R
2
We incline to think, though with doubt, that the above observation applies also to the case of volunteer officers as it seems open to grave question whether an appointment with such a remote and contingent right to remuneration is within the spírit of the provision disqualifying those holding it for the discharge of legislative
functions.
We have, &c.,
JOHN L. WALTON.
W. S. ROESQN.
4810
The Right Honourable
The Earl of Elgin, K.G.
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
MY LORD,
No. 62.
(TRANSVAAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Land Settlement; meaning of “persons in occupation of lands."]
Royal Courts of Justice,
February 7, 1907. WE were honoured by Your Lordship's commands signified to us by Mr. Just in his letter of the 2nd instant, stating that he was directed by Your Lordship to request the favour of our report upon certain questions with regard to land settle- ment in the Transvaal raised in the enclosed copy of a telegram from Lord Selborne, to which it would be seen Lord Selborne requested an answer at the earliest possible persons moment in respect of two questions with regard to the precise import of " in occupation of lands," the subject of Article LII. of the Transvaal Letters Patent of 6th December, 1906.
That the Lord Chancellor had expressed the view that Article LXII was intended merely to afford a remedy for some oversight or accidental error, and not to deal with matters of substance, and that Your Lordship was disposed to consider that the difficulties raised by Lord Selborne were not such as could be removed by Procla- mation under that Article.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to Your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
That (1) in our opinion the words "persons in occupation" occurring in Section LII of the Transvaal Constitution, 1906, are not limited to the particular persons in occupation on the appointed day, but extend to persons who may, in the future, become lawful occupiers of the lands therein mentioned.
(2) In answer to Lord Selborne's second question, we think that persons to whom a promise only of land has been made are not "persons in occupation" within the meaning of the section, but that the other three classes he mentions, viz., (a) those who are in occupation but whose title is not complete; (b) those who occupy farms of which the limits have not been defined; and (c) farms in which the Govern- ment hold an undivided share and negotiations for separating the shares have not been completed, are all persons in occupation within the meaning of the section.
(3) We agree with Your Lordship in thinking that the difficulties raised by Lord Selborne are not such as could be removed by Proclamation under Article LXII.
We have, &c.,
JOHN L. WALTON. W. S. ROBSON.
The Right Honourable
The Earl of Elgin, K.G.,
&c..
&c.,
&c.
25 W 1649 207 D&S
G
27616
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
6
C.O.885
Reference :-
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
}