PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
། ། ། ་། ། །
سلسل
Reference :-
C.O.885
ALLY WITHOUT, PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO,
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
20th May 1890.
2
We have also the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Mr. Wingfield's letter dated 3rd June last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit, for our consideration, a further letter from Dr. Skottowe's solicitors in reference to his claim.
That Mr. Wingfield was also to refer to the Letters Patent and Royal Instructions above mentioned, and to invite our attention to Articles 8 and 10 of the Charter of January 2nd, 1875, to Article 33 of the Instructions of 1st October 1880, and to Article 2 of the additional Instructions of 3rd September 1886, enclosed with his letter. That a notification of the Charter was published in the London Gazette of 5th February 1875, and that the Charter was published in the Colony on 1st September 1875, but was not brought specially to the notice of Dr. Skottowe when offered his appointment.
That the Royal Instructions were not public documents, but that there were certain regulations affecting the whole Colonial service published every year in the Colonial Office List, of which a copy was enclosed,
That that book was not communicated to Dr. Skottowe, but was accessible to anyone who cared to enquire for the conditions of Colonial Service. That Regulations 63-50 related to appointments to, public offices, and Regulations 81-96 to suspension and dismissal from office.
That Regulation 64 intimated that appointments of the nature of that given to Dr. Skottowe were held during Her Majesty's pleasure.
That those regulations were made and altered by the Secretary of State, and that it was considered that while Her Majesty, through the Secretary of State, might at any time dismiss an officer of the Colonial Service, such an officer could not be deprived of his office by the Colonial Government, except under the procedure laid down in the regulations. And that it might be suggested that the Secretary of State instead of ordering the dismissal of an officer had the power of ordering a reduction of salary.
That in Ceylon a pro ratá reduction of all salaries was proposed in 1883 during a serious financial crisis, but was not carried out; and that in Mauritius in 1868 a similar proposal was made, and the annual increments were actually suspended for a time; but that a general reduction like that in Fiji did not appear to have been made in any other Colony.
That Mr. Wingfield was to request that we would be good enough to consider the above observations in connection with the letter of the 17th of May, and to favour your Lordship with our advice generally upon the whole matter.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report
That, in our opinion, the letters of the 17th January and 12th of February 1885, are evidence of a contract to employ Dr. Skottowe in a particular office at Fiji at a specifie salary. We think this contract was binding upon the Government of Fiji on whose behalf, in fact, the Secretary of State was acting.
Whether Dr. Skottowe could have been dismissed at any time and for any reason other than misconduct on his part, it is not necessary to consider, as the question before us refers only to his salary while he continued to fill the office by virtue of his original appointment. but we think it clear that he could not be called upon to serve at a lower rate of pay than that specified in his appointment, or to accept, in respect of past service, a salary at a lower rate.
The contention that he is not entitled to recover his full salary, because the Legislative Council of Fiji did not vote it, appears to us unsound, having regard to the fact that Fiji is a Crown Colony, and that the Ordinance reducing salaries was passed by the votes of official members obeying the instructions of the Governor.
The Right Hon.
Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.,
&c. &c.
&c.
We have, &c.,
(Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
"
13,839.
·
No. 181.
(WESTERN PACIFIC.)
LAW OFFICERS to TREASURY.
CASE.
Uninhabited Islands, Licences.
In 1865 a lease of Sombrero Island was granted to F. K. Dumas for 21 years. The lease was executed on behalf of Her Majesty by the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners (see s. 6 of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 119. now repeale 1 by 35 & 36 Viot. c. 73. s. 5). In 1881 a surrender of the above lease was accepted and a new lease granted to the Phosphate Company of Sombrero.
As the Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioners had ceased to exist in 1881, and Sombrero Island was not within the jurisdiction of any Colonial Governor, a Royal Warrant empowering the Secretary of State for the Colonies to execute this and similar leases was approved by the then Law Officers (Sir H. James and Lord Herschell).
A copy of this warrant is left herewith (A).
When this warrant was submitted to and approved by the Law Officers the Lords of the Treasury were not aware that Letters Patent were in existence under which the Governors of New South Wales, and Jamaica, and the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific were empowered to grant and were in the habit of granting leases of and licences to take guano from, extra Colonial Islands in the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic Oceans.
The question of the grant of licences to occupy and remove substances from uninhabited Islands has recently been occupying the attention of the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, by whom it has been agreed that two fresh Letters Patent should be issued to the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific, one dealing with Islands already in the possession of the Crown, the other with Islands not yet forming part of the Empire.
These Letters Patent have been approved by the Law Officers. Copies of them and of recent Reports by the Law Officers on the subject are left herewith.
The Colonial Office have now suggested to the Treasury that the Warrant to the Secretary of State requires amendment, and have proposed that it should be amended as shown in red ink in the accompanying copy.
The Lords of the Treasury desire the opinion of the Law Officera on the following points.
!
1. Whether, if Letters Patent, are requisite for the powers to be given to the High Commissioner the weaker instrumentality of a Royal Warrant will suffice for the powers to be given to the Secretary of State.
2. Whether, if two different instruments, emanating from two different departments are required for the two different classes of islands, in the case of the High Com- missioner, a single instrument will suffice for both classes of islands in the case of the Secretary of State.
3. Whether, if both the foregoing questions be answered in the affirmative, the wording of the Draft Warrant is suitable for the purpose it is intended to fulfil.
Opinion.
In our opinion a Royal Warrant will suffice for the powers proposed to be given to the Secretary of State in respect of both classes of islands and places, and, assuming that it is intended to give the Secretary of State concurrent power with the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific of granting, selling, or disposing of islands, &c., subject to the Letters Patent already approved, the wording of the Draft Warrant now submitted to and initialled by us is sufficient for the purpose it is intended to fulfil; but if it is intended that there should not be concurrent power in the Secretary of State and the High Commissioner over the places subject to the jurisdiction of the High Commissioner under such Letters Patent, such places should be excluded from the operation of the Warrant.
It might, in our opinion, create difficulties if a concurrent jurisdiction existed.
Royal Courts of Justice,
July 10, 1890.
u 61207.-20. 25 --7,90.
We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
3