"For

body, a subsequent charter of restoration or restitution is void. though it be competent to the Crown to pardon a forfeiture and to grant restitution, that can only be done where things remain in statu quo, but not so as to affect legal rights properly vested in third persons." In the same case it was also held that the granting of a new charter inconsistent with the former amounts to a declaration on record that the Crown elects to take advantage of a forfeiture incurred under the old charter. The judgment, however, in this case was reversed in the House of Lords: 4 T. R. 122; but it is not stated on what grounds, nor how far the above propositions were dissented from or agreed to.

In 1820 the North-West Company of Canada presented a petition to the Privy Council, praying that a scire facias might be issued for repealing the letters patent granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, and it was referred to the Attorney and Solicitor General to consider it, and report their opinion thereon. The Hudson's Bay Company opposed it, and the application for the scire facias being withdrawn, no report was made on the subject by the Law Officers: M. S. Council Register, 1820-1821. By statute 31 & 32 Vict. c. 105, the Crown is empowered to accept a surrender of the charter of the Hudson's Bay Company.

The province of Nova Scotia was ceded by France to the Crown of England by the Treaty of Utrecht. The island of Cape Breton was, with Canada and other French colonies in America, ceded by France to England in 1763. In that year the Crown, by proclamation, annexed Cape Breton to the Government of Nova Scotia. In 1784 Nova Scotia was divided into two governments, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and Cape Breton was included in Nova Scotia; but a LieutenantGovernor was appointed for that island, whose commission gave him the same powers as expressed in the commission of the Lieutenant-Governor "of the province of Nova Scotia, and the islands of St. John and Cape Breton, then and for the time being." The commission or letters patent of the Governor of Nova Scotia spoke of "our respective councils and assemblies of our province of Nova Scotia and our islands of St. John and Cape Breton under your Government;" and, without expressly authorizing him, implied that he had the power to call an Assembly of Cape Breton. A Council was formed, but no General Assembly was ever convened for Cape Breton. In 1820 a new commission was given to the Governor of Nova Scotia, and that Government was described as including the island of Cape Breton (which we do expressly direct and declare shall in future form part of our said province of Nova Scotia)," and no mention was made of a Council or Assembly, or any separate legislature for Cape Breton. The Governor of Nova Scotia, in accordance with his instructions, issued a proclamation declaring Cape Breton to be a county of the province of Nova Scotia, to be represented by two members in the General Assembly of Nova Scotia, and dissolving the Council of the island.

66

Against this annexation of Cape Breton and dissolution of the Council certain of the inhabitants of the island petitioned the Queen in Council; and the Judicial Committee, having had the petition referred to them, confined to the question whether the inhabitants of Cape Breton were by law entitled to the Constitution purporting to be granted to them by the letters patent of 1784, reported to Her Majesty their opinion. that the inhabitants were not so entitled: Re The Island of Cape Breton, 5 Moore, P. C. 259.

CHAPTER XIII.

THE CHANNEL ISLANDS.

JOINT OPINION of the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR DUDLEY RYDER and SIR JOHN STRANGE, on the King's authority over Guernsey and Jersey. 1737.

To the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of Council for the Affairs of Guernsey and Jersey.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR LORDSHIPS,-In obedience to your Lordships' order of the 21st of July, 1736, hereunto annexed, whereby your Lordships were pleased to refer the memorial and papers hereunto annexed, to his Majesty's late Attorney and Solicitor General, to consider the same and report their opinion to your Lordships upon the general case of extents from the Exchequer, and of the process from the Courts of King's Bench, how the same can be legally executed in the islands of Guernsey and Jersey, and if not, what other remedy is left to the Crown for the recovery of their debts in those islands

We have considered of the matters so referred, and are humbly of opinion, that no writ of extent out of his Majesty's Court of Exchequer here, nor any process from the Court of King's Bench, can, as the laws of those islands now stand, be executed there, they being governed by laws of their own, subject to his Majesty's Order in Council, and the subjects there are not amenable to the courts here.

And we are of opinion, the only remedy the Crown has for the recovery of their debts in those islands, upon the foot of the present law, is by proceeding upon proper suits, to be instituted in the courts there, according to the course of those courts, and sending thither the proper evidence of the debt, unless his Majesty shall

think fit to interpose in his legislative capacity, and by an Order in Council make a new law concerning the method of recovering the Crown debts against the inhabitants there.

By this means his Majesty may, if he think fit, give such force to extents and other processes out of the courts here, as he shall judge convenient; but whether the single instance of inconvenience to the Crown, in the case of Carey's debt, mentioned in the memorial, is a sufficient ground to make any alteration in the laws of those islands, is humbly submitted.

August 12, 1737.

D. RYDER.

J. STRANGE,

NOTES TO CHAPTER XIII.

There are many cases reported in Knapp and Moore of appeals from the Channel Islands which can be easily found by referring to the indexes of those volumes; but I propose in this note merely to explain a few points relating to their history and constitution.

The islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, and Sark originally formed part of the Duchy of Neustria, or Normandy, which was ceded in the year 911 by Charles IV. to Rollo the Norman, as a fief of the Crown of France. From Rollo they descended, along with Normandy, to William the Conqueror. At his death, his second son, William II., succeeded to the throne of England; but the eldest son, Robert, obtained Normandy and the Channel Islands. Henry I. made war upon Duke Robert, and having conquered him, united Normandy and the islands to England. The Normans afterwards revolted under King John, A.D. 1204, and the islanders seem to have followed their example, although this is denied by some writers. John failed to reconquer Normandy, but the islands were recovered, and John formed them into one bailiwick and granted them a charter. Afterwards, under Edward I., and more fully under Henry VII., they were formed into two bailiwicks. The first Order in Council, enacting laws in the island of Jersey, is said to have been issued in 1571. Coke, speaking of Jersey and Guernsey, says: "Those isles are no parcel of the realm of England, but several dominions enjoyed by several titles, governed by several laws:" Calvin's Case, 7 Co. 21 a; and see Hale, Hist. Com. Law, 269 (6th edit.).

The Royal Court of Jersey is composed of a bailiff appointed by the Crown, and twelve jurats or justices, who are elected for life by the people, and occupy the double character of judges and political representatives of the people in the States.

The States are composed of the bailiff, the twelve rectors of the

twelve parishes, the twelve jurats elected for life by the people, and the twelve constables of the parishes, who are elected by the people for three years.

The Lieutenant-Governor is appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief.

The power of the States to legislate is strictly subordinate to the Royal authority. "If the States should think it expedient to make the offence of burglary a capital offence, as it is by the law of England [or rather was, at that time], they may, if they be so advised, propose a new law for your Majesty's consideration, to be enacted and confirmed by your Royal sanction, after your Majesty shall have signified your allowance to have such a law enacted:" Order in Council, June 23, 1790.

A few years ago the States denied the right of the Queen in Council to legislate for the island without consulting the States, and they relied principally upon the ordinances of the Commissioners, Pyne and Napper, who were sent by Queen Elizabeth to Jersey in 1591, upon the Order in Council of the 28th of March, 1776, upon which the Jersey Code of Laws is founded, and the usage which has prevailed in modern times of Acts having been passed by the States, and afterwards sanctioned by the Crown. And they asserted that no Orders in Council of a legislative nature have become the law of the island which have not been issued at the suggestion or upon the request of the States, or have subsequently received the assent of the States. The question came before a Committee of the Privy Council for the affairs of Jersey and Guernsey upon a petition by the States of Jersey praying for the recall of three Orders in Council issued in February 1852-a case in which the author was counsel against the petitioners: Re The States of Jersey, 9 Moore, P. C. 185. The Committee did not express any decided opinion upon the general question, but they advised the recall of the Orders in Council, and the confirmation of certain Acts proposed to be substituted for them by the States. See Re The Jersey Jurats, L. R. 1 P. C. 94. Regulations for prosecuting appeals to the Queen in Council are contained in the Orders in Council dated July 15, 1835, and June 13, 1853 (1).

Whether Acts of Parliament extend to the Channel Islands depends upon the manner in which they are worded. Sometimes they are specially named, as in statute 14 Vict. c. 5: "This Act shall extend to the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man ;" and in statute 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63: "This Act shall extend to Great Britain and Ireland, and the Channel Isles, and the Isle of Man." When an Act is expressed to extend to all parts of the British dominions, it, of course, includes the Channel Islands. And yet the Copyright Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, enacts that the words "British dominions" in that Act shall be construed to mean and include the islands of Jersey and

(1) See "The Constitution of Jersey," by Le Cras, (Jersey, 1857); and "A Concise View of the Legislative Powers of the Crown over the Island of Jersey," by Dryden. (Peterham: London, 1854).