CO882-(1-2) — Page 153

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

TIT

T

1

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

V

36

"The question of Temple Lands "

ject) intervenes ;

(another sub-

And then follows: "The Council concur with the views expressed by the Governor."

On the 5th December the repeal and amending ordinances are read a first time in the Legislative Council, and on the motion of Sir E. Tennent him. self. Here, according to the minutes of the Executive Council, was a most important change made with great precipitation. Two members of Council are opposed to the change, one of them very strongly. In this, if in any case, it might be expected that the minutes would give some indication of dissent. Yet nothing is entered upon them, or upon the minutes of the Legislative Council, but the concurrence of the several Councils. But Sir Emerson Tennent him- self, not only by his acts on this occasion, but by his representation to the Committee of his general practice, is an authority for saying that the concur rence of a member of Council is not to be presumed because the minutes contain no entry of his dissent. 3011. If you disapproved of an act done by the Governor, would you put your signature to it?—Certainly, if I had the Governor's directions to do so.

3012. Would you do so with or without a protest ?—— Without a protest. The only instance in which a protest, or that which is equivalent to a protest, vis., a minute by a dissenting party, is recorded (a) in the deliberations of the Executive Council, and there I have in one instance, an unimportant one, recorded a minute of dissent; but in other instances, even in the Executive Council, I have not done so, though I might dissent from a resolution that was arrived at.

There is, however, an entry on the minutes of the Executive Council, and there are also entries pon the minutes of the Legislative Council of a sub- Bequent date, which may throw back some light upon the question whether Mr. Wodehouse had objected to the dog ordinance on the ground that it had been extended to the whole island, and whether he had objected to the original draft of it because it omitted

Minutes of Legislative Council, November 6, 1848; and Papers. 1850, page 29.

Evidence, 1850.

to continue the power of destroying dogs. On the Papers, 1860. No. 1, page 16;

4th October, 1848; ■ Bill to amend the dog ordi- and Minutes of Legislative Council.

nance was read a first time in the Legislative Council. The effect of this Bill was to limit the ordinance to towns and other police districts, and to strike out the power of destroying dogs. On the 17th October, the Queen's Advocate, Mr. Selby, moved that the second reading be postponed. At a meeting of the Executive Council on the 23rd October, was "read, letter from P. E. Wodehouse,

• Sic.

Papers, 1850. No. 1, page 18; and Minutes of Legislative Council.

Minutes of Executive Council.

Papers, 1850. No. 1, page 21; and Minutes of Legislative Council.

Page 23.

Page 29.

37

Esq., Government Agent for the Western Province, dated the 13th October, 1848, submitting certain observations on the draft of the ordinance," &c., (the amending dog ordinance).

Resolved-That in the Committee of the Legislative Council on the Bill, the Queen's Advocate be requested to move the omission in the 4th clause of the words "five and six.”

The 5th and 6th clauses of the dog ordinance were the clauses authorizing the destruction of dogs. On the 30th October, the amending Bill was read a second time; the Council then went into com- mittee; and then, on the motion of the Queen's Advocate, the words "five and six" were omitted. On the 8th November the amending Bill was withdrawn, and on the 5th December a Bill to repeal the dog ordinance was read a first time. The Bill was read a second time on the 9th Decem- ber, and passed on the 18th. Thus it will be seen, that on the 13th October Mr. Wodehouse addressed a letter to the Executive Council, on the subject of the amending ordinance, which abro- gated the power of destroying dogs. That it was in consequence of this letter (although no dissent on the part of Mr. Wodehouse appears on the minutes of the Legislative Council) that the second reading of the Bill was postponed on the 17th, the excised clauses were restored in Committee on the 30th, and the Bill ultimately withdrawn.

The whole course of the dog legislation appears strongly to confirm Mr. Wodehouse's statement that his objections to the dog ordinance were not objec- tions of form.

Sir E. Tennent states that the repeal of the taxes was announced on the first day of the session, that is, on the 2nd October. The minutes of Legisla- tive Council make no mention of this, and its pro- ceedings with respect to the Bill for the amendment of the ordinance are scarcely consistent with know- ledge on the part of the Council that it was to be repealed. It is not until the 6th November that Lord Torrington proposes the repeal to the Execu- tive Council. It is probable, therefore, that Sir E. Tennent, in his answer 3520, is entirely mistaken, and that Mr. Wodehouse's account of the matter in 4590, is correct, that the notice of repeal was communicated by Mr. Wodehouse to Lord Torring ton on the 6th of November, and not before.

1