CO885-(13-15) — Page 483

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

། ། ། ། །

C.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

The method suggested in our last Report is, in our opinion, the only one by which this difficulty can be dealt with. It is, no doubt, a question for very serious considera- tion whether, as a matter of policy, it is desirable that a regulation should be made making a breach of a labour contract by a British subject criminal when it would be no offence if committed by a native. It must, however, be remembered that according to the local custom, if not the local law, such breaches of contract appear to be in practice punished with considerable rigour. And, in cases where there is a pecuniary penalty, the law itself provides for imprisonment in default of payment, although it is stated that this imprisonment is in the nature of a civil remedy only, so far as this distinction is appreciated in Kedah.

Upon the whole, subject to the considerations of policy above indicated, we think that the procedure indicated in our previous Report should be followed, if the difficulty with Kedah is of such gravity as to make it necessary that action should be taken in the matter.

The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.

&c. &c.

We have, &c.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY,

3002.

SIR.

No. 127.

(WESTERN AUSTRALIA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, February 8, 1897.

We were honoured with your coinmanda signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 13th ultimo, stating that he was directed to request that we would favour you with our opinion as to whether it was necessary that a certain Bill of the Parliament of Western Australia should be laid before both Houses of Parliament for 30 days at least before Her Majesty's pleasure thereon was signified.

That the Western Australia Constitution Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 26) provided. section 2, subsection (a), that the provisions of the Acts 13 & 11 Vict c. 5, and 5&6 Vict. c. 74, which related (inter alia) to the reservation of Bills for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon, should apply to Bills passed by the Legislative Council and Assembly constituted by that Act, and the schedule Bill.

That the measure now in question altered the number of members of both Houses, and altered the boundaries of electoral districts, so that it fell within the classes of Bills which by sections 31. 32, 33 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 76 were required to be reserved. That the measure had been, in fact, assented to by the Governor, but that he had been informed, on the authority of the Law Officer's opinion of 18th September 1878,* that the Bill should have been reserved, and that the assent would be treated as a nullity.

That the provisions of the Act 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59, which related to the reservation of Bills, would be found in sections 12, 32 and 33. That section 12 had no special application to the present case, as it appeared only to incorporate the provisions of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 76, which were made by the above quoted section of the Constitution Act to apply direct to Western Australia. That section 33 preserved to Bills reserved under the provisions of the Act the benefit of the interpretation of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 76 which was made by 7 & 8 Vict. c. 74, section 7, but that it could hardly be supposed that Parliament had only this section 33 in view when it declared that the Act 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59 should apply to Bills passed by the Legislature of Western Australia. That it might be assumed that if that had been the object, the Act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 74: would have been specifically mentioned.

That section 32 required that Bills of certain specified classes should be reserved and laid before Parliament for 30 days at the least before Her Majesty's pleasure thereon should be signified, and that it had been considered in the Colonial Office that Parliament in 1890 intended that the provisions of this section 32 should apply to Western Australia in the case of all Bills falling within the classes described in that section, and apparently also in the case of all Bills reserved under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 76. That the measure now in question would seem to come within both categories. That unless this was the intention of Parliament it was difficult to find a meaning for the mention in subsection (a) of the Act of which section 32 formed part.

That the Act 25 & 26 Vict. c. 11, section 2, enacted that the term "Council" in the proviso of section 32 of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 59 should apply only to the Legislative Councils therein mentioned. That all these Councils had then already been replaced by Legislatures with two Chambers in every Colony, except Western Australia, and that it was recognised that in all those Colonies Bills of the class mentioned in section 32 need not be reserved or laid before Parliament. section 3 of the Constitution Act subsection (b) limited to a given date so much of the But that in Western Australia Act, including section 32, as applied to the powers of the existing Council, whilst by subsection (a) it declared that the provisions of the Act which related to the reservation of Bills for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure thereon should apply to Bills passed by the new Council.

That under these circumstances the Governor had been informed that the measures now in question would have to be laid before Parliament for 30 days. That the local Attorney-General contested this view and that when the Despatch was received you would feel it your duty to submit it to us, but in the meantime, as it was desirable to

No. 185 in Vol. 3.

95386.-5.

23.-3.97.