CO885-(13-15) — Page 308

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O. 885

Reference :-

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

Having taken the matter into our consideration, we have the honour to

That in our opinion :--

Report

1. In the eighth paragraph of the draft despatch to the High Commissioner, the first sentence defining a British subject should run "dominions of Her Majesty, or descended from a father or grandfather on the father's any person born within the "side born within those dominions, or who has become naturalised by virtue of any

logislation in force throughout the dominions of the Crown."

With that alteration, the eighth paragraph carries out our meaning and contains, in our opinion, an accurate general statement of the law.

In other respects, the draft, so far as it deals with matters to which our attention has been drawn, and subject only to the merely verbal alterations suggested by us, appears to us correct, and such as may properly be despatched to its destination.

2. The alterations mentioned in Mr. Bramston's letter of 30th December 1892, may properly be made in the draft order.

11

In the second recital, it would be more correct to substitute" British settlements for "British possessions," and in Article 5 "foreigners or natives" should be written instead of "foreigner or native."

The Most Hon.

The Marquess of Ripon, K.G., &c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c. (Signed)

C. RUSSELL.

JOHN RIGBY,

1076.

No. 27.

*

(WESTERN PACIFIC.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

missioner,

MY LORD,

We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Fairfield's

Royal Courts of Justice, January 20, 1893. letter of the 16th instant, stating that, with reference to the letter from the Colonial High Com- Office of the 30th ultimo, relating to the Draft Pacific Order in Council, he was directed No. 35, by your Lordship to transmit to us, for our consideration, copy of a despatch from the Nov. 1892. High Commissioner for the Western Pacific raising a question in connection with the No. 28, powers conferred by the Order on naval officers with respect to the committal of a person to trial, together with copy of the despatch to which it was a reply.

That your Lordship proposed, with our concurrence, to answer the High Commis- sioner as follows, viz. :—

That by Article 13, Her Majesty's jurisdiction was vested in the High Commissioner's Court, that by Article 14 (2) all such jurisdiction was exercisable by a Deputy Com- missioner within certain geographical limits; or (14 (8)) if appointed generally within the limits of the order.

That part of such jurisdiction was the taking of preliminary examinations and committing for trial, and that whatever a Deputy Commissioner might do in those respects as a member of the Court, a naval officer (Article 18 (1)) might do although he was not a member of the Court. That he might, therefore, commit an accused for trial, or in other words (Rules 94 and 96) make an order for trial of the accused.

That the naval officer in making such order for trial would name in the order (Rule 96) a date for the trial; and would then be functus officio, the postponement of the trial being a matter for consideration by the Court before which the trial was to take placo.

That as, however, that procedure under Rules 94-96 evidently contemplated that the trial would be held at the place where the committal was ordered, a naval officer would seldom be required to make an order for trial, unless he was acting in a place at which a Deputy Commissioner or other member of the Court was expected to arrive within a short time. So that practically when a naval officer, under Article 18, had occasion to commit an accused for trial, the committal would in almost every case take the form of an order for the removal of the accused for trial elsewhere.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and have the honour to

Report

That we concur in the answer which your Lordship proposes to send to the High Commissioner in relation to his despatch No. 35A of the 8th November 1892.

The Most Hon. The Marquess of Ripon, K.G.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c. (Signed) C. RUSSELL.

-JOHN RIGBY.

To H. C.,

24 Aug. 1892. To F. O.,

29 June 1892.

į

。 74772.--5.

25.-2/93.

·