CO885-(13-15) — Page 298

22487.

J

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

|| | || | || ||

Reference :-

C.O. 885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

the Board bound at once to revoke Article 149 (1) of the Animals Order so far as it relates to cattle imported from Canada?

2. Would the Board be relieved of the obligation so to revoke that Article, if and so long as they are satisfied that the prohibition by the Canadian Government of the exportation of cattle from Canada will afford reasonable security against the impor- tation therefrom of diseased animals?

I am to add that Lord Ripon will be obliged by your giving immediate attention to this matter.

I am, &c.

(Signed)

OPINION.

1. Our answer to the first question is Yes.

EDWARD WINGFIELD.

2. Our answer to the second question is No. The assurance (bowever trustworthy) of the Canadian Government does not in our opinion fall within the language, nor does it satisfy the requirements, of the Fifth Schedule, Part IV. of the Act of 1878.

Lincoln's Inn, November 4, 1892.

(Signed) C. RUSSELL.

JOHN RIGBY.

MY LORD,

No. 23.

(WESTERN PACIFIC.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice,

17th November 1892. WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's letter of the 20th August last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit for our consideration the accompanying draft Order in Council for the Pacific Ocean.

That the draft was prepared by Mr. Justice Wright before his elevation to the Bench, and was based upon the Africa Order in Council 1889, and the three existing Western Pacific Orders in Council.

That certain alterations of detail had been made in the original draft at the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, but that it did not appear necessary to trouble us with the particulars of those alterations.

That the Divorce jurisdiction conferred by section 47 was not possessed by the Court under the existing Orders, but was added under the advice of the Law Officers in their Report dated 9th May 1890;* that it was unnecessary to trouble us with the corre spondence mentioned in that Report.

That Mr. Bramston was to refer us to section 85 applying the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, and to ask whether, in our opinion, the exceptions (e) and (d) might properly be included in the proposed Order. That it might be anticipated that that Act would on occasion be put into operation by a Deputy Commissioner on an island remote from any higher Court, and that a vessel might be at land by which the accused could be conveyel promptly to the British possession from which he was a fugitive, while the opportunity might be lost if a delay of fifteen days was prescribed, and that, in the absence of any Court competent to review the proceedings, the accused would gain no such advantage from such delay as was apparently contemplated by the Act.

That a more important question was raised by the definition of British subject in section 3. That Mr. Bramston was to explain that the islands of the Western Pacific were scattered over so many hundred miles of ocean, that communication between them was difficult, and that they might be classed under three heads :--

(4.) Islands inhabited by native tribes and under no civilised Government. b.) Similar islands over which Her Majesty has declared a Protectorate.

(2) Islands which have become part of Her Majesty's dominions and have been licensed for limited periods to British subjects for the purpose of collecting grano, planting cocoa nuts, or other industry of the like nature,

That islands of the last class (c.) were inhabited only by the licensees and their servants; and that it was apprehended that they might be regarded as territory acquired by settlement, and were subject to the Common Law of England and Statutes of general application: while, by the British Settlements Act 1887, Her Majesty in Council might make laws for such islands.

That Mr. Bramston was to enquire whether it would be proper, and in accordance with the terms of the British Settlements Act 1887, to make all persons in such islands subject to the provisions of the Order, and, if so, whether the additions in the Appendix to his letter would be sufficient for the purpose.

That, as regarded the islands of class (a.), it was most desirable that, if possible. persons naturalized in the Australian Colonies should be made subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, and that, unless the words British subjects" in the Pacific Islanders Protection Acts and the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890, were to be confined to natural- born subjects of Her Majesty, there would seem to be sufficient authority in those Acts for doing what was desired; and that it would be seen that in the Western Pacific Order of 1877, Article 4, the definition of British subject included a subject of Her Majesty by naturalization as well as by birth. That that Order was approved by the Law Officers of the time in their Reports dated Jantiary 3rd and March 16th 18774, and that no question appeared to have been raised on that point..

That persons who had been naturalized in the Colonies were granted Foreign Office passports entitling them to protection as British subjects on the continent of Europe. except in their country of origin, but that doubts had been suggested whether under

No. 178 in Vol. IV.

D&S 35

1639-29--1

Wz 268

† Nos. 121 and 129 in Vol. II.

Į