PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
6. If any of the proceedings of the Legislative Council of St. Christopher and Nevis or of the General Legislative Council of the Leeward Islands were invalid by reason of the incompetency of Mr. Greaves to sit and vote in the former, what course should be taken to validate them.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands,
have the honour to
Report-
That the point is not altogether free from doubt, bus upon the whole we are of opinion that Mr. Greaves continued lawfully to hold his seat and to vote as an unofficial member of the Legislative Council after he had accepted the office of Clerk to the Nevis Waterworks, and it is quite clear in our opinion that no invalidity has arisen in connexion with the proceedings of the Legislative Council, or any of the acts done by it, since Mr. Greaves's acceptance of the office in question.
We do not, upon the whole, think that the office of Clerk to the Waterworks Board is such an office as would render it illegal to appoint him an unofficial member of Council, or make it necessary to revoke his warrant as member when he became Clerk. But when he was appointed he held no office, and his appointment was unexceptionable.
The Leeward Islands Act (No. 2, of 1882) contains no clause vacating the seat of an unofficial member on his receiving any Government appointment, and Her Majesty did not revoke, and in our opinion was not bound to revoke, his warrant as member of Council. Mr. Greaves having been appointed by nomination, we are of opinion that he still lawfully holds his seat, notwithstanding his acceptance of the office in question.
We should, however, add that in our opinion it is, on general grounds of policy, undesirable that persons holding any salaried Government office should be unofficial members of Council, although we by no means recommend that Mr. Greaves's warrant should be recalled, at all events at present.
The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c. &c.
&c.
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
9000.
SIR,
No. 139.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice, April 28, 1897.
We were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. Graham's letter of the 19th instant, stating that, with reference to our Report of the 9th of February* on the subject of the action of the Government of the South African Republic in regard to the removal to within the South African Republic of the Registry of Deeds relating to Swaziland and the compulsory sole use of the Dutch language in connexion therewith, and to our Report of the same datet on similar questions in regard to the appointments of Orphan Master and State Attorney for Swaziland, he was directed by you to lay before us a further Despatch from the High Commissioner for South Africa, with enclosures, among which was contained a further opinion by his legal adviser, Mr. Searle, on the subject matter of our first mentioned Report, and that Mr. Graham was to ask whether, after reading Mr. Searle's further opinion, we thought it necessary to modify that Report.
That Mr. Graham was to say that you regarded the compulsory sole use of the Dutch language as a most objectionable feature in the case, and that, if we were still of opinion that it involved a breach of the Convention, you would be glad to have our suggestions as to the representation which might be made to the Government of the South African Republic in which you would like to give prominence to this point.
That Mr. Graham was also to inquire whether the observations of the Judge of the Swaziland High Court reported in Mr. Miller's letter to the British Consul in Swaziland of the 31st of December last, in which the Judge seemed to allude to the Orphan Master and the State Attorney as Officers of that Court, affected our Report on the subject of the removal of these officials to Pretoria.
That Mr. Graham was to ask whether in matters mentioned in his letter, Her Majesty's Government would, in our opinion, be
respect of any, and, if
any, of which, of the justified in insisting that the Convention of 1894 had been infringed, and in calling on the Government of the South African Republic to comply with it.
In obedience to your commands, we have the honour to
Report-
1. That we have considered the opinion of Mr. Searle enclosed in Lord Rosmead's letter of the 9th February 1897. It does not appear to us that any modification of our Report of the 9th February is necessary.
2. The exact meaning of Article IX. of the Convention taken by itself is apparently open to question, and we should feel great diffidence in differing from Mr. Searle as to what would be included under the expression gerechtshoven.'
But the earlier part
C
of Mr. Searle's opinion confirms us in the view that the Registry was a branch of the Chief Court, and that its removal, and the order that all deeds must be in Dutch, does constitute a breach of Articles IV. and IX. of the Convention of 1894.
Any representation should insist upon the fact that the Registry of Deeds was at the date of the Convention of 189 £, in fact, and for all practical purposes, a branch of the Chief Court, ard that the registration of deeds, and the making of orders and declarations as to title, were effected under the powers, and formed part of the jurisdic- tion, of that Court; that under Article IV. the powers and jurisdiction of the Chief Court in this respect ought to be preserved and maintained; and that it is a breach of the provisions of Articles IV. and IX. combined to insist on the deeds being registered in the Dutch language only.
3. The observations of the Judge of the Swaziland High Court as reported in the inclosure in Mr. Miller's letter of the 31st December, do not affect our Report of the 9th February respecting the appointments of officials in Pretoria as Orphan Master and State Attorney. There is no decision that these offices are held by officials of the Court as distinguished from civil servants.
• No. 129.
0 95386.-18.
25.-5/97.
† No. 130.
5
2
4. In our opinion the removal of the Registry of Deeds to Pretoria, and the compulsory use in the Registry of the Dutch language are the only matters upon which a remon atrance can properly be based on the ground of breach of the Convention of 1894.
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER, ROBERT B. FINLAY,
The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c.