CO885-(10-11) — Page 630

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TTIC.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

14. That from this paper we would see that two of the non-official members, Mr. Hammersley and Mr. Hardey, tendered their resignations in writing (pages 5, 13, and 14), and these resignations had been accepted by the Secretary of State in a Despatch of 22nd August 1867, a copy of which Despatch was transmitted to us.

15. That it is believed that one of the non-official members, Mr. Samson, whose resignation is accepted in that Despatch, would decline to resign on the ground that he never agreed to do so.

Sir Frederic Rogers further said that he was desired, however, to state for our infor- mation, that in a Minute of the Council of the 18th. August 1865, it is recorded that Messrs. Hardey, Hammersley, and Samson stated that they would severally be pre- pared to resign their seats if the Secretary of State should comply with the request of the Council, and that they would transmit to his Excellency the Governor their written conditional resignations. And that this Minute was, with the other Minutes of that meeting, read and confirmed at the next sittings of the Council (which was held on the 22nd June 1866, and at which Mr. Samson was present) and no protest then appears to have been made against the correctness of the Minute.

That under these circumstances we are requested to advise :

1st. Whether under the powers given by 10 George IV. o. 22., or otherwise, Her Majesty can by Order in Council revoke the Order in Council of 1857, and reconstitute the Legislative Council in the manner proposed by the amendment, viz., by adding to the number of non-official members, and limiting the tenure of the seats of non-official members?

2. Whether Her Majesty had power to revoke by the Order in Council of 1857 the prior Orders in Council?

3. Whether, looking to the terms of the appointments of the Legislative Councillors, they could resign by word of mouth, or by writing, or in what form, if any, could such councillors resign and appointments be made in their places?

In obedience to you Grace's commands we have the honour to

Report

That we think that the words of 10 George IV. c. 22. s. 1., by which it is provided that it shall be lawful for His Majesty, his heirs and successors by any Order or Orders to be by him or them made, to give such authority as therein mentioned, warrant the construction which has hitherto on many occasions been put on the statute and authorise the revocation of the Order in Council of 1857, and the reconstitution of the Legislative Council by adding to the numbers of the non-official members, and limiting We notice the doubt expressed by the the tenure of seats of non-official members. Law Officers in 1855 as to the power of making an Order dismissing a particular member of the Council, but we do not think our view as to the power of Her Majesty in Council necessarily clashes with the opinion then given.

It follows that, in our judgment Her Majesty had power by the Order in 1857 to revoke the prior Order in Council.

We think that a councillor might resign his office by word of mouth, as well as by writing or otherwise. To render resignation complete, however, the offer to resign must be accepted, and a mere offer might be reovked or recalled before acceptance. It would, we think, be unsafe under the circumstances to treat Mr. Samson's resigna- tion as complete, as he now maintains that he has not resigned.

We have, &c.

(Signed)

His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos,

JOHN B. KARSLAKE. WM. BALIOL BRETT.

2529.

Mr LORD,

No. 497.

(GIBRALTAR.)

QUEEN'S ADVOCATE to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Temple, March 9, 1868. I AM honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 25th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to me the correspondence relative to the seizure, by a Spanish revenue cruizer in December last for alleged smuggling, of a Gibraltar vessel, named the "Catalina," and Mr. Hammond was pleased to request that I would take the same into my con- sideration, and favour your Lordship with my opinion thereupon.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands I have taken these papers into considera- tion, and have the honour to

Report

That the property and destination of the cargo on board the "Catalina" is left in too much obscurity at present for your Lordship to direct any official support to be The owner's son, in his letter of given to the claim of the owner of the "Catalina." 7th January 1868, addressed to Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Algeciras (No. 2 enclosure in Sir J. Crampton's No. 41 of February 18, 1868) states that he has no documents in of the order for the tobacco. He represents it to have been verbally consigned proof by the owner, whom he does not name, to Mr. Bennett Russo, at Tangiers, with whom he had no commercial relationship, and that he shipped it as a favour to the owner of the tobacco. This is not a very satisfactory account, more particularly as the owner of the vessel is stated to be a tobacconist. It does not appear what cargo papers were on board the "Catalina." The captain of the port at Gibraltar merely speaks of the vessel being provided with the certificate of registry, articles of agreement with the crew, and bill of health (No. 3 in Sir J. Crampton's No. 13 of 15th January 1868). He also says that she cleared with two passengers, but it appears from the examination of the captain, who is an illiterate man and cannot write his name, that he had three Who these three passengers were does not appear, further than passengers on board. that one of them, who is also an illiterate man and cannot write his naine, describes himself of Santa Pola, and says that he was going to Tangiers. The other two do not appear to have been examined, yet it was of the greatest importance for the owner of the ship to have produced them or to have given some account of them, with a view to show that they were persons free from all suspicion of complicity in amuggling and that they were really going to Tangiers, for although the destination of the passengers would not be conclusive as to the real destination of the cargo, the absence of any evi- dence as to their destination is damaging to the claim of the shipowner.

The Lord Stanley, M.P.

&c. &c. &c.

p 16978.-679.

25,-5/86.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

TRAVERS TWISS,

&c.

&c.

&c.

Page 630Page 631

2656.

MY LORD Doxs,

No. 498.

(NEW ZEALAND.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Temple, March 16, 1868. We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 18th December last, stating that with reference to our letter of the 26th August last," in which we advised that a declaratory Act should be passed by the Imperial Parliament to quiet doubts as to the true construction of certain words con- tained in the 51st section of the New Zealand Company's Act of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 382, he was directed by your Grace to transmit to us a copy of a draft Act which had been prepared at the Colonial Office for the purpose.

Sir Frederic Rogers was pleased also to say that he was desired to request that we would state whether we are of opinion that the draft Act will effect the object in

view.

In obedience to your Grace's commands, we have perused the draft Bill submitted to us, and have the honour to

Report

That we have made some slight alterations in the draft of the proposed Bill, which we think will effect the desired object.

We have, &c.

(Signed) JOHN B. KARSLAKE. WM. BALIOL BRETT.

His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos,

&o

&o.

0 16978-644. 15.—5/66.