CO885-(13-15) — Page 287

15349.

maimui

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

། ། [ ། ། །

C.O.

Reference :-

885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

MY LORD,

No. 15. (BAILAMAB.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, July 30, 1892. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 15th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us copies of a telegram from the Governor of the Bahamas and your Lordship's telegram in reply and a Despatch from the Governor of the Colony with its enclosures. from which we should perceive that the Chief Justice of the Colony committed Mr. Moseley, the editor of the "Nassau Guardian" newspaper, to prison during his pleasure and sentenced him to pay a fine, with further imprisonment till such fine was paid, for an alleged contempt of court in publishing a certain letter in that news. paper, and sentenced him to pay a further fine with imprisonment until payment for a further alleged contempt of court in refusing to give up the name of the writer of the letter; and that Mr. Moseley was released by the order of the Governor after the Governor had received the telegram from the Secretary of State.

That the Chief Justice had protested against the Governor's action, and maintained that the Governor had no power, in the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, to pardon for the offence of contempt of court, and that he had cited in support of his contention a speech by Lord Chancellor Selborne in the House of Lords on the 8th of March 1883, in answer to a question addressed to him with reference to the case of a clergyman committed to prison for disobedience to the order of an ecclesiastical court, which was reported in Hansard vol. 276, p. 1714.

That your Lordship understood from the governor's telegram that the editor of the newspaper had been sentenced to imprisonment for a definite term as a punishment for the publication of the letter and not as a means of enforcing obedience to an order of the court, and that he considered that in advising the Governor that he had power to release the prisoner he was acting in accordance with the practice of the Home Office, as explained in the memorandum a copy of which was enclosed.

That it appeared, however, from the judgment of the Chief Justice that the alleged contempt included a refusal to disclose the name of the writer when required to do so by the court, and that sentence of imprisonment for an indefinite period was imposed. although that sentence was expressly imposed as a punishment for the publication of the letter, a different sentence being imposed for the refusal to disclose the name.

That Mr. Wingfield was to request that we would be good enough to furnish your Lordship with our opinion on the following points:-

(1.) Whether the publication of the letter in question and the refusal to give up the name of the writer, or either of those acts, amounted to a contempt of Court?

(2.) Whether, in the circumstances, it was within the prerogative of the Crown to

pardon for the offence?

(3.) Whether that prerogative was rightly exercised?

We were also honoured with a further letter from Mr. Wingfield, dated the 5th instant, enclosing copy of a document purporting to be a "statement of the circumstances

attending the release of Mr. A. F. Moseley from custody and when in full contempt of "the General and Supreme Court of the Colony of the Bahamas," which your Lord- ship had received from the Chief Justice of the Bahamas. We have also the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Wingfield's further letter of the 13th instant in which he enclosed a copy of a document by the Chief Justice of the Bahamas bearing on the legal questions raised in his "statement" above mentioned.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to

Report-

1. That in our opinion neither the publication of the letter nor the refusal to give up the name of the writer amounted to a contempt of court.

2. In the circumstances stated it was within the prerogative of the Crown to pardon for the alleged offence.

0 70451,-19.

25.-8,99.

• No.