11940.
No. 873.
(CANADA.)
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
لساتيليسيا
Reference :-
C.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
MY LORD,
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir H. Holland's
Temple, November 13, 1873. letter of the 24th October last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to tran- smit to us a Despatch of the 24th October last from Lord Dufferin requesting instructions in reference to the Bill, which it was thought might be introduced into the Parliament of Canada, authorising the issue of a Commission of Inquiry into what had been called the Pacific railway scandal, and giving such commission power to take evidence on oath,
2. That a summary of the circumstances which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission which was then sitting to inquire into the charges brought against the Canadian Ministers would be found in our report of the 26th September,* confirmed by our further report of the 3rd October,† and it was unnecessary to re-state the facts, but a copy of Mr. Blake's speech was annexed for our information.
3. That it would be seen that Mr. Blake, after protesting against the issuing of the Royal Commission, suggested the introduction of an Act authorising what he termed a Parliamentary, as distinguished from a Royal, Commission; and the first question which arose upon that point was whether it is within the competence of the Dominion Parliament to pass an Act appointing a commission ad hoc with power to administer oaths. That further question with respect to such an Act is raised by Sir J. Macdonald whether a measure of that kind should be entertained by the Dominion Parliament except at the instance of the Crown.
4. Upon the first question Sir H. Holland was pleased to say that he was to refer us to the Reports of the Law Officers of the 13th and 29th May last‡ upon the construction of the 18th section of the British North America Act, 1867, and to inform us that the Canadian Act of 1873, which was reported to be ultra vires, had been disallowed by Her Majesty, and that he was to annex copies of that disallowed Act and also of the Act c. 24. of 1868 referred to in those reports, and of a Despatch No. 198. to Lord Dufferin of the 30th June commenting upon the Act of 1868, and to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the two questions above referred to.
Sir H. Holland also stated that it appeared also to have been suggested by Mr. Blake that an Aot might be passed enabling members serving on a special committee of the House appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Ministers to take evidence on oath.
That, as it was apprehended that as the Act of 1873 giving a general power of that kind to the Committees of the House were held illegal and ultra vires, the proposed Act giving a like power to a particular committee would also be illegal, but as instructions might have to be given to Lord Dufferin with respect to such a measure, he was to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion upon this point.
În obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report
That we think the Reports of the Law Officers of the 13th and 29th May 1873 are correct in point of law. It follows that all the three courses suggested in Sir H. Holland's letter appear to us to be beyond the powers of the Parliament of the Dominion.
We have, &c.
(Signed)
J. D. COLERIDGE. H. JAMES.
J. P. DEANE.
&c.
† No. 862.
Nos. 816 and 823.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley,
&c.
&c.
• No. 860.
o 16978.-869. 25.-5/86.
ཏི པཁསམརཔ པཐཱུ*སI
0