CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12] — Page 142

C

140

Copy.

Note on question as to form of oaths of allegiance referred to in Secretary of State's Despatch No.196 of the 28th June, 1922.

-------------

The substance of the objection would remain if the words "and affim" appeared. The difficulty arises from the fact that there are persons (Mr. Ip Lan Chuen appears to be one) who cannot make solemn affirmation in lieu of oath under the Oaths Act, 1988, because they are unable to say that they have no religious belief, ar that the taking of an eath is centrary to their religious belief: this difficulty specially affects Chinese as to whom the laying down of an oath, excepting certain more or less fanciful attempts, has been avoided. Even in this Colony the ground is not completely covered: the Promissory Oaths Ordinance, 1869, (1 of 1869), deals with the taking of the oath of allegiance by certain persons: it has no application to Mr. Ip Lan Ohmen's case: the Evidence Consolidation Ordinance, 1889, (2 of 1889), deals only with evidence ke., in "any proseeding.

The Honourable Attorney General is preparing a Bill dealing with the ground now uncovered and amending the

law relating to oaths, but this, alone, will not carry the

osse of non-Christian Chinese under the British Nationality

and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, any further.

Section 19 of such let provides that the Secretary

of State may make regulations (inter alia) as to the form

in which the taking and subscription of oaths of allegiance

are to be attested, but, so far as is material, no regulation has been made, A want arists which it is clear

the legislature of this Colony cannot supply.

It is submitted that the remedy lies with the Secretary of State who should be asked to make a regulation

under