PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
이
Reference :-
TLC.O. 885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NUI TUI
2
Council could be made which would enable legislation to be carried on without yielding to those conditions, and Mr. Wingfield was to request us to advise whether, having regard to the fact that the existing Legislative Council was constituted by a law of the Colonial Legislature, it was competent for Her Majesty by Letters Patent or Order in Council to abrogate or alter its Constitution, or whether such abrogation or alteration could only be effected by the Colonial Legislature or by Act of Parliament.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have the honour to
Report
1
That in our opinion, the result of the appeal in this case is extremely doubtful; but, having regard to the nature of the questions raised, we think that the appeal should be prosecuted.
f
Upon the first point, we think that section 4 is open to the construction contended for by the Attorney General, namely, that official means virtute officii," and that unofficial means appointed as "personas designatas." The difficulty is in the meaning of the word officers in the preceding line as contrasted with persons, and the Privy Council may adopt the view that persons holding offices under Government are excluded from the class of persons from whom non-official members can be chosen.
The opinion of the Law Officers of the 18th January 1883,* though to a certain extent supporting the contention of the Attorney General, depended upon the con- struction of the Leeward Islands Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. cap. 107), the language of which is different.
Upon the second point, having regard to the provisions of section 5 of the Consoli- dated Statute, Part II., we think there is fair ground for the contention that the Court was not entitled to declare the Ordinance invalid.
Before advising finally upon the best method of making any necessary alterations in the Constitution of British Honduras, we should require further information as to the history of the formation and constitution of the Colony prior to the Colonial Act of 1870; but upon the information before us, we are of opinion that it would not be competent for Her Majesty to alter the Constitution by Letters Patent or Order in Council, but such alteration must be effected either by the Colonial or Imperial Legislature.
We have, &c. (Signed)
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G., &c.
. &c.
&c.
* No. 285 in Vol. III.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.
20125.
No. 225.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Mr LORD,
Royal Courts of Justice, October 9, 1891. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 14th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to request that we would favour you with our opinion upon the question raised by the Governor of the Straits Settlements in the despatch of which a copy was enclosed, viz., whether he was precluded by clause 17 of the Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Straits Settlements and their dependencies from exercising the power conferred upon him by section 55 of the Colonial Ordinance, No. 4 of 1871 (the Penal Code), of commuting, with the consent of the person sentenced, the punishment of a person who has been sentenced to penal servitude for life into perpetual or temporary banishment from the Colony.
That copies of the Letters Patent, of the Straits Penal Code, of an Ordinance (No. 3 of 1872) amending the Penal Code, and of the Banishment Ordinance, 1888, referred to in the despatch, were enclosed; and that the despatch referred to in the last para- graph of Sir Cecil Smith's despatch was also enclosed for reference, if required.
That your Lordship assumed that the sentence was penal servitude, and not imprisonment, as stated in the despatch; see section 226 of the Penal Code as amended by section 4 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1872.
That it would be observed that the provision in the Letters Patent upon which the question turned was a proviso restricting the exercise of the prerogative of pardon delegated to the Governor by the Letters Patent, whereas the power which the Governor desired to exercise was a power of commutation conferred by a Colonial statute.
That it might also deserve consideration whether the offence for which the prisoner had been sentenced could be regarded as one of a political nature.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report
your
That, in our opinion, the express power conferred upon the Governor by section 55 of the Penal Code can be exercised by the Governor in this case, notwithstanding the provisions of clause 17 of the Letters Patent appointing the Governor.
We have, &c. (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,
&c.
&c.
&c.
E 65453-32.
25.--10 91.
)125.
No. 225.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
LORD,
Royal Courts of Justice, October 9, 1891. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's er of the 14th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to request t we would favour you with our opinion upon the question raised by the Governor the Straits Settlements in the despatch of which a copy was enclosed, viz., whether he precluded by clause 17 of the Letters Patent constituting the office of Governor and nmander-in-Chief of the Straits Settlements and their dependencies from exercising power conferred upon him by section 55 of the Colonial Ordinance, No. 4 of 1871 › Penal Code), of commuting, with the consent of the person sentenced, the ishment of a person who has been sentenced to penal servitude for life into potual or temporary banishment from the Colony.
para.
'hat copies of the Letters Patent, of the Straits Ponal Code, of an Ordinance (No. 3 1872) amending the Penal Code, and of the Banishment Ordinance, 1888, referred n the despatch, were enclosed; and that the despatch referred to in the last oh of Sir Cecil Smith's despatch was also enclosed for reference, if required. hat your Lordship assumed that the sentence was penal servitude, and not risonment, as stated in the despatch; see section 226 of the Penal Code as amended section 4 of Ordinance No. 3 of 1872.
hat it would be observed that the provision in the Letters Patent upon which the ition turned was a proviso restricting the exercise of the prerogative of pardon gated to the Governor by the Letters Patent, whereas the power which the ernor desired to exercise was a power of commutation conferred by a Colonial
ite.
hat it might also deserve consideration whether the offence for which the prisoner been sentenced could be regarded as one of a political nature.
e have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Iship's commands, have the honour to
Report
at, in our opinion, the express power conferred upon the Governor by section 55
o Penal Code can be exercised by the Governor in this case, notwithstanding the sions of clause 17 of the Letters Patent appointing the Governor.
We have, &c. (Signed)
RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
&c.
e Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,
&c.
&c.
65450.-32.
25.--10, 91,
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TILLHC.O.
885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.