CO885-(15-16) — Page 293

R

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

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

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

2. I am of opinion that all that is required in point of strict law by Section 60 is that there should be a concurrence of an absolute majority of each Chamber in the second and third readings of the Bill, but that this provision does not affect, It cannot, I think, have been intended as a matter of law, the power of amendment. that any such Bill was necessarily to pass entirely without amendment when it had once been introduced, or without amendments which were other than merely formal. If, however, substantial amendments were introduced at a late stage of such a Bill, it is a matter for very serious consideration whether the assent of the Crown should be given to a measure passed in compliance with the letter, but not with the spirit of Section 60.

3: I am of opinion that the course adopted was not in actual contravention of Section 60. The alterations introduced after the Free Conference were, indeed, of great gravity, and it appears to me that the Prime Minister of Victoria indicated the true course which should be followed on such Bills when he deprecated the intro- duction of important amendments after the third reading. I am unable to follow the process of reasoning by which the conclusion was reached that these amend- ments were consequential upon those that were made in the Council, but it may be It does that all the materials for forming an opinion on this point are not before me. not, however, follow that Section 60 absolutely prohibits this Bill being submitted for the Royal Assent. The letter of the section appears to me to have been complied with, and the fact that its operation has been neutralized by the course taken, does not, as a matter of law, require that the Royal Assent be refused—although it raises a question of discretion.

4. The above answers do not involve any modification to the answers to questions 1 and 2 in the Law Officers' Report of August 15th. The third answer in that Report seems to me, on re-consideration, to be erroneous, and the first sentence in the fourth answer must not be read as involving the proposition that, as a matter of law, the Royal Assent must be refused.. I adhere to the opinion expressed by me in the second sentence of the answer in question 4 of that Report, to the effect that if the Royal Assent should be given the Act could not, in any event, be treated as invalid in any Court.

5. I have nothing to add.

I have, &c.,

·

I have also reconsidered the matter, and have the honour to

Report-

R. B. FINLAY.

1. That I agree with the answer of the Attorney-General to this question. 2. In my opinion the words referred to prevent any amendment being made, after the second and third readings, which repeals alters or varies the Constitution in a manner different from that provided by the Bill when it passed such readings. Any other construction would appear to me to enable such amendments, however important, to be made by à bare majority and thus to nullify the effect of the words referred to.

3. I think not.

4.

No.

5. I have nothing to add.

I have, &c.,

EDWARD CARSON.

the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

The Right Honourable

37299

SIR,

No. 202B.

(TRINIDAD.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Port-of-Spain Riots; proposed Prosecution of Instigators.]

Law Officers' Department,

Royal Courts of Justice,

October 10, 1903. We were honoured with your commands signified to us by Mr. Lucas in his letter of the 10th September last, stating that he was directed by the Secretary of State to request the favour of our report upon certain questions which had arisen with reference to the evidence which would be necessary in the proceedings pro-' posed to be taken against the instigators of the riot in Trinidad on the 23rd of March.

That from the despatches and other papers it would appear that it was found impossible to obtain satisfactory evidence in the Colony of what was said at the meetings held on the 14th and 21st of March by any of the persons accused or suspected of inciting the populace to the violence which followed on the 23rd of March, persons who were present at those meetings being deterred from coming forward either by personal hostility to the Government or by fear of those who were hostile to the Government.

That we should observe that the Colonial Law Officers were clearly of opinion that an attempt to prosecute any of the persons who made speeches at the meetings of the 14th and 21st March would, with the evidence at present available against them, expose the Government to ridicule and contempt. That this evidence would appear to consist mainly of the Police evidence which formed Enclosure C. to the Governor's despatch, No. 368, of the 13th of August.

That he was, however, to say that, whilst sensible that a prosecution supported by weak and insufficient evidence would have the effect apprehended, and whilst he deemed it probable that, in the present state of public opinion in Port-of-Spain, a jury would disregard even ample evidence and refuse to commit, the Secretary of State felt, nevertheless, very strongly that on grounds of public policy an attempt should be made to bring the instigators of the riot to justice, and that if substantial evidence, i.e., evidence upon which an impartial jury ought reasonably to convict, could be procured against the persons suspected, the latter should be prosecuted without any further delay.

1

That these persons were Messrs. Newbold, Nanco, Maresse-Smith and Mole, and that it would appear that Maresse-Smith had taken the most prominent part in the agitation against the Water Ordinance, and that his speech of the 21st March was largely responsible for the riot which occurred two days later.

That it had been suggested that the evidence given by Maresse-Smith before the Commission of Enquiry concerning the riot at Port-of-Spain, so far as it con- sisted of admissions relating to his speech of the 21st of March, and its effects, would in strict law be admissible against him if the proposed prosecution were undertaken. That such a course, moreover, would not appear to be excluded by the provisions of the Ordinance 2, of 1892, under which the Commission was ap- pointed.

But that assuming such evidence to be admissible, a further question of public policy arose as to the expediency or otherwise of using evidence obtained from a witness before a Commission of Enquiry in subsequent legal proceedings against the witness, and that he was to say that the Secretary of State would be glad if we would take this question into our consideration, having regard to the practice in this country with reference to evidence given before Royal Commissioners or other Commissions of Enquiry. That it should be mentioned that under Ordinance 9 of 1848, Section 52, the law of evidence in Trinidad was the same as in England.

That if we were of opinion that the evidence given by Maresse-Smith before the Commission would be legally admissible, and that it would not be inexpedient to use it against him at his trial, it was presumed that this evidence could be proved by the reporter who reported the proceedings of the Commission (and who was now in

25 W's 664 11/03 D & Я 5 140-55

The

Solicitor- General's Opinion.