CO885-(11-13) — Page 264

827.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

J I

CO.

Reference :-

• 885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

It is to be observed, however, that in this case no power to legislate for the Colony was reserved to the Crown, as is pointed out in the judgment of the Court, whilst in the Letters Patent of 1856, now under consideration, there was a power of revocation and amendment.

Bearing this fact in mind, we are of opinion, notwithstanding the unqualified manner in which many writers have laid down the rule of law above referred to, that the Crown had, at the date of the Supplementary Charter of 1872, and has, a right to revoke and amend the Charter of 1856.

We think, however, that Her Majesty cannot by Order in Council repeal or alter any law passed by the Colonial Legislature subsequent to 1856, and if the Supplementary Charter of 1872 does conflict with any such law, it is, to the extent of the conflicting provision, invalid; except so far as it may so conflict, we think that the Supplemental Charter of 1872 was within the power reserved to or possessed by Her Majesty.

2. We think it right to state that we have arrived at the opinion expressed in our answer to the first question after much doubt and hesitation, and we are not prepared -to say that the Privy Council will, in the event of the matter being brought before them, certainly maintain the validity of the Supplemental Charter.

3. We have come to the conclusion that the Crown possesses the powers referred to in this question, subject to the qualification which we have stated in our answer to the first question, but we cannot help feeling that the point is open to considerable doubt.

4. If it is deemed essential at once to make the alterations in the laws of Natal indicated in the last question, or any of them, we think will be expedient to have recourse to Imperial legislation, in which case it would probably be advisable to legalise what has already been done.

We would suggest, however, that it would be a more satisfactory course to obtain a judicial decision upon the question before resorting to Parliament, and the statement in Lieutenant-Governor Musgrave's despatch to Lord Kimberley, under date 23rd Sep- tember 1872, would imply that there would be little difficulty in having the matter disposed of by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD BAGGALLAY,

JOHN HOLKER.

No, 47.

(GENERAL.)

(JAMAICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD,

We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Meade's

Lincoln's Inn, 20th January 1875. letter of the 8th instant, stating that with reference to our report to your Lordship, dated the 18th December 1874, on the subject of the pension to Mr. Edward John Eyre, formerly Governor of Jamaica, he was directed by your Lordship to call our attention to the terms of the commission by which Sir H. Storks was appointed to the Government of Jamaica, and also to the commission by which Sir J. P. Grant was appointed to the same Government.

2. That we would observe that the first-named commission, after reciting the necessity for making inquiry into the Jamaica disturbances, and that it was advisable that Mr. Eyre should be present during the inquiry, but that the powers vested in him as Governor should not be exercised by him during the prosecution of the inquiry and for such further time as might be requisite, proceeds to revoke so much of Mr. Eyre's commission as constituted him Governor of Jamaica until the determination of the said first-named Commission.

3. That we would further observe that in the subsequent commission appointing Sir J. P. Grant to be Governor of Jamaica, both of the foregoing commissions (Mr. Eyre's and Sir H. Storks') were recited, and both were revoked and determined as to

every clause, article, and thing therein contained."

#4

4. That it would thus appear that the exercise of Mr. Eyre's functions was only suspended during the continuance of the temporary commission of Sir H. Storks, and that on the determination of Sir H. Storks' commission, Mr. Eyre by virtue of his own commission would have been reinstated in the full exercise of his powers had they not been annulled by the provisions of the third commission to Sir J. P. Grant.

5. That your Lordship apprehended that those facts, which had only then come to his (your ?) knowledge, had not been laid before us in connexion with the question as to the grant of a pension to Mr. Eyre, under the Colonial Governors Pension Act, 1865, and that, if that be the case, he would be glad if, we would take them into consideration and advise him whether they, in connexion with those already submitted to us on the subject by the Treasury, might not properly qualify the conclusion already arrived at and enable your Lordship to hold, in pursuance of section 12 of the said Act, that Mr. Eyre may be deemed (for the purposes of the Pension Act) to have been adminis- tering the Government of Jamaica during the continuance of the inquiry into the Jamaica disturbances.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

Report

That although copies of the commission to Sir H. K. Storks and Sir John Peter Grant were not formally laid before us when our advice was asked by the Treasury in December last, we took care to obtain copies and consider the terms of these com- missions before sending in our report of the 18th of that month. ·

Since receiving Mr. Meade's letter of the 8th instant we have again read and atten- tively considered the commissions in question, and we have come to the conclusion that they contain nothing to induce us to alter in any respect the opinion previously given by us.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD BAGGALLAY.

JOHN HOLKER.

▲ 19916.-15. 95,-12/84.

827.