CO885-(13-15) — Page 380

། ། ། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O. 885

Reference :-

ས་་་བ-་་ ་

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

2

That Sir H. Peroy Anderson was to request us to be good enough, at the same time, to favour your Lordship with any general observations which the consideration of the papers might suggest to us.

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

Report-

"

That, in our opinion, in Article XV. of the Treaty of 23rd July 1862, between Great by themselves. Britain and Belgium, the words "similar articles of British origin as well as in conjunction with their equivalent in the French text, relate to the produce of the United Kingdom alone.

The Earl of Kimberley, K.G.,

&o. &c. &c.

We have, &c. (Signed)

JOHN RIGBY. R. T. REID.

13235.

No.69.

(CANADA).

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD,

Royal Courts of Justice, July 27, 1894. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's letter of the 14th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to inform us that the Dominion of Canada had requested her Majesty's Government to take steps to release them from the Berne Convention for International Copyright dated the 9th of September 1886, though no question arose, at the moment, upon its provisions.

That a doubt had, however, been expressed as to the effect of section 9 of the International Copyright Act, 1886. That the above mentioned Convention was applied throughout Her Majesty's Dominions by an Order in Council dated the 28th of November 1887; and that the question arose whether, if Her Majesty should see fit by a future Order in Council to declare that the Order of the 28th of November 1887 should no longer apply to Canada, it would be necessary, at the same time, to declare that the International Copyright Acts and the Act of 1886 would also cease to apply to Canada, or whether the section might be read as a disjunctive enactment so that the suggested Order might be limited to declaring that the Order of 28th November 1887 should not apply to Canada, thus releasing her from the Berne Convention without depriving her of the privileges which she enjoys under the International Copyright Acts and the Act of 1886, and especially under section 8 of that Act.

That Mr. Bramston was to request that we would be good enough to favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the above question.

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

Report-

}

That the construction of the 9th section of the Act of 1886 presents great difficulty. According to its literal terms it appears to prescribe that no Order in Council, under the Acts, once applied to a British Possession, can be altered as to that Possession without making it a condition that the Possession shall lose not only any benefit which had been already secured to it independently of the Order in Council to be altered, whether under the International Copyright Acts, or under section 8 of the Act of 1886 which has nothing to do with International Copyright.

We think that this, if intended, would have been enacted in a much more simple manner, but we cannot see any reason why the Legislature should have intended anything of the kind.

On the whole we are of opinion that the better construction is to read the power given to Her Majesty by section 9 distributively, enabling Her to declare that it is expedient that the particular Order in Council dealt with (whether it be that of 28th November 1887 or any other Order) shall not apply without going on to declare that the International Copyright Acts and the Act of 1886 shall not apply.

We have, &c. (Signed) JOHN RIGBY.

R. T. REID.

The Most Honourable the Marquess of Ripon, K.G.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

079871.--33. 25.-8/94,