CO885-(15-16) — Page 608

23997

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

SIR,

No. 143.

(BRITISH HONDURAS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Constitution of the Legislative Council.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

21st July, 1911.

We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. G. V. Fiddes's letter of the 20th February last, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us, with reference to our predecessors' Report of the 30th September, 1891,* an extract from a confidential despatch from the Governor of British Honduras, and copies of a memorandum which had been prepared in your Department in regard to the consti- tution of the Legislative Council of that Colony, of a volume of the Consolidated Laws, containing the Ordinance relating to the Legislature (C. II), and of an Ordin- anec. No. 14, of 1892, to amend Chapter 7 of the Consolidated Laws.

That for reasons into which it was unnecessary to enter in detail you regarded it as possible that events might occur which would render it advisable to modify the present constitution of the Legislative Council as far as might be required to secure the passing of an Ordinance to empower His Majesty to legislate for the Colony by Order in Council, and, although you would regard the occurrence of such events as a matter for much regret, you considered that it was desirable to be prepared to act promptly should need arise, and you therefore wished to be favoured with our opinion as to the legality of a course which had been proposed by the Governor.

That the position of affairs in 1891 was shown in the late Sir Edward (then Mr.) Wingfield's letter of the 19th August, and our predecessors' Report of the 30th September* in that year, while the subsequent course of events was set out in the memorandum of which a copy was sent to us. That it was, however, convenient to recapitulate here that, prior to 1890, there was in practice an official majority by reason of the Governor having a casting vote in a Council composed of five official and five unofficial members; that in 1890 the unofficial members resigned their seats; that in the absence of suitable persons not holding public offices, four persons holding such offices were appointed as unofficial members; and that, in the case of Steven Brothers and Company . McKinney, the Supreme Court of the Colony decided that an Ordinance passed by the Legislative Council after the appointment of the four persons holding public offices was invalid on the ground that the Council was not legally constituted. That our predecessors advised that the result of an appeal to the Privy Council in that case would be extremely doubtful, and that in view of that opinion the Secretary of State endeavoured to arrive at a settlement of the matter on the basis of an arrangement that the Council should consist, as before, of five official and five unofficial members, and that in the consideration of items of extraordinary or non-recurrent expenditure the Governor should not employ his casting vote without prior reference to the Secretary of State. That that attempt at compromise was unsuccessful, as previous attempts on other lines had been, and that it was finally thought best to offer that the number of official members should be reduced to four, and that five persons not holding office under the Crown should be appointed as unofficial members, thus giving the unofficial members a majority That the Governor was, at the same time, authorised to agree to withdraw the appeal to the Privy Council in the case of Steven Brothers and Company . McKinney provided that an Ordinance was passed validating the Ordinances affected by the decision of the Court in that case. That these terms were accepted by the representatives of the unofficial community and were embodied in the Ordi- nance No. 14, of 1892, so far as the constitution of the Legislative Council was concerned, while the appeal to the Privy Council was withdrawn.

of one.

That it had been suggested in the memorandum that the situation created by this Ordinance was as follows:-

(a) That the Crown could at any time destroy the unofficial majority by

appointing one or more additional official members:

• No. 224 in Vol. IV.

(20826-2.) Wt. 96-181. 25, 1011. D 8.