EVIDENCE (COLONIAL STATUTES) BILL. (Hansard, 31 July 1907)

§ MR. BOWLES
moved an Amendment to add in line 8, after the word "desertion," the words "and an authentic copy of which shall have been transferred by the Governor to one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State." These words, he said, had been copied from an Act of 1842, relating to New South Wales. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment.

THE UNDERSECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill Manchester, N.W.)
said that, following to some extent the principle adopted by the Foreign Office in respect of the statutes of foreign countries, he was anxious to take a similar responsibility for the Colonial Office for the simplification of the acceptance of statutes, but he was informed that it would lead to a number of complications. If there were no other way of obtaining the end they had in view it would be necessary to adopt the course; but by the measures proposed in the Bill it was hoped to obtain all the facilities desired without involving the Colonial Office in an unlimited amount of trouble.

§ MR. BOWLES
asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

§ MR. BOWLES
moved to leave out the words "purporting to be the printer." He said the object of this Bill was to remove doubt concerning the validity of Colonial Statutes which it might be desired to use as evidence in British Courts of law. The Bill proposed that any copy of a Colonial Statute produced in Court here should be accepted 1128 at once as evidence if it purported to be printed by the Government printer. Therefore the question as to who was the Government printer was at the bottom of the whole Bill. Was the Government printer under the Bill the printer who was authorised by the Government of the Colony to print it? Not at all —that would be simple. The Government printer for the purpose of this Act was the printer who purported to be the printer authorised. It was quite evident that there might be very serious conflict. Unless the words were to be read entirely out of the ordinary sense they made utter nonsense so far as the practical effect of the Bill was concerned. Under subsection 2 of Clause 1 a penalty was imposed upon a man who printed a copy of the Act which falsely purported to have been, printed by a printer who purported, whether falsely or not, to be the printer authorised by the Government of the Colony to print the Statute. It was a fantastic offence and he really thought the words must have been put in by some oversight, as they were plainly ridiculous.

§ MR. ASHLEY
seconded the Amendment.

§ MR. CHURCHILL
said the hon. Member, like himself, was not a lawyer, and therefore he was sure the hon. Member would not be surprised if he said he fully sympathised with the anxiety which the phrasing of the provision had caused him. It undoubtedly did appear to be very involved, complicated, and ineffective phrasing. He would, however, hesitate to say anything that appeared in the slightest degree to be disrespectful to the sober 1129 language of the Law Courts, for the definition was taken textually mutatis mutandis from the definition in the Documentary Evidence Act. The point was not so obscure as it might at first appear. The purpose of this Bill was to provide a smooth, easy, method of proving Colonial Statutes as evidence in British Courts. If they were to say that the printer should be the printer authorised to print the Act, it would be open to an ingenious counsel to argue that it was necessary to prove who was the Government printer, and then the whole trouble which this Bill sought to avoid would be retained. Once the word "purporting" appeared it did. not matter whether the printer was authorised to print or not; all that was necessary was that he was the printer purporting to be the printer authorised. In every respect this measure conformed entirely to the regulations, and although he admitted the words had not great literary sparkle he trusted the hon. Gentleman would accept them.

§ MR. BOWLES
said he did not desire to interfere with the passage of the Bill, and would therefore ask leave to with draw the Amendment.