CO885-(15-16) — Page 16

R

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

PEE C.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

wanton destruction of property, and I am to enclose the draft of a Proclamation (marked (C)) which it is proposed to issue, with a view to warning all whom it may concern, that persons ordering or committing such acts of destruction will be held liable by Her Majesty's Government in property and person for their conduct.

6. I am to request you to take these matters into your consideration, and to advise

Mr. Chamberlain :—

(1.) Whether there is any objection, on grounds of international law or otherwise, to the issue by Her Majesty's Government,

(a.) Of a Proclamation declaring that Her Majesty's Government will not recognize alienations of their property by the Governments of the South African Republic or Orange Free State ;

(6) Of a Proclamation warning persons against wanton destruction of property within the Republics.

(2.) If not, whether the draft Proclamations transmitted herewith are fit and proper for the purposes for which they are intended, or in what respects they should be amended.

(3.) Generally.

I am to request that Mr. Chamberlain may be favoured with your Report at the carliest possible moment.

I am, &c..

Proclamation (A).

SOUTH

APRICA.

H. BERTRAM Cox.

Notice issued at Cape Town on January 26, 1900, by the High Commissioner

for South Africa.

NOTICE is hereby given that the Government of Her Majesty will not recognize ns valid or effectual any forfeiture of any property situated in the territories of the South African Republic or Orange Free State, or any charges, fines, or encumbrances of whatsoever description declared, levied. or charged upon any such property, or any conveyance, transfer, or transmission of any such property which forfeiture, charge, fine, encumbrance, conveyance, transfer, or transinission has been, or shall be. declared, charged, levied, created, made, or carried into effect by the Governments of the South African Republic or of the Orange Free State subsequently to the 10th day of October, 1899.

Draft Proclamation (B).

NOTICE is hereby given that the Government of Her Majesty will not recognize as valid or effectual any alienations of property, whether of lands, railways, mines, or mining rights within the territories of the South African Republic or Orange Free State, or any interest therein of whatsoever nature, or any charges or encumbrances of whatsoever description declared upon any such property or interest as aforesaid effected, declared, charged, or made by the Governments of the South African Republic or Orange Free State, subsequently to the date of this Proclamation, nor any concessions granted by either of the said Governments subsequent to such date.

Draft Proclamation (C').

(Initialled)

R. E. W.

R. B. F.

NOTICE is hereby given that all persons who within the territories of the South African Republic or Orange Free State shall be guilty of the wanton destruction or damage, or of counselling, siding, or assisting in the wanton destruction or damage of public or private property, such destruction or damage not being justified by military necessity or by the usages and chstoms of civilized warfare, will be held responsible in their

and persons property for all kuch wanton destruction and damage.

8994.

No. 25.

(SAINT HELENA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

- Royal Courts of Justice,

March 19. 1900.

SIR,

WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Antrobus's letter of the Mr. Barra- 27th January last, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us two letters received clough to from the Reverend E. A. Barraclough, with reference to certain ecclesiastical proceedings Under Sec-

retary of of taken against him in the Vicar-General's Court, at St. Helena, together with a copy State, the reply sent by the Colonial Office to the earlier of those communications. That Mr. December Antrobus was also to enclose a copy of Ordinance No. 2 of 1867, and a volume containing 7th, 1899. the Constitution, and Canons of the Church of the Province of South Africa, both of Under Sec- which were referred to in the judgment delivered by the Vicar-General.

retary of That our opinion had already been asked and obtained in the earlier stages of this State to case, and Mr. Antrobus was to invite our attention to our Reports of 28th May and clongh. 9th September, 1898, respectively*.

January

Mr. Barra-

Under Sec-

That it was unnecessary to recapitulate what had occurred on the two previous 11th, 1900. occasions in which Mr. Barraclough invoked the assistance of the Supreme Court against Mr. Barra his ecclesiastical superiors, but it would be remembered that on the second occasion the clough to proceedings instituted by the late Bishop under the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892, were retary of prohibited by the Acting Chief Justice, who restrained the Bishop from carrying out the State, intention of his citation, removed the inhibition placed upon Mr. Barraclough, and 12th Jan- restored him to all the benefits of his preferment. That the Bishop intended to appeal uary, 1900, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against this decision of the Supreme Court, but that he died before he could accomplish his purpose.

That it appeared that Mr. Barraclough made several attempts to resume his duties in St. Helena, which were illegally but successfully resisted by the late Bishop's adherents. That after vainly trying to obtain the legal rights in which the Supreme Court had reinstated him, he gave up the contest and returned to England. That before he left the Island, however, he received a citation to appear before the Vicar-General (the Reverend J. W. Williams, of Capetown) to show cause why he should not be declared “irregular." That he immediately applied to the Acting Chief Justice for a Writ of prohibition, but was informed that on this occasion the Ecclesiastical Court would be properly constituted, and that there was no ground for the interference of the Supreme Court. That, shortly afterwards he sailed for England, and thus he was not present at the hearing of the citation, but he was represented by Mr. Thorpe (a local J.P.) who put in his written reply to the Articles presented by the Reverend M, H. M. Wood.

That a copy of the Vicar-General's judgment was forwarded with Mr. Antrobus's letter, and it would be seen that two Articles were presented to the Court against Mr. Barraclough (1) charging him with violating a law or Canon of the Province, viz., Canon “XXIX. (2) by suing for libel Mr. H. W. Solomon, a churchwarden of St. Paul's Cathedral, who acting under the direction of a former Vicar-fieneral, Archdeacon Fogg, had presented the defendant on a certain charge, and (2) calling upon him to show cause why he should not be pronounced to be "irregular," and to have been “irregular" ever since certain actions of his which took place in or about or shortly before 1893, the date of the divorce proceedings in which he was engaged as respondent and co-respondent. That the Vicar-General's decision in respect of both Articles was against Mr. Barraclough. That you had received no particulars of the libel action mentioned in Article 1, but as regarded Article 2, Mr. Antrobus was to enclose for our information a copy of the report of the divorce proceedings referred to.

That Mr. Barraclough stated that subsequently to the decision of the Vicar-General's Court, he obtained in England Counsel's opinion to the effect that the whole proceedings commencing with the citation of May 13th, 1899, were bad on the face of them, and that a prohibition ought to be obtained from the Supreme Court of the Island, to restrain the Vicar-General from exercising a jurisdiction which he did not possess. That Mr. Barraclough consequently did not appeal to the Metropolitan, but applied a

• Nos. 172 and 189 in Volume V.

(Initialled)

R. E. W.

R. 11. F.

3350-25-9/1900 Wt 439

D&E

5