CO885-(13-15) — Page 486

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

Convention or either of them, or of Article II., by implying the incorporation of Swaziland into the South African Republic.

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and have the honour to

Report-

That, if in fact the Registry was a branch of the Chief Court, or under the control of that Court, or if its officials were officers of the High Court, we are of opinion that the removal of the Registry to Pretoria and the provision that all deeds must be in Dutch constitute a breach of Articles IV. and IX. of the Convention of 1894.

As far as we can judge from the papers before us, it seems to us that the Registry was a branch of, and under the jurisdiction of, the Chief Court of Swaziland. See statement in Mr. Searle's opinion of the 28th September 1895, p. 2, 18565, and Sir Heary Loch's letter of the 18th February 1892 (p. 8 of same). In the very nature of things, the right to make orders on the officials of the Registry must have formed a branch of the jurisdiction of the High Court, and the removal to Pretoria withdraws the Registry and its officials from that jurisdiction.

If titles and transfers had, prior to February 1894, to be registered at the office of the Chief Court we are of opinion that that jurisdiction was preserved by the Convention. The removal is, in our opinion, a clear breach of Article IV. of the Convention, and is inconsistent with its whole scope and effect. It could be justified only if Swaziland had been incorporated with the South African Republic.

We have, &c.

The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

3115.

SIR

No. 130.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, February 9, 1897. We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. E. Wingfield's letter of the 4th instant stating that, with reference to the letter from the Colonial Office of the 13th ultimo, inquiring whether, in our opinion, the action of the Government of the South African Republic in removing to Pretoria the Registry of Deeds relating to Swaziland constituted a breach of the Convention of 1894, he was directed to transmit to us two further Despatches from the High Commissioner for South Africa which raised similar questions in regard to the offices of Orphan Master and State Attorney.

That Mr. Wingfield was to observe that in the case of the Orphan Master there appeared to be some doubt whether that official was an officer of the Court, or a civil officer responsible to the Executive.

That our opinion was desired as to whether the action of the South African Republic in either of these cases constituted a breach of Article IV. of the Convention of 1894.

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and have the honour to

Report-

That we are of opinion that the action of the Government of the South African Republic in appointing the Orphan Master of the South African Republic temporary Orphan Master of Swaziland does not constitute a breach of the Convention of 1894 if, as would appear to be the case, the Orphan Master is a Civil servant and responsible to the Executive.

The appointment of the person who is State Attorney for the South African Republic to be State Attorney for Swaziland is not a breach of the Convention.

It is possible that the removal of these offices may cause grave inconvenience in Swaziland, but Article XIV. appears to confine the right of diplomatic representation to cases of breach of the Convention.

The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

No 1047,

Dec. 24, 1896 No. 1049,

c. 28, 1896.

95386,-*.

25.-2/97.

ལག་པ་