CO885-(11-13) — Page 459

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TILTICO. 885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

+

In compliance with the request contained in Mr. Bramston's letter we have the honour to

Report.

It appears to us that, although the Home Government in 1825 declined to ratify the Treaty in the first instance, yet, as they have for so many years abstained from any attempt to annul or cancel the proclamations of Sir C. Turner and Sir N. Campbell (of which they must from the first have been fully aware), the Treaty ought to be regarded as valid and now in force.

The Right Hon.

Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bart., M.P.,

&c.

&c.

&o.

}

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

HARDINGE S. GIFFARD.

12,043.

SIR,

No. 208.

(GENERAL)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Temple, 28th July 1879.

January last, stating

We were honoured with Mr. Herbert's letter of the 7th that he was directed to invite our attention to the report with which we favoured the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 15th of January 1878, relating to the necessity of submitting to the Privy Council appointments of Legislative Councillors Colony, when there was no express provision in the Royal Instructions to that

in a

effect.

2. That in the letter from the Colonial Office of the 12th of January, to which our report was an answer, it was stated that much inconvenience was frequently caused by the necessity of waiting until a Council was held for passing an appointment of a Legislative Councillor made by warrant. elapse before the formality could be complied with, and it had therefore occurred to A period of two months might sometimes Lord Carnarvon to inquire whether it was necessary to retain that formality in cases where there was no express direction that such appointments should be made with the advice of the Privy Council, and whether, if the words "and with the advice of our Privy Council were struck out of clause 22 of the above-mentioned instructions to the Windward Islands, or in other similar cases, the formality might not be dispensed with in every case.

3. That the second question, however, which was there suggested was not placed before us in a definite form, and Mr. Herbert was directed to recur to it.

"

4. That the words "and with the advice of our Privy Council' reference to the appointment of members of Executive Councils, as well as of Legislative were used in Councils, and were found in Letters Patent, in Orders in Council, and in Royal Instructions, but were only found in documents applying to some of the Colonies, while similar documents relating to other Colonies did not contain them, the appointments in the latter class of Colonies being made by Her Majesty under her Sign Manual and Signet without the advice of her Privy Council.

5. That it was thought advisable in order to avoid the inconveniences above referred to, and to ensure uniformity of procedure, that Her Majesty should be empowered to issue, if she thinks fit, any instruments of appointment to Executive or Legislative Councils without taking the advice of the Privy Council; and it was proposed, if it might be done, to issue a single instrument giving these powers to Her Majesty, and to do so in the shape of the draft Order in Council which was enclosed. That Mr. Herbert was, therefore, to request that we would be so good as to advise Sir Michael Hicks Beach-

1. Whether the desired powers might be obtained by a single enabling instrument, and without specifically repealing the particular words in the several Letters Patent, Orders in Council, and Royal Instructions in which they were found.

2. Whether such an instrument would be sufficient if issued as an Order in Council.

3. If not, whether it would be necessary that it should take the form of Letters Patent.

4. Whether the enclosed draft was proper and sufficient for the purpose.

5. That in reference to the 2nd and 3rd of the above questions, Mr. Herbert was to direct our attention to a copy (at page 62 of the accompanying paper) of an Order in Council dated the 9th of March 1865, which was issued in pursuance of a report of the Law Officers dated the 25th of February 1865, and which it would be seen related to the exercise of powers granted as well by Letters Patent as by Order in Council or Royal Instructions.

In compliance with the request contained in Mr. Herbert's letter, we have the honour to

That we are of opinion--

Report

1. That the desired powers cannot be obtained by a single enabling instrument. We think that when Letters Patent are once granted establishing a Legislature in

a Colony, such Letters Patent can only be altered or revoked by virtue of, and in

▲ 19916.-198. 25.-12/84.

2