COLONIAL PROBATES (PROTECTED STATES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 28 April 1927)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)
My Lords, I have to move the Second Reading of this Bill, and as questions have been raised about it I should like to explain to you, in a few words, the need for the measure. The Colonial Probates Act, 1892, referred to in the Bill, provides that where the Legislature of a British Possession has made proper provision for recognition within that Possession of probates and letters of administration granted in the Courts of this country, then His Majesty may by Order in Council direct that probates and letters of admini- 2 stration granted in that Possession by the Courts of that Possession shall be sealed and recognised here. The object, of course, is to avoid the added expense of double probate. That Act was confined to British Possessions. Then, by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1913, it was provided that the Act of 1892 should apply, if so directed by Order in Council, to any foreign country in which for the time being His Majesty has jurisdiction.
Now that applies of course to certain British Protectorates, being Protectorates in the full sense where the country has assumed jurisdiction, so that we legislate there in effect by Order in Council—such countries (to give certain examples) as Uganda, Zanzibar, Nyasaland and, I think, the Protectorate of Nigeria. There is at least one mandated territory which comes within the same category—namely, Palestine, where we have assumed jurisdiction. But the Act does not apply to countries in which, although Great Britain has certain rights as the protecting or Mandatory Power, this country has not assumed jurisdiction and where the Government of the country is carried on by the local Legislature and Executive. It is to that kind of Protectorate, which is at all events in name a sovereign independent State, and to the mandated territories in which the Crown does not exercise jurisdiction, that we propose to take power to extend the Act of 1892. An instance of such a Protectorate will be found in the 3 Federated Malay States, and an instance of such a mandated territory is Iraq, where we have a Treaty but where we have not, according to the terms of the Act of 1890, assumed jurisdiction. It is desired to have power to apply the Act of 1892 to those countries. Indeed, the Federated Malay States have been asking for some years that it may be applied to them. For that purpose the Bill provides that the Act of 1892 may be applied by Order in Council to territories under His Majesty's protection or to mandated territories to which it cannot be applied by virtue of the Acts of 1890 and 1913. That, I think, gives the explanation of the Bill. I beg to move.

§ LORD PARMOOR
My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for giving this explanation, because I wanted to ask him what the Bill really meant. I think it has been held by the Courts in this country—the Privy Council and also the Court of Appeal—that the words "British Possessions," which are referred to here, really include any country in which we are in possession, any country with an administration in the nature of a Protectorate Government. I think it goes as far as that. There is a great distinction between a Protectorate and a mandated territory. A mandated territory is not a British Possession in any meaning of the term. It could not possibly be brought within that term, according to my understanding of what a mandated territory means. But, having regard to the explanation which the Lord Chancellor has given, I shall certainly offer no opposition to the Second Beading of the Bill.

§ VISCOUNT HALDANE
My Lords, I take the same view as my noble friend. There is no doubt a great deal in what he says about mandated territories. On the other hand, we have assumed jurisdiction in the Sovereign to entertain appeals at any rate from one of these mandated territories—Palestine—and I have no doubt we shall entertain them from others. That being so, when you look at the nature of this Bill, it amounts to no more than saying that these countries to which the Bill refers are countries where we recognise the jurisdiction as a real and competent one, and we therefore 4 think it right to recognise the probates granted as probates which should be accepted by the Courts of this country. That is only permissive so far as the internal management of things in those countries is concerned. It does not enable us to interfere; it only enables us to recognise what they have done. In these circumstances I do not think that there is any objection to the Bill. From the point of view of expediency, of course, the Bill is a useful one: it will save expense and injustices.