CO885-(15-16) — Page 371

R

3839

In the course of the correspondence the question was raised as to whether, as a general principle, a Treaty entered into by the United Kingdom is in the absence of any express provision-binding upon the whole of His Majesty's dominions. Somewhat divergent views on this point appear to be expressed in the Colonial Office letters of the 10th and 30th November, 1903 (Paper A, Nos. 14 and 15). It is, however, understood that while the letter of the 30th November contained an expres- sion of Mr. Secretary Lyttelton's opinion on the point which he has so far seen no reason to revise, that of the 10th merely suggested a cautious form of reply to the Government of the Swiss Confederation, which would leave this important question still open.

I am to request that you will take these papers into your consideration and favour Lord Lansdowne with your opinion--

1. To what extent a Treaty entered into by His Majesty for the United Kingdom, is, in the absence of any expressed provision to the contrary, binding upon the whole of His Majesty's dominions?

2. Whether New Zealand and Queensland are or are not already bound by the Additional Act of 1900?

3. If not so bound, what is the present position of those Colonies with reference

to (a) the Convention of 1883, and (b) the Additional Act of 1900?

4. What interpretation should be placed upon the declaration made by the

British Delegates before signing the Additional Act of 1900?

5. Is His Majesty entitled to notify the accession of New Zealand to (a) the Convention of 1883 as modified by the Additional Act of 1900, or (b) to the Additional Act of 1900 alone?

6. To whom should any such notification be addressed?

His Lordship would also be glad to be favoured with any observation of a general character which you may have to offer.

List of Papers.

(A.) Correspondence in Print (Nos. 1 to 18).

I have, &c.,

F. A. CAMPBELL.

(B.) Parliamentary Paper, Commercial, No. 28, 1884 [Treaty No. 729].

(C.) Accession of New Zealand and Queensland to Industrial Property Convention. (D) Treaty Series No. 15, 1902 [Treaty No. 1140].

}

(Extract.)

No. 2.

(GENERAL.)

LAW OFFICERS to PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE.

[By-Laws of the British Cotton Growing Association.]

OPINION.

In compliance with the request contained in your letter we have the honour to report:-

That in our opinion these By-Laws may properly be allowed, subject to the alteration which we have made in red ink* in By-Law 71. This alteration appears to us desirable and we suggest it for consideration.

January 30, 1905.

By-Law 71.

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

No member of the Council shall be disqualified by his office from contracting with the Association nor shall any contract between the Association and a member of the Council, or any contract or arrangement entered into by or on behalf of the Association with any company or partnership of or in which any member of the Council shall be a director, member, or otherwise interested, be avoided or affected, nor shall any member of the Council so contracting, or being such a director, member. or so interested, be liable to account to the Association for any profit realized by such contract or arrangement by reason of such member of the Council holding his office or of the fiduciary relation thereby established, but in oase such contract-or arrangement-shall previously to the same being entered into come before the Conseil for disenssion -approval, provided that the nature of his interest shall be disclosed to the Council on the first opportunity. and Such member of the Council shall not vote thereon, upon any question relating to such contract or arrangement.

Shown here in italics and obliterated type.

Report.

1. It is impossible to give a general answer to this question. It must depend apon the nature of the Treaty and the surrounding circumstances.

2. In our opinion, having regard to the declaration made by the British Dele- gates at the time of signing the Additional Act of 1900, New Zealand and Queens- land are not bound.

3. The Colonies in question are still bound by the Convention of 1883 un-

modified by the Additional Act of 1900.

4. Their signature was for the United Kingdom only.

5. We think the notification may be made in either form.

6. To the Swiss Government.

Royal Courts of Justice,

January 26, 1905.

R. B. FINLAY.

EDWARD CARSON.

23

We 416 2,05 D & S

5

301 59

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TELEC.O.

.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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