Colonial Legislatures by authority of the Crown. Cases relating to the Colonies. Bishop of Natal, 3 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 118. The constitution of the DOMINICA Royal proclamation, 1775; Colonial Acts, 1863, 1865. HONDURAS: Colonial Act, 16 Vict. c. 4. MONTSERRAT: Colonial Act, No. 350, 1866. NEVIS Colonial Acts, Nos. 329 and 330, 1866. ST. KITTS: Colonial Act, 1866. ST. VINCENT: Colonial Act, 1866-1868. There is a class of colonies in which the legislative authority-generally consisting of a governor and executive and legislative councils —has been constituted by charter or letters patent from the Crown, or by virtue of commissions of governors, independently of Imperial or Colonial Acts. Amongst these are included BERMUDA, BRITISH GUIANA, BAHAMAS, CEYLON, GIBRALTAR, HELIGOLAND, HONG KONG, LABUAN, MALTA, MAURITIUS, NATAL, ST. KITTS, ST. LUCIA, TRINIDAD, TURK'S ISLAND (separated from the Bahamas Government, and annexed to that of Jamaica, by Order in Council, 1848). ST. HELENA is governed by Orders in Council, under the authority of stat. 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 112. JAMAICA is in an exceptional position since the late insurrection; for now, by 29 Vict. c. 12, the Queen is empowered to create and constitute a government in such form and with such powers as to Her Majesty may best seem fitting, and from time to time to alter or amend such government. The constitution is, in fact, abolished. And by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 13, Her Majesty is empowered to establish by Order in Council laws, institutions, and ordinances for the government of her SETTLEMENTS ON THE COAST OF AFRICA and the FALKLAND ISLANDS. (A charter was granted to the latter in June, 1843.) The following are some of the principal decided cases which relate to different British colonies: BARBADOES: Gill v. Barron, L. R. 2 P. C. 157. BERMUDA: Kennedy v. Trott, 6 Moore, P. C. 449; Ex parte Jenkins, L. R. 2 P. C. 258. BRITISH GUIANA: Re M'Dermott, L. R. 1 P. C. 260. CANADA: Macdonald v. Lambe, L. R. 1 P. C. 539; Renaud v. Tourangeau, L. R. 2 P. C. 4; Kierzkowski v. Dorion, L. R. 2 P. C. 291; (Nova Scotia) Re Island of Cape Breton, 5 Moore, P. C. 259; Wallace v. M'Sweeney, L. R. 2 P. C. 180. CAPE OF GOOD HOPE: Ruding v. Smith, 2 Hagg. 371; Long v. Bishop of Capetown, 1 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 411; Re Lord Bishop of Natal, 3 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 125; Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone, L. R. 3 Eq. 1; Murray v. Burgess, L. R. 1 P. C. 362. CEYLON Anstruther v. Arabin, 6 Moore, P. C. 286; Lindsay v. Duff, 15 Moore, P. C. 452. DOMINICA: Doyle v. Falconer, L. R. 1 P. C. 328. FALKLAND ISLANDS: Falkland Islands Company v. The Queen, 1 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 299; 2 Ib. 266. GIBRALTAR: Lubbock v. Potts, 7 East, 449; Jephson v. Riera, 3 Knapp, 130. GRENADA: Campbell v. Hall, Cowp. 204; 20 State Tr. 329. HONDURAS: Hodge v. Attorney General of Honduras, 2 Moore, P. C. JAMAICA: Campbell v. Hall, Cowp. 204; Beaumont v. Barrett, 1 Moore, MAURITIUS: Re Adam, 1 Moore, P. C. 670; Rouchecouste v. Dupont, 2 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 195; Sérandat v. Saïsse, L. R. 1 P. C. 152. NATAL: Re Lord Bishop of Natal, 3 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 115; Bishop of Natal v. Gladstone, L. R. 3 Eq. 1; Natal Land Company v. Good, L. R. 1 P. C. 121. NEW SOUTH WALES: Devine v. Holloway, 14 Moore, P. C. 290; Lang v. Purves, 15 Moore, P. C. 389; Graham v. Barry, 3 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 207; The Queen v. Murphy, L. R. 2 P. C. 35. NEWFOUNDLAND: Kielley v. Carron, 4 Moore, P. C. 63. SOUTH AUSTRALIA: Reg. v. Hughes, L. R. 1 P. C. 81. VICTORIA: Dill v. Murphy, 1 Moore, P. C. (N. S.) 487; The Queen v. Dallimore, L. R. 1 P. C. 13; Rolfe & Bank of Australia v. Flower, ib. 27; The Attorney General of Victoria, ib. 147. Confirmation In every colony the Governor has authority either to give or to with- and disallowhold his assent to laws passed by the other branches or members of the ance of legislature, and until that assent is given no such law is binding or Colonial Acts valid. or Ordinances. The East Laws are, in some cases, passed with suspending clauses; i.e., although assented to by the Governor, they do not come into operation or take effect in the colony until they shall have been specially confirmed by Her Majesty. And in other cases (as, for example, in the British North America Act, 1867, 30 Vict. c. 3, s. 55) Parliament has for the same purpose empowered the Governor to reserve laws for the Crown's assent, instead of himself assenting or refusing his assent to them. Every law which has received the Governor's assent (unless it contains a suspending clause) comes into operation immediately or at the time specified in the law itself. But the Crown retains power to disallow the law; and if such power be exercised at any time afterwards, the law ceases to have operation from the date at which such disallowance is published in the colony. In colonies having representative assemblies the disallowance of any law, or the Crown's assent to a reserved bill, or the confirmation of a law passed without a suspending clause, is signified by Order in Council. In Crown colonies the allowance or disallowance of any law is generally signified by a despatch. In some cases a period is limited, after the expiration of which local enactments, though not actually disallowed, cease to have the authority of law in the colony, unless before that time Her Majesty's confirmation of them shall have been signified there; but the general rule is otherwise. Each Governor receives special directions not to assent to Acts except under certain conditions, which are specified in his instructions. In an opinion given by the Attorney and Solicitor General, Sir Charles Wetherell and Sir Nicolas Tindal, in March, 1828, respecting the execution of sentences passed in Jamaica upon two convicts under a particular Colonial Act, they said: "We are of opinion that, in consequence of the disallowance of the Act in question, M'Kay cannot be lawfully executed, but ought to be discharged; and that upon the same ground Hall cannot be lawfully imprisoned for the remainder of his sentence, but ought to be discharged." The first Act of Parliament which gave authority to the GovernorGeneral and Council at Fort William, in Bengal, to make rules and regulations "for the good order and civil government" of the East India Company's settlement at Fort William, and to impose "reasonable fines and forfeitures" for the breach of such rules and regulations, was 13 Geo. 3, c. 63, s. 36 (1773), usually called "The Regulating Act." This was followed by other Acts: 21 Geo. 3, c. 70, s. 23; 37 Geo. 3, c. 142, s. 8; 39 & 40 Geo. 3, c. 79, s. 18; 53 Geo. 3, c. 155, s. 6. By Regulation III. of 1793, in cases coming within the jurisdiction of the zillah and city courts, for which no specific rule may exist, the judges are to act according to justice, equity, and good conscience. The legislative authority in the East Indies was vested by statute, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 85, s. 43, in the Governor-General of India in Council, who had the power of making laws and regulations for all persons, whether British or native, foreigners or others, and for all places and things within the British territories in India, and "for all servants of the (East India) Company within the dominions of Princes and States in alliance with the said Company." But it was expressly enacted that the Governor-General in Council should not have the power of making any laws or regulations contrary to that Act or the Mutiny Acts, "or any provisions of any Act hereafter to be passed in anywise affecting the said Company, or the said territories, or the inhabitants thereof, or any laws or regulations which shall in any way affect any prerogative of the Crown, or the authority of Parliament, or the constitution or rights of the said Company, or any part of the unwritten laws or constitution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, whereon may depend in any degree the allegiance of any person to the Crown of the United Kingdom, or the sovereignty or dominion of the said Crown over any part of the said territories." This section of the Act was repealed by "The Indian Councils Act, 1861," 24 & 25 Vict. c. 67, but was, in effect, re-enacted by sect. 22 of the last-mentioned Act. And by statute 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 1, the Governor-General of India has power, at meetings for the purpose of making laws and regulations, to make them for all British subjects of Her Majesty within the dominions of Princes and States in India in alliance with Her Majesty, whether in the service of the Government of India or otherwise. The statute 24 & 25 Vict. c. 67 provides that the Governor-General shall transmit to the Secretary of State for India an authentic copy of every law or regulation assented to by him, and Her Majesty may signify through the Secretary of State for India in Council her disallowance of such law, which shall thereby become void and be annulled. The same statute also provides, by sect. 24, that no law or regulation made by the Governor-General in Council (subject to the power of disallowance by the Crown as therein before provided) shall be deemed invalid by reason only that it affects the prerogative of the Crown. It also by sect. 28 enables the Governors of Madras and Bombay to make rules and orders for the conduct of business in their Councils; and by sect. 42 the Governor of each of those presidencies in Council has power, subject to the provisions of the Act, to make laws and regulations for the peace and good government of such presidency; but by sect. 43 they are expressly prohibited from making laws or regulations on certain specified subjects. In illustration of the difficulties that have now and then occurred with respect to the extent of legislative authority in India, I may mention the question of patents. Grave doubts were entertained whether, during the government of the East India Company, the prerogative of the Crown to grant patents in India was or was not in abeyance, and in 1856 a patent law was passed by the Governor-General in Council: Act VI. of 1856. But this Act had not the previous sanction of the Crown, as required by statute 16 & 17 Vict. c. 95, s. 26 (now repealed by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 67), and it was doubtful, therefore, whether it was not ultrà vires. It was repealed by Act IX. of 1857, and a new patent law was enacted by Act XV. of 1859; which recites that Her Majesty's law officers had given it as their opinion that the Legislative Council of India was not competent to pass Act VI. of 1856 without previously obtaining the sanction of the Crown. This Act is now the governing Act as to patents in India. Another question arose with respect to the validity of Act I. of 1849, by which jurisdiction was given over offences committed by all British subjects in foreign States; and the Law Officers of the Crown and myself were of opinion, in 1866, that in the case of offences committed in foreign states by native Indian subjects of the Crown, the GovernorGeneral in Council had not the power to make laws for their apprehension and punishment in British India, for we thought that the power was restricted by statute 24 & 25 Vict. c. 67, s. 22, and 28 Vict. c. 17. The government of the British territories in India was taken from the East India Company and vested in Her Majesty by the "Act for the better Government of India," 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106. The following chronological statement of the principal events in the history of the East India Company, may be found useful:1600. Dec. 31.-Charter granted by Elizabeth, limited to fourteen years. 1609. May 31.-Second charter granted by James I., "for ever." 1613. Firman from Mogul Emperor to East India Company, allowing them to establish factories at Surat and elsewhere on Malabar Coast. This was the beginning of their establishment in India. 1616.-East India Company occupied Surat, Calicut (on Malabar coast), and Masulipatam (on coast of Coromandel). 1624.-Firman from Mogul Emperor, permitting East India Company to trade with Bengal at port of Piplee in Midnapore. 1638.-Fort St. George erected at Madras-patam. 1640.-East India Company first permitted to establish a factory at Hooghly (Calcutta), in the beginning of Shah Shuja's government of Bengal. 1653. Fort St. George erected into a Presidency. 1661. April 3.-Letters patent of Charles II., ratifying charter. 1661. Charter granted by Charles II., granting to East India Company power to make peace or war with any prince not Christian, and to seize and send to England unlicensed traders. 1669. March 27.-Letters patent of Charles II., granting Bombay to |