Page images
PDF
EPUB

Proprietor, must give such security as the law directs. To the other part of this quære I have given an answer already.

January 22, 1736-7.

J. WILLES.

(6.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR WILLIAM GARROW and SIR SAMUEL SHEPHERD, as to the devolution of the authority of Governor of a Colony.

Lincoln's Inn, November 24, 1814.

MY LORD,-We have had the honour to receive your Lordship's letter of yesterday's date, stating that his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, having judged it expedient to direct LieutenantGeneral Sir G. Prevost, his Majesty's Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, to deliver over all the civil and military powers with which he may be invested, to the senior General Officer for the time being in Canada; and doubts having been entertained whether, consistently with the terms of his Majesty's commission under the great seal, bearing date the 21st day of October, 1811, he can comply with such instruction, so long as he may remain in the province, in which the severity of the season may for a length of time detain him, your Lordship is pleased to transmit to us the extract of your despatch to Sir G. Prevost, which conveys the instruction before mentioned, together with the copy of Sir G. Prevost's commission and other papers, and to desire that we will take the same into our consideration, and report to your Lordship, for the information of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, our opinion upon the point in question, and also whether any Act short of an absolute and entire revocation of the commission can, during the presence of Sir G. Prevost in the province, suspend the powers with which he is invested by the said commission.

We have accordingly considered the same, and have the honour to report to your Lordship, that we observe by the commission to which your Lordship has been pleased to refer us, that his Majesty directed the Governor, in the case of his absence from either of the provinces of Upper Canada and Lower Canada, to deliver the seal

of the said provinces respectively into the charge of the LieutenantGovernor or person administering the government there, until his Majesty should think fit to authorize him, by instrument under his royal sign-manual, to commit the custody thereof to such person as might be appointed by his Majesty for that purpose. It does not appear that in any case but that of absence the authority of the Governor could be devolved on any other person; we beg therefore very humbly to submit as our opinion, that the LieutenantGeneral and Governor cannot, consistently with the terms of his commission, deliver over his civil and military powers to any other person during his personal residence within the local limits of his Government; and we further beg leave to submit as our opinion, that no act short of an absolute and entire revocation of the commission can, during the presence of Sir G. Prevost in the provinces, suspend the powers with which he is invested by the said commission.

The Right Hon. Earl of Bathurst,

&c. &c. &c.

W. GARROW.

S. SHEPHERD.

(7.) CASE and JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR J. SCARLETT and SIR EDWARD B. SUGDEN, as to power of Governor to revoke assignment of a Convict.

December 24, 1829.

Case. The Secretary of State is desirous to be advised whether, under the 9th section of 9 Geo. 4, c. 83, a Governor can revoke the assignment of a convict of whose sentence it is not intended to grant any remission, general or partial.

Opinion. We are of opinion that under the 9th section of 9 Geo. 4, c. 83, a Governor can revoke the assignment of a convict of whose sentence it is not intended to grant any remission, and we think that there is nothing either in the context or the apparent policy of the Act which militates against this construction.

J. SCARLETT.

EDWARD B. SUGDEN.

(8.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR JOHN CAMPBELL and SIR R. M. ROLFE, as to power of Governor to suspend a Colonial Officer appointed by Order in Council.

Temple, August 6, 1838.

MY LORD,-We have had the honour to receive your Lordship's letter of the 4th instant, asking our opinion on the question whether, under 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 95, the Governor of South Australia has the power to suspend any colonial officer appointed by an Order in Council, and whether notwithstanding an Act of Suspension any such officer would continue de jure to hold his appointment?

In answer, we beg to state that in our opinion the Governor has the power of suspension, and that an officer so suspended would from thenceforth cease to be entitled to exercise any of the functions or to derive any of the emoluments of his office till her Majesty's pleasure should be made known.

The officer must be considered holding during the pleasure of the Crown, and we think the Governor has the power of suspension under his commission and instructions from the Crown.

This power is not conferred upon him by 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 95, but there is nothing in that Act by which the prerogative of the Crown in this respect is abridged.

The Lord Glenelg,

&c. &c. &c.

J. CAMPBELL.

R. M. ROLFE.

(9.) JOINT OPINION of the King's Advocate, SIR C. ROBINSON, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR R. GIFFORD and SIR J. COPLEY, on the notification of the Demise of the Crown in a Colony.

Doctors' Commons, May 21, 1821.

MY LORD, We are honoured with your Lordship's commands of the 14th instant, transmitting the copy of a despatch from the officer administering the civil government of the island of Ceylon, stating the circumstances under which the clergy and the Supreme Court of Ceylon had acted upon the information of his late

Majesty's demise, although not conveyed to them through the channel of the Governor; and requesting instructions how far their conduct in doing so was legal.

And your Lordship is pleased to desire that we would take the same into consideration, and report to your Lordship our opinion: 1. Whether a notification from the Bishop to his clergy is not a sufficient authority to them to change the Church Service of the colony according to the form prescribed by his Majesty's Order in Council even before any proclamation has been issued by the Governor?

2. Whether the courts of justice of the colony, after such change in the Church Service, can properly retain the form of process used by them, or whether they are at liberty to change such form upon what they may consider satisfactory evidence of the demise of the Crown, even although that event may not have been officially notified in a proclamation by the Governor ?

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have the honour to report that we are of opinion that the notification of the Governor is not absolutely necessary to establish legal evidence of the demise of the Crown.

We think the Bishop's directions to his clergy, founded on the Order in Council, might be sufficient authority to them to make the change prescribed, and that the Supreme Court of Justice might also make the necessary change in the forms of process, although no proclamation had been issued by the Governor. But we think such an act should be considered as an exception to the more regular mode of waiting for public instructions from the Governor, and to be justified only by peculiar circumstances, and on the ground of the inconvenience that might be likely to ensue from longer delay.

The Earl Bathurst,

&c. &c. &c.

CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON.
R. GIFFORD.

J. COPLEY.

(10.) JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR JOHN CAMPBELL and SIR R. M. ROLFE, as to effect of Demise of the Crown on the Commission of the Governor of a Colony.

Temple, March 12, 1839.

MY LORD,--We have to acknowledge the receipt of a letter from Lord Glenelg, dated the 18th ultimo, transmitting to us the copy of a despatch from the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, with the reports therein enclosed of the proceedings which were had in October last, before the Commissioners for the trial of offences committed at sea, on the trial of the commander and first mate of the barque "Blake" for murder, and of another mate for cruelly ill-treating an apprentice. His Lordship requested us to report our opinion, whether on the ground stated by the prisoners' counsel, or on any other grounds, there is any sufficient reason for doubting the validity of the commission under which the prisoners were tried.

The doubts suggested as to the validity of the commission were founded on the circumstance that more than six calendar months had, at the date of the trial (October, 1838), elapsed since the demise of his late Majesty King William IV. But we are of opinion that these doubts are altogether unfounded. By the 1 Will. 4, c. 4, it was expressly enacted that no commission or warrant for the exercise of any office or employment, civil or military, within any of his Majesty's plantations or foreign possessions should, by reason of any future demise of the Crown, become void until the expiration of eighteen calendar months next after any such demise; all commissions, therefore, which were in force at the Cape of Good Hope on the day of the death of his late Majesty (June 20, 1837), continued in force until the 20th of December, 1838, which was long after the trial. The same statute continued in force all colonial commissions which existed at the demise of George IV. until they should be superseded by a new commission. And this explains the circumstance stated by the Commissioners, that their commission bears date the 10th of March, 1832, being nearly two years after the death of King George IV.

The Marquess of Normanby,

&c. &c. &c.

J. CAMPBELL.

R. M. ROLFE.

« PreviousContinue »