CO885-(15-16) — Page 246

47474.

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

SIR,

:

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.

Reference :-

No. 173.

(NEW SOUTH WALES.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Whether Act 54 of 1902 (Extension of Parliamentary Franchise to Women, &c.) should have been reserved and laid before Parliament.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

15th November, 1902. We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 4th instant, stating that he was directed by you to lay before us an Act of the Legislature of the State of New South Wales, No. 54 of 1902, entitled “An Act to extend the Parliamentary Franchise to Women, and for purposes consequent on or incidental to that object," and to request the favour of our Report upon the question, whether this Act should have been reserved for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure thereon, as being an Act altering the law for the time being in force concerning the qualification of electors within the meaning of section 32 of the Australian Constitution Act 1850, 13 and 14 Victoria e. 59.

That he was to point out that, in view of the terms of section 23 of the Act No. 38 of 1893, being of the male sex would appear hitherto to have been a qualification for being an elector, and that he was to refer us in connection with the matter to the Report of 9th February 1894* of our predecessors in office, as to the validity of the above mentioned Act No. 38 of 1893, and also to the Acts of Parliament and other authorities cited in the case then placed before them.

That in particular Mr. Bertram Cox was to direct our attention to a portion of the fifth paragraph of the Report of 25th March, 1862† in which our predecessors in office laid down that an Act which determined what constituencies should have the power of returning representatives, what test was to be applied in order to entitle persons claiming to be electors to exercise the franchise, and in what manner the suffrages of the electors were to be taken, appeared to them to be plainly and indisputably an Act passed for some of the purposes mentioned in the 32nd section (i.e. of 13 and 14 Victoria c. 59).

That he was to state that an Act of the Legislature of South Australia, No. 613 of 1894, extending the franchise to women was reserved under section 34 of the South Australia Constitution Act 1855-6, which latter Act was passed in pursuance of the Imperial Act 13 and 14 Victoria c. 59, section 32.

That the Act now laid before us, No. 54 of 1902, was assented to by the Governor in the name and on behalf of His Majesty, the Attorney-General of the State having advised that there was no objection to the Governor giving his assent to it, and that the Governor was not required, under the provisions of the Constitution or any other Acts or Royal Instructions, to withhold his assent to it, or to reserve it for the signification or His Majesty's pleasure.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was, therefore, to request us to take the matter into our consideration and to report:

Whether the Act 54 of 1902 should have been reserved and laid before Parliament under section 32 of 13 and 14 Victoria c. 59 ?

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

Report-

That in our opinion the Act 54 of 1902 passed by the Legislature of New South Wales should have been reserved and laid before Parliament under section 32 of 13 and 14 Victoria c. 59.

We have, &c.

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

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

No. 51 in Vol. V.

† No. 108 in Vol. I.

23

Wt 2757 11 02 D&S 3 13009

885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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