CO885-(13-15) — Page 16

། ། ། ། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

19

mimiuiliu

Reference :-

C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

soldiers and labourers armed with knives. That the party attacked, numbering nine, armed with one 'revolver, managed to escape to a neighbour- That the Honduranian ing cay, and thence to an American schooner. soldiers then proceeded to pillage and destroy the property of the persons who now asked the support of Her Majesty's Government.

That the authorities of the neighbouring Island of Ruatran, on learning of the disturbances, acted with promptitude. That they arrested nine Honduranians and Wood and Bonnor, and that they restored such of the pillaged property as was reasonable. That three of the Hondurians were sentenced respectively to terms of eight years, four months, and one day's imprisonment. That Wood was imprisoned for 14 days, and was then released on entering into recognizances, and had since left the island for Grand Cayman. That Bonnor was acquitted by the judge of first instance, but had been kept in custody ever since (between two and three years), on the plea that his acquittal had not been confirmed by the Supreme Court at Tegucialpa, to which it was intimated that an appeal might be made, but that no steps had yet been taken by any one with that view.

That under the circumstances above recited, and which were described in the accompanying papers, the Earl of Iddesleigh presumed that Her Majesty's Government would be justified in demanding from the Government of Honduras the immediate release of Bonnor, assuming him to be a British subject, and compensation to him for his long detention in prison without trial; but that the Secretary of State would be glad to be favoured with our opinion with regard to the cases of the other claimants.

Firstly, whether Mr. Coe Wood, and any other persons establishing their British nationality, were entitled to compensation from the Government of Honduras for damage to their property during the riots.

Secondly, whether Mr. Coo Wood's claim for compensation on account of imprisonment and loss of time should be supported, having regard to the part he took in the riot and the fact that after 14 days' imprisonment he was released on his own recognizances and escaped to Grand Cayman.

Thirdly, whether persons who being the holders of property in the Bay Islands acquired before the date of the Convention of 1859 or their descendants, who had under its terms become citizens of Honduras, were entitled to the support of Her Majesty's Government in cases of injury to their property, and that, if so, to what extent.

That we should observe that some of the claimants whose losses were scheduled in Enclosure 8 of Mr. Gastrell's Despatch, were also signatories of the petition (Enclosure 11) in which they described themselves as "British subjects of the Island of Bonacca, holding grants under British Crown," but who could not now be considered under the, Convention with Honduras to have claim to British nationality. In obedience to the commands of the Secretary of State we have the honour to

Report

That persons, who, being the holders of property in the Bay Islands acquired before the date of the Convention of 1859, or their descendants who have under its terms become citizens of Honduras, are entitled to the support of Her Majesty's Government against any violation by the Govern- ment of Honduras of the rights reserved to them by the Convention of 1859, but are not entitled to that support for claims in respect of injury for which the Government of Honduras is not responsible.

We are of opinion that Mr. Coe Wood and the other persons mentioned in the questions are not entitled to the support of Her Majesty's Government for their claims in respect of damage done during the riot mentioned, nor is Mr. Coe Wood entitled to that support for his claim for compensation for imprisonment and loss of time.

With regard to Bonnor, we would advise, in his interests, that an application should be made simply for his release, on the ground that ho was acquitted by the judge of first instance, and that no appeal was brought from that decision within a reasonable period.

The Marquis of Salisbury.

We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.

EDWARD CLARKE.

1,713.

SIR,

No. 83.

(LAGOS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE,

Royal Courts of Justice,

January 26, 1887. WE were honoured with Sir Robert Herbert's letter of the 7th instant stating that he was directed to ask us to be good enough to favour the Secretary of State with our advice upon the following state of facts :--

That the Settlements on the Gold Coast and at Lagos had for some years formed one Colony, called the Gold Coast Colony, possessing a Supreme Court consisting of a Chief Justice and two Puisne Judges.

That in the course of 1885 it was decided to divide this Colony, and to erect the Settlement at Lagos into a separate Colony, by the name of the Colony of Lagos.

That that separation was effected by two separate Letters Patent, both dated the 13th of January 1886, of which copies were enclosed.

That in carrying out the separation it was arranged that the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast Colony should consist of the Chief Justice and one of the Puisne Judges, and that the other l'uisne Judge should become sole Judge of the Supreme Court of Lagos. That that arrangement had been carried into effect, and that the question arose how a local appeal could best be obtained from the decisions of the single Judge at Lagos.

That two methods had been proposed: (1.) to constitute the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast a Court of Appeal from the Supreme Court of Lagos; and with the further object of obtaining an Appeal Court of three Judges to deal with appeals from both Colonies, to constitute the Judge of Lagos a Judge of the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast, so that he might take his place on the Bench whenever he might happen to be within the Gold Coast Colony; (2.) to create a distinct Court of Appeal for the two Colonies, consisting of the Judges of both Courts, and competent to sit in either ('olony as occasion might require.

•

That it would be seen that each of the Letters l'atent of the 13th January 1886 reserved to Her Majesty the power of making, by Order in Council, such laws as might appear necessary for the peace, order, and good government of the Colony; and that it was submitted that under the powers thus reserved it was competent to Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to confer upon the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast authority to hear and determine appeals from the Supreme Court of Lagos, and to declare that appeals from the Court of Lagos should lie to the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast.

That with reference to the second proposal, it had been suggested that Her Majesty might, under the powers conferred upon Her by the Acts 6 & 7 Victoria, chapter 13, and 23 & 24 Victoria, chapter 121, establish, by Order in Council, a Court of Appeal for the two Colonies, capable of holding its sittings in either Colony, and of entertaining appeals from the Supreme Court of either Colony, or from a Judge of either Court.

That a somewhat similar court existed in the West Indies under the Act

13 & 14 Victoria, chapter 15, to which we were referred.

That our opinion was requested as to-

1. Whether, without further legislation by the Imperial Parliament, Her Majesty had power to create either of the Courts of Appeal above referred to. 2.. Whether, by virtue of the Letters Patent of 13th January 1886, Her Majesty might, by Order in Council, create the Supreme Court of the Gold Coast a Court of Appeal from the Supreme Court of Lagos.

3. Whether, by virtue of those Letters Patent, or of the Acts 6 & 7 Victoria, chapter 13, and 23 & 24 Victoria, chapter 121, Her Majesty might, by Order in Council, create such a Court of Appeal for both Colonies as was above referred to.

30069. 3. 25.-2/87.