signed) WM. ATHERTON.

ROUNDELL PALMER,

His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, K.G.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

• 16278.-198. 95.-2/85.

.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

תוןוד

Reference :-

C.O. 885

10

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TÖ |

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

│ ། 3། ། ། །

Reference :-

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO