[BILL 369.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 9 September 1887)

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,
said, he had to complain that the Bill was an enormous addition to the power of extending British laws by the mere act of the Executive over new territories, and sometimes over unexplored and unknown territories. He must raise an objection 59 to the construction given to the phrase "British Settlement" in the 6th clause, declaring that any British possession not acquired by cession or conquest should be deemed a British settlement. He thought this was a fictitious meaning of the latter term, and was calculated to encourage the spread-eagle tendencies of annexation by the unauthorized planting of the British standard in distant territories. He had also to complain that the Bill, like a previous one, had been read a second time at a very early hour in the morning.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND) (Hampstead)
said, that with all the respect which he had for the opinion of the hon. Member, he could not bring himself to set the opinion of the hon. Member upon questions of law, and construction of an Act, above that of the Law Officers of the Crown. Now, as he (Sir Henry Holland) had said a few nights ago in reply to the hon. Member, they had advised that, if possession were acquired of New Guinea by the Proclamation of Sovereignty, that territory, not having been acquired by cession or conquest, would be a British Settlement, and come within the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c. 121. So far, then, as New Guinea was concerned, it would come within existing Acts, and the Bill made no difference. But then the hon. Member contended that there was a dangerous extension of the existing law by the definition of "British Settlement," and that this Bill went beyond the 1st section of 23 and 24 Vict. c. 121. That contention he (Sir Henry Holland) entirely disputed. That section extended the provision of a former Act— To all possessions of Her Majesty not having been acquired by cession or conquest, and the 6th clause of the Bill, now under consideration, did nothing more than declare that a British Settlement meant a "British possession which has not been acquired by cession or conquest." It only defined the possession which was not acquired by cession or conquest as a settlement. The hon. Member appeared to have altogether overlooked the fact that the territory must have become a "possession" before the question whether it was a British Settlement within the Bill arose; but that really disposed of his argument about the Bill making vast unknown 60 territories British Settlements for the first time. He was afraid he could never hope to convince the hon. Member, and he must content himself by assuring the Committee that the Bill was exactly on the same lines as the earlier Act, and did not extend it, and that it was in accordance with the opinion of the Law Officers.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,
As to this clause, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Henry Holland) says that I have not convinced him; and I am certain that he has not convinced me. He relies on the opinion of the Law Officers. We have not seen that opinion in its entirety; but, so far as we know anything about it, we know that it is an exceedingly cautious opinion. It amounts to this—that as New Guinea has not been ceded or conquered, if possession of it is taken it must be taken as a British settlement. Those are the words we have in print.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Sir HENRY HOLLAND) (Hampstead)
If possession is taken it becomes a British Possession.

§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL
The real difference between, us is as to the word "possession." I say that "possession" means "possession," and that "occupied," in the old Act, means "occupied." The Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the other hand, uses the word "declared," and says that "possession" is anything that Her Majesty has "declared" to be possession, say, by the hoisting of a flag, or by some act of that nature. The right hon. Gentleman contends that declaring territory to be British territory amounts to, or is equivalent to, taking possession or occupation. I rely on the English language. I say that "possession" means "possession," and that "occupation" means "occupation," and that merely declaring unknown territory to be a British possession does not make it a British possession. The former Act only enabled you to deal with "possessions" occupied by British settlers. That is the plain meaning of the former Act. I cannot be satisfied by the opinion of the Law Officers. I think this clause is an enormous extension of the previous Act. It extends that Act by enabling Her Majesty to make rules and regulations not only for bonâ fide Settlements, but for vast territories of which no actual possession has been taken, but on some corner of which our flag has been hoisted. That is an enormous extension of the powers given to the Government by the former Act, and it is one against which I must protest.