CO885-(13-15) — Page 222

12998.

No. 215. (MALTA-)

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

MY LORD,

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, June 27, 1891. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Wingfield s letter of the 13th instant, stating that with reference to our report of the 5th of May last on the subject of the Council of Government of Malta, he was directed by your Lordship to lay before us copies of a despatch from the Governor of Malta raising the question whether the Council of Government could pass the estimates in the absence of all the elected members, and of a report by the Crown Advocate of Malta on the question whether that Council, at a sitting on the 6th of May, held during the vacancy of the seats of all the elected members, had power to enact an Ordinance (a copy of which was enclosed) containing a clause authorising the Colonial Postmaster to pay to masters of vessels certain gratuities on letters, &c. conveyed by them on behalf of the Post Office.

That it would be seen that Sir J. Carbone relying on the words "if unchallenged" in clause 29 of the Letters Patent of 12th December 1887, was of opinion that the Council was legally competent to sanction the expenditure of public money in the absence of the elected members, and that he was also of opinion that the Ordinance No. 9, of 1891, although it contained a provision authorising the expenditure of public money, did not come within the operation of the first paragraph of clause 29 of the Letters Patent.

That Mr. Wingfield was to request that we would take the papers into our con- sideration and favour your Lordship with our opinion (1) whether the Council of Government of Malta could pass money votes, if unchallenged, in the absence or during the vacancy of the seats of all the elected members; (2) whether the Council, as constituted on the 6th of May of official members only-the whole of the seats of the elected members being vacant-was competent to enact the Ordinance No. 9, of

1891.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your Lordship's commands have the honour to

Report

(1.) That we cannot adopt the view taken by the Crown Advocate. the language of clause 29 of the Letters Patent points to votes of public money being In our opinion passed by the votes of elected members. It is true that if unchallenged no vote will be taken, but the intention appears to be that there should be an opportunity of challenge by elected members.

(2.) We are of opinion that having regard to clause 19 of the Postal Ordinance No. 2, of 1884, it was not competent for the Council as constituted on the 6th of May 1891 to pass the Ordinance No. 9, of 1891.

The Right Honourable Lord Knutsford,

&c.

&c.

&c.

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

EDWARD CLARKE.

E 65458.-22.

25.-7,91.

'

امن اے ہو

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

1|___2__3| 4|_5_6T

Reference :--

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO