:
{
Governor's views on this suggestion, I do not think we should consider Sir M. Young's view under paragraph 5 of No.49 as final. In any event, it has occurred to me that, if we do finally adhere to the property and juror qualifications for the time being, one possibility that might be considered in regard to the juror qualificationg is that of stipulating that persons should not be excluded from the franchise simply on grounds of sex, blindness, or deafness, because they are over 60, or have no knowledge of English, provided that in other respects they would qualify as jurors. In practice I doubt whether this would represent anything but a fairly small increase in the electorate, but if it were workable, it would at least eliminate certain disqualifications which, whilst justifiable for the compilation of jurors lists, could not reasonably be justified in the compilation of electoral lists. Mr. Roberts-Wray will no doubt wish to comment on this suggestion, but if he sees no objection, it might be worth while putting it to the Acting Governor.
(f) Nomination of Councillors.
}
In paragraph 29 of his despatch of the 22nd October, Sir M. Young referred to a suggestion that the Governor should be vested with the power of appointing some of the nominated members, advised against this, emptinkað he thought the Governor should have the right to appoint members if any of the nominating bodies failed to nominate by the appointed date.
In paragraph (g) of his telegram at No.19 Sir M. Young stated "I do not think it at all desirable that Governor should directly nominate with provisions admitting of challenge to validate". The text was obviously corrupt, and in paragraph 6 of our savingram at No.30, we asked Sir M. Young to confirm this passage was intended to mean that nominating bodies should select their members without any intervention by the Governor. The savingram stated that there would be no objection to this, but pointed out that precedents existed for giving unofficial authorities the right to nominate members of the Legislature, but leave the actual instrument of appointment to be signed by the Governor.
This reference to the nomination of members of the Legislature has apparently not been understood locally, but in No.49 Sir M. Young states that he thinks it important that the Governor should have no status and no responsibilities in the matter of appointments to the Municipal Council.
20
In view of X of Mr. Roberts-Wray's minute of 14th April, I take it we will agree that the actual instrument of appointment need not be signed by the Governor?
The remainder of No.49 is concerned with the various amendments which we suggested in No.30 Sir M. Young might wish to make to his despatch of the 22nd October before it is published, together with our official despatch in reply. He accepts the deletions proposed to paragraphs 2, 9 and 15 of that
despatch