CO885-(15-16) — Page 153

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

། ། ། ‛། 「 །

Reference :-

C.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD, OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

language seems to us rather to point to the conclusion that it was not intended to abolish the office of Inspector.

The question really is one of fact, viz., whether the office of Inspector under the Education Ordinance, 1899, is substantially a continuation of that under the Ordinance 28 of 1875.

There is no definite statement before us as to what the differences between the old office and the new are, but we do not think that mere changes in the work of the office, made for the purpose of re-organising the Department, would justify the contention that the office previously held by Mr. de Boucherville has been abolished.

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

&c.

&c.,

&c.,

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY.

EDWARD CARSON.

40178

No. 114.

(GOLD COAST.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

RAINSFORD v. Brown.

Question as to producing in a Court of Law in Ireland documents which the Secretary of State considers, in the interests of the Public Service, should not be produced.

We have taken all the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report—

1. We are of opinion that a Court of Law in Ireland ought to refuse to compel In answer the production of the proceedings of the Executive Council and of the other docu- to Refer- ments called for by Mr. Rainsford if the objection be taken by the Secretary of State ence of that these documents cannot, in the interests of the Public Service, be produced.

2. We are of opinion that a Court of Law in Ireland ought similarly to uphold the privilege in respect of the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry at Kintampo.

3. We do not think that any distinction can be drawn which will induce the Court to hold some privileged, and some not.

Generally-

The statement of the Secretary of State that the production of these documents would be injurious to the Public Service is conclusive, and the Court is not entitled to go behind it.

Mr. Rainsford should be informed that he cannot be supplied with the documents he requires as their production would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, not be consistent with the public interests.

26 Oct., 1901.

We think that Major Browne should be informed that production of the docu- In answer ments relating to these matters is regarded by the Secretary of State as inconsistent with to Refer- the interests of the Public Service, and he is unable to supply the information asked ence dated for.

4th Nov., 1901.

November 15, 1901.

36966

CASE.

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

GENTLEMEN,

COLONIAL OFFICERS to LAW OFFICERS.

Downing Street, October 26, 1901. I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain to request your consideration of certain questions which have arisen with regard to a request for the production of documents for the purposes of an action brought in Ireland by Mr. E. G. Rainsford, lately a District Commissioner of the Gold Coast, against Major Browne, an officer in His Majesty's Army, who presided at a Court of Enquiry by which the conduct of Mr. Rainsford and others was investigated.

2. Mr. Rainsford was District Commissioner in the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast in the latter part of the year 1900, and in the course of the Ashanti War certain officers of the Ashanti Field Force, by name Captain Fenton and Lieutenant Alexander, were sent up to Kintampo with a column, that place having been selected as a base for the forwarding of supplies to the Northern Territories. With the column was sent, as Medical Officer, a Dr. Brown.

3. It is unnecessary to state in detail the disgraceful occurrences which took place at Kintampo, full details of which will be found in the correspondence between Dr. Brown and Dr. Buée, the Report of the Court of Enquiry at Kintampo, held by Major Browne and others (to which reference will be made later on), and in the Report of the Proceedings of the Executive Council before which Mr. Rainsford was summoned and upon the report of which he was dismissed from His Majesty's Service. It will be sufficient to say that Captain Fenton and Mr. Rainsford seemed to have combined

10375-25-11/1901 Wt 352 D & 8 5