CO885-(10-11) — Page 610

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

། ། ། ་།

བ]]

C.O. 885

2

29 & 30 Vict. o. 67., and perhaps in ignorance of the Act 28 & 29 Vict. c. 63., main- tains (vide Enclosure No. 2 to Despatch No. 80) that no power is vested in the Legis- lative Body of British Columbia to alter or touch the constitution of his court in Vancouver's Island.

Lastly, that the Judge of British Columbia raises a variety of questions of detail respecting the mode in which the proposal of your Grace is to be carried into effect.

Mr. Elliot was further pleased to state that under these circumstances he was directed to request our opinion:

1. Whether the Supreme Court of Civil Justice of the Colony of Vancouver's Island continues to exist, notwithstanding the passing of the British Columbia Act, 1866.

2. Whether there is any doubt respecting the power of the Legislature of British Columbia to make laws abolishing, reconstituting, or altering the constitution of the last-mentioned court.

3. Whether the annexed draft Ordinance will, if passed by the Legislature of British Columbia, give effect to the intention of your Grace, and whether it is open to objes- tion on any of the grounds indicated by Mr. Begbie, or on any other grounds.

In obedience to your Grace's commands we have taken the matter into consideration, and have the honour to

Report

That we are of opinion, 1st, That although the question is not entirely free from doubt, the Supreme Court of Civil Justice of the Colony of Vancouver's Island con- tinued to exist notwithstanding the passing of the British Columbia Act, 1866.

2. We do not entertain any doubt respecting the power of the Legislature of British Columbia to make laws abolishing, reconstituting, or altering the constitution of the last-mentioned court.

3. We think that the accompanying draft Ordinance will, if passed by the Legis. lature of British Columbia, give effect to the intention of your Grace, and that it is not open to objection on any of the grounds indicated by Mr. Begbie, or on any other grounds.

We would suggest that provision should be made by the same Ordinance, or by some other Ordinance to be passed as soon as possible, for the payment of the salaries of the judges, and for making the same charges upon the revenues of the new Colony, and for any alteration in the seals of the two courts, the forms of process, &o, which may become necessary by reason of the union of the two Colonies.

A clerical error exists in clause 4, to which we have drawn attention in the margin,

We have, &c. (Signed)

His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos,

&c.

&c.

&o.

JOHN B. KARSLAKE.

C. J. SELWYN.

11193.

No. 483. (MAURITIUS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD Duke,

We are honoured with your Grace's commands signified in Sir Frederic Rogers'

Temple, November 16, 1867. letter of the 12th instant, stating that he was directed by your Grace to recall our attention to our letter of the 12th August last, in which were ported to your Grace that in our opinion neither the Procureur General of Mauritius nor the Substitute Procureur General has a right to practise privately, and that the same law applies to the Acting Procureur General and the Acting Substitute Procureur General.

Sir Frederic Rogers further stated that we were also of opinion that the 86th section of the Code of Civil Procedure, which has not been expressly repealed, cannot be deemed to be repealed by necessary implication, and therefore that that section is a law still in force regulating the right of practice of Procureurs Generaux and their Substitutes.

Sir Frederic Rogers was also pleased to state that your Grace has, since the receipt of our Report, considered what are the arrangements which ought to be made in these respects, and that your Grace is of opinion that the Procureur General should be debarred from private practice, but permitted to appear as hitherto as counsel for the Crown in civil cases; that every future Substitute Procureur General should also be under similar restrictions; but that persons acting provisionally as Procureur General or Substitute Procureur General, should be allowed the right of private practice. That the present Substitute Procureur General received his appointment with a distinct condition that he should have the right of private practice, of which, in your Grace's opinion, he ought not to be deprived.

Sir Frederic Rogers was pleased to add, that the annexed Draft Order in Council is intended to give effect to these views; that it has been prepared in the Colonial Depart- ment in concert with Mr. Dickson, the present Procureur General, who is now in this country, and Sir Frederic Rogers had to request that we would be pleased to take it into our consideration and report to your Grace whether, in our opinion, it is legally sufficient to carry into effect your Grace's desires.

Sir Frederic Rogers further added that it would be observed that it does not expressly give the right of private practice to the present Substitute Procureur General, or to advocates acting as Procureur or Substitute Procureur, but leaves it in the power of the Governor to do so by permission in writing, in respect to which he will receive instructions from the Secretary of State.

In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have the honour to

Report

That we have considered the Draft Order in Council submitted to us for con- sideration, and, subject to some alterations which appeared to us to be necessary, we

think that it is sufficient to carry your Grace's wishes into effect.

We have, &c. (Signed) JOHN B. KARSLAKE.

C. J. SELWYN.

His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos,

&o.

&c.

&c.

* No. 476.

1697.-15. 25.---5/86.

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

1