CO885-(10-11) — Page 596

2

And that with regard to the words relied upon by the Attorney General so vested in Her Majesty in Council as aforesaid, it would seem that after Her Majesty had declared and fixed the time when the Act should come into operation the powers under section 2, though not exerciseable till after that time, were sufficiently vested in Her to be delegated under the third section; that

With regard to the Letters Patent, Sir Frederic Rogers was pleased to remark that by virtue of the 2nd section, Act 26 & 27 Vict. c. 76., the Letters Patent would not take effect in the Colony until they had been signified there by proclamation or other public notice, which would not have been done in the present case until after the Act came into operation on the 1st of April; that under these circumstances he had to desire that we would favour your Grace with our opinion upon the following questions :——

1st. Whether the Legislative Council appointed in virtue of the Letters Patent of the 4th February 1867 was validly constituted? and, 2nd. If the delegation is invalid what steps should in our opinion be taken by Act of Parliament, Order in Council, or otherwise, to validate what has been done under the Letters Patent, and to set matters on a proper footing?

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the statement submitted to us into consideration, and have the honour to

Report

That we think that though the language of the Imperial Act may justify the doubt expressed by Mr. Attorney General Braddell, the fair interpretation of it is, that upon the passing of the Act, which for some purposes obviously came into operation imme- diately, Her Majesty was empowered by Order in Council to make laws under section 2 before the time specified for the coming into operation of the Act in the Straits Settlements, which laws should take effect upon that event, and that under section 3 Her Majesty might, in the manner therein pointed out, before the specified date delegate to three or more persons within the said Settlements, or within any part or dependency thereof, the power vested in Her Majesty in Council to take effect after the date specified for the coming into operation of the Act within the Settlement.

We think, however, that it would be advisable to remove any doubt upon this subject by a short Act of the Imperial Legislature making valid the charter, commis- sion, and instructions, &c., and all acte done or to be done under such charter, commis- sion, instructions, &c., as if the Act had expressly provided for the issuing thereof immediately after the passing of the Act.

His Grace the Duke of Buckingham

and Chandos.

We have, &c. (Signed) JOHN ROLT.

JOHN B. KARSLAKE.

6483.

No. 470.

(VICTORIA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD DUKE,

Lincoln's Inn, July 3, 1867. We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 4th of June, stating that he had been directed by your Grace to transmit to us the enclosed documents relative to the case of George Milla, a prisoner in Her Majesty's gaol at Melbourne, who was, in October 1854 (1864?), found guilty by the Supreme Court of Victoria of the crime of fraudulent insolvency, and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour upon each of the first four counts of the information, and further stating that we should perceive that the prisoner had petitioned Her Majesty for a commutation of that sentence on the ground of its illegality, and requesting that we should furnish your Grace with our opinion upon the following question: Whether the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment on each of the first four courts of the information was justifiable by law?

In obedience to your Grace's commands we have taken the enclosed documents into consideration with reference to the question submitted to us, and have the honour

to

Report

That although the question submitted to us cannot be considered as wholly free from doubt, we think that, looking to the terms of the Colonial Act and the form of the indictment there was but one offence charged, and that the sentence of 18 months, imprisonment on each of the first four counts of the information was not justifiable by law.

We have, &c. (Signed)

His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos,

&c.

&c.

&c.

0 16278-699.

25.-5/86.

JOHN ROLT. JOHN B. KARSLAKE.

>

I PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

།། །

Reference :-

HmmmC.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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