CO885-(13-15) — Page 584

21964.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

And, generally.

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

Report-

THAT in our opinion the course which has been taken is not in conformity with the Standing Orders. There is nothing in the Order in Council to prevent recommittal after the Bill has passed, but the Standing Orders are inconsistent with any such practice.

We would suggest that the Standing Orders, should be amended so as to provide for re-committal-before passing, on the motion of any member; and, after passing, on the motion of the High Commissioner.

We think that in the case of the present Bill, as there has been an irregularity, the High Commissioner should be instructed to refuse assent, and to have a fresh Bill introduced next Session. At the same time, it must not be supposed that-if assented to-the law would be invalid on account of such an irregularity of procedure.

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

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

We have, &c.,

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

SIR,

No. 191.

(BRITISH NEW GUINEA.) LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL

OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, –

September 29th, 1898.

We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Bertram Cox's letter of the 19th instant, acknowledging the receipt of our Report of the 8th September on the questions which had arisen in regard to a concession granted by the Government of British New Guinea to a Syndicate known as the British New Guinea Syndicate, and stating that you would be glad to have our advice on a further point which was not specifically put to us in the reference of the 29th ultimo.

That on the 3rd of May last you caused the Solicitors to the Syndicate to be informed that as the amendments which you had required in the draft Ordinance were substantially accepted by the Syndicate, the Governor of Queensland had been told that if the Ordinance were passed by the Legislature of British New Guinean containing the amendments required, you would at once submit it for Her Majesty's approval.

That on the 6th of May the Syndicate's Solicitors replied and informed the Colonial Office that they had, on that day, transmitted for the account of the Administrator of New Guinea the sum of £1000, being the amount of the first instalment in respect of the first blocks of land already inade available for the purpose of the proposed Company.

That the Ordinance under which the Syndicate or Company was to operate had been passed on the 21st of March, and had become law subject to Her Majesty's power of disallowance.

That on the 31st of May the Solicitors to the Syndicate again wrote to your Department, stating that the Board of the Syndicate was actively proceeding with the formation of a larger Company, and that it was understood that various out of pocket expenses had been incurred by the Syndicate since the 6th of May.

That the questions on which Mr. Bertram Cox was to request us to favour you with our further advice were as follows:-

Does the fact of the Syndicate having bona fide incurred, expense for the purpose of arrying out the provisions of the Ordinance, on the faith of your promise that if amended in certain points (to which they had specifically agreed) the Ordinance would not be disallowed, give the Syndicate a valid legal claim against the Crown for the reimbursement of these expenses with or without interest thereon, in the event of the Ordinance being disallowed.

In the event of there being no legal claim against the Crown, to what extent, in our opinion, do the circumstances referred to above afford an equitable ground for such reimbursement, or for any and what other compensation.

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

Report-

THAT in our opinion the circumstances mentioned do not give the Company any valid legal claim against the Crown.

We think, however, that there is a strong case--from the point of view of fairness and equity-for the reimbursement to the Company of any expenses they have incurred on the faith of the promise that the Ordinance as amended would be submitted for Her Majesty's sanction. Though the Secretary of State cannot be regarded as having entered into a contract with the Company that the Crown would sanction the Ordinance, the case is one of some hardship, and, failing some arrangement satisfactory to the Syndicate becoming valid and taking effect, should, we think, receive equitable consideration.

We have, &c.,

The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.I'.,

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

• No. 188.

678-25-9/98 Wt 21618 D&8

5