CO885-(15-16) — Page 235

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

mwimmimC.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

or merely to lay down a principle on which it had been convenient in practice to act.

'That Mr. Lucas was to request that we would take the above matters into our consideration and advise you :--

1. Whether the prisoners of war in Bermuda who had refused to take the oath of allegiance were, or were not, British subjects?

2. If they were not British subjects would they become so on taking the oath of allegiance?

3. Whether having regard to the fact that they refused to take the oath of allegiance these prisoners could be indefinitely detained, and whether, if their detention was justified by the Terms, of Surrender, it would be permissible according to the rules of international law?

4. What course would His Majesty's Government be justified in adopting with regard to such prisoners?

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

Report-

(1) That if any of the prisoners at Bermuda desire to leave British territory we think they should be treated in the same manner as if they were in the conquered territoty and did not desire to become subjects of the conqueror, as stated in our Report (3) of the 17th May, 1900. Subject to this concession they must be regarded as British subjects.

(2) The taking of the oath of allegiance would show an election to remain British subjects, and those who take it should be treated as such.

(3) We do not think that the prisoners can be indefinitely detained by reason of their refusal to take the oath of allegiance. To justify such a detention legisla tion would be necessary and we cannot advise the adoption of this course.

(4) If it is considered desirable that prisoners refusing to take the oath of allegiance should be excluded from the annexed Colonies, or from the Cape Colony, legislation in such Colonies would be necessary. Upon their release in Bermuda they would come under the laws in force there, or such laws as it might be thought necessary to pass under the circumstances.

We hate, &c.,

The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.,

&c.

&c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

41949

No. 165.

(WESTERN AUSTRALIA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Questions relating to the period within which the Governor's assent must be given to a Bill after it has been passed by both Houses of Parliament.]

Royal Courts of Justice, October 10, 1902.

SIR,

WE were honoured with your commands, signified to us by Mr. Lucas in his letter of the 19th September last, stating that he was directed by you to lay before. us a confidential despatch of the 11th of August from the Governor of Western Australia, together with a letter addressed to him by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, a copy of a Memorandum addressed by him to the late Premier, and a volume containing the Standing Rules and Orders of the Houses of Parliament of Western Australia, and to request the favour of our report upon certain questions relating to the period within which the Governor's assent must be given to a Bill after it has been passed by both Houses of the Parliament of Western Australia.

That it appeared from the papers laid before us that the late Premier of Western Australia, acting upon the representations of a private individual whose interests were affected, instructed the Clerk of the Parliaments to withhold a Bill which had passed both Houses of the Legislature, and not to present it for the Governor's assent until the expiration of five months, and that the Bill was withheld and not presented accordingly.

That it was alleged that the action of the Clerk in withholding the Bill was a breach of the "Joint Standing Rules and Orders of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly," No. 6, which ran as follows:-"The three fair prints of all Bills, except the Appropriation Bill; shall, when passed, be presented to the Governor, for Her Majesty's assent, by the Clerk of the Parliaments." That if, as would seem desirable, the words "when passed" were to be construed " as soon as passed," that allegation would appear to be well founded.

That it was further stated by the Speaker that the Joint Standing Rules and Orders" have the validity of law under the Constitution Act," and that in this con- nection he was to forward a copy of the Western Australia Constitution Act, 1889 (52 Victoria, No. 23), Section 34 of which appeared to be referred to.

That copies of the Governor's Commission of the 23rd February, 1901, the Letters Patent of 29th October, 1900, and Royal Instructions of even date, and of the Imperial Acts, 5 and 6 Victoria, Cap. 76, and 53 and 54 Victoria, Cap. 26, accompanied his letter.

That he was also to direct our attention to, and forward a copy of, a report of our predecessors in office of the 6th of April, 1865,* dealing with a question similar to the third question now submitted to us.

That he was to request that we would take these papers into our consideration and to report

(1) Whether the action of the Clerk of the Parliaments in withholding a Bill which had been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of Western Australia from the Governor's assent for five months was illegal?

(2) If not, whether there is any, and if so, what limit of time within which such

a Bill must be presented to the Governor for his assent?

(3) Whether a Bill which has been passed by both Houses of the Legislature of Western Australia must be assented to by the Governor before the Parliament is prorogued?

(4) If not, whether there is any, and if so, what limit of time within which such a Bill must be assented to by the Governor ?

(5) Whether it is legal and constitutional for Ministers to withhold such a Bill- from presentation for the Governor's assent, or for the Governor to withhold his assent from such a Bill presented for his assent, until some future time specified or indefinite?

• No. 325A in Vol: I.

(21368~2.) Wt 96-181. 25. 10/11. D&&

2