2052.
PUBLIC
RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
it would be beyond the terms of the agreement, and would meet with strong opposition in the House of Commons.
That Mr. Bramston was further to suggest that the powers conferred by section 2 of the British Settlements Act, 1887, and capable of being delegated under section 3, would seem to be limited to the exercise of legislative authority, and to the creation and regulation of courts of justice, and to the appointment of judicial and other officers for carrying on the administration of justice, and that those sections did not refer to the ordinary administration of Government.
That should that view be correct it was suggested that it might be consistent with that Act for Her Majesty to require the Administrator to obey the Governor in general matters of administration, as not being matters which the Act allowed to be delegated only to three or more persons.
A
That Mr. Bramston was accordingly to ask us to take the accompanying papers into consideration, and to advise your Lordship whether the issue of a fresh commission, amended by omitting the words above quoted, would be free from the objection pointed out in our Report of the 14th of November, and sufficiently meet the requirements of the present case without having recourse to legislation.
That Mr. Bramston was also to state that your Lordship would be much obliged if we would favour you with any other observations which might be of assistance to your Lordship in dealing with the matter
We were also honoured with a letter from Sir Robert Herbert, dated 17th ultimo, on the same subject, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion on the further question whether the words in the 3rd section of the British Settlements Act, 1887, "either absolutely or subject to such conditions, provisions, and limitations as may be specified in such instrument or instruments," did not directly and fully answer the opinion of Sir Thomas McIlwraith and his colleagues, as expressed in the late Sir Anthony Musgrave's despatch No. 77 of the 1st of September, that Imperial legislation was necessary in order to enable the Administrator to carry out the provisions of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and Queensland.
be
We have taken the matter into our consideration and have the honour to
Report
That, in our opinion, a commission amended by omitting the words quoted would not open to the objections which have been suggested, and would, in our judgment, sufficiently meet the requirements of the case, inasmuch as the matter must be dealt with promptly, and the delay and possible opposition occasioned by an attempt to legislate thereon, might give rise to serious inconvenience.
We think it right to add that we do not think the proposed mode of dealing with this matter altogether satisfactory, and we are unable to concur in the opinion suggested to us as to the limited effect of section 3 of the British Settlements Act of 1887. That section relates to all the powers which are conferred by the Act upon Her Majesty in Council, and we see no reason to modify the terms of our previous Report.
În reference to the further question contained in the letter of the 17th ultimo, we are of opinion that the powers conferred by the British Settlements Act, 1887, on Her Majesty in Council, can only be delegated to any three or more persons within the Settlement, and the words "conditions, provisions, and limitations in section 3 to enable the Letters Patent and Instructions to be so modified as to suit were only inserted the particular exigencies of the place to which they are to apply, but not to enlarge, or derogate from, the main provision of that section.
The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.,
(Signed)
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.
No. 137.
(Zululand.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD,
Royal Courts of Justice, We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's
January 23, 1889. letter of the 12th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to invite our attention to the accompanying papers.
1. Printed record of petition and other papers relating to an intended appeal to the Privy Council by the Zulu Chief Dinizulu.
2. Commission of Sir A.-Havelock as Governor of Natal.
3. Commission of Sir A. Havelock as Governor of Zululand.
That the appellant Dinizulu was the son of the Zulu King Cetywayo, and although not recognised by Her Majesty's Government as successor to his father, he assumed,
on Cetywayo's death in 1884, the position of head of the Zulu nation.
That in 1887 Zululand was annexed to the British Dominions, and that Dinizulu, like other Zulu Chiefs, became a British subject, and that having, with others, committed certain breaches of the law, warrants were issued for his arrest upon charges of murder and cattle stealing,
That the Zululand police, upon attempting to execute those warrants, wore attacked by the followers of Dinizulu and beaten off with loss.
That Dinizulu and other chiefs then took up arms, and the country was in a disturbed state between the months of May and August, but that, after some fighting and loss of life, quiet was restored by Her Majesty's troops and the local forces, and that Dinizulu at the beginning of August, just before a final attack was to have been made upon his stronghold, retired across the border into the New Republic, which is a part of the South African Republic.
That Dinizulu remained in foreign territory for about three months, and that event, ually on or about the 13th of November he arrived voluntarily in the Colony of Nata), and on the 15th was at Bishopstowe near Pietermaritzburg, the capital, having travelled some distance in the Colony as a passenger by the railway. That he professed to have come to surrender himself to the Governor (see letter from Miss Colenso and declara- tion by W. Meyer, page 6 of record,)
That on the 15th November Mr. H. C. Shepstone, who was Secretary for Native Affairs and a Justice of the Peace for Natal, issued a provisional warrant (page 3 of record) under section four of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 (page 5 of record),
That the warrant was given to Sergeant Mayor Shekelton of the Natal Police to execute, and that the same day he took Dinizulu into custody at Bishopstowe, in the ' manner stated in his declaration (page 7 of record.)
That on the 16th November Dinizulu appeared to have been brought before Mr, Shepstone (see Dabankulu's deposition, page 8, and Mr. Shepstone's note, page 3, of record). That Dinizulu was not remanded to prison, but placed under the surveillance of the police, Mr. Shepstone giving a warrant of detention (page 3 of record) to Major Dartnell, the Commandant of Mounted Police.
That it might be noted that that warrant did not comply with the requirements of the Fugitive Offenders Act, Section 5, last paragraph, but that no further steps appeared to have been taken under that Act, as the authorities determined to deal with Dinizulu by Warrant under the Natal law 20 of 1880, (pages 28 and 29 of record) and that the main question was as to the validity of the warrant issued by bir A. Havelock on the 17th November, which purported to be made in pursuance of that law (see pages and 4 of record).
That Mr. Bramston was to explain that that law was passed after the defeat and capture, by Lord Wolseley in 1879 of Sekukuni, the rebel Chief of the Transvaal, which was then a British possession. That it was intended to bring Sekukuni and other rebel prisoners through Natal to the coast and to deport them by sea to another British possession, and that that law was framed to legalise their detention during their passage through Natal, and also, it was understood, to meet certain defects in the Act then relating to fugitive offenders, 6 and 7 Viot. cap. 34. that although passed to meet a particular case the terms of the law were general as That it would be observed A 57014.-6. 25.-2/89.