CO885-(13-15) — Page 546

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and in obedience to your com. mands have the honour to

Report--

That, in our opinion, there is no claim to jurisdiction over the natives within the New Hebrides Group within the meaning of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act.

That Act refers to cases in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction in foreign parts. In the present case what we have to deal with is an agreement between Her Majesty and the French Republic jointly to exercise such force is may he necessary for the protection of the subjects of the two countries in the New Hebrides.

We do not think that tany Order in Council can be made under the Foreign Juris‹liction Act. If it is found necessary to deal with the matter, the proper course would, in our opinion, be to pass an Act of Parliament of the Imperial Legislature providing that the sentences passed by the Joint Commission might be enforced in Her Majesty's dominions,

We have, &c.,

The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain. M.P.,

&c., &c.,

&c.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

10802.

No. 171.

(WESTERN AUSTRALIA.)

LAW OFFICERS TO BOARD OF TRADE.

(Enclosed in Home Office letter of May 13, 1898.)

Companies Act, 1862.

Prerogative of Crown.

Right of Registrar to refuse Registration of Companies with titles implying Royal Patronage or connection with the Crown or Government.

1

Questions.

(1.) Whether the Board of Trade or the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies can, in their or his discretion, refuse to register a company which has complied with and is otherwise entitled to registration under those Acts, on the ground that its proposed title contains words such

as Royal," Imperial," or the like?

*

(2.) If there is such a discretion, is it absolute or limited, i.e., would the grounds on which it is exercised be reviewed by the Courts ?

(3.) If, in their opinion, there is a dis- cretion, what are the, considerations which should weigh with the Board of Trade or the Registrar in determining whether there is anything in the title of a company applying for registration which implies Royal patronage or is derogatory to the Crown, or suggests connection with the Crown or Government?

(4.) The Law Officers and Mr. Sutton are requested to add any observations which may appear to them to be expedient or necessary for the guidance of the two Departments, whether upon the point raised by Mr. Purcell in paragraph 7 of his Memorandum or the distinction between certain words, such as 6.

Empress and "Empire" or otherwise?

11

Opinion.

(1.) We think that the Registrar has such a discretion; it cannot, we think, be supposed that the Registrar is bound to register any title however fraudulent or otherwise objectionable.

(2.) The exercise of this discretion might be reviewed by the Courts.

(3.) If the title, when fairly read and taken in connection with the objects of a company, can be supposed to imply Royal patronage or connection with the Govern- ment, we think that registration ought to be refused.

(4.) Each case must be determined in its own circumstances, but we ought to point out that the term "Imperial" may be much less likely to mislead than the term "Royal." Registration was properly granted of the title Imperial and Colonial Insurance Company, as this obviously did not imply Imperial patronage, but merely that the company had to do with the Empire at large; we are far, however, from saying that the term "Imperial" is in all cases unobjectionable.

Royal Courts OF JUSTICE,

April 5, 1898.

16815-25-5.98 Wt 2161N

DAN

། ། ། ། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

19

Reference :-

mwi mhim C.O. 885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

..