CO885-(15-16) — Page 47

R

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

O.A.G.

Leewards, 16 Aug, 1899, with enclosure

in original.

2

That it would be noticed that attached to the Governor's despatch of the 21st of May was a copy of a letter from Sir George Melville, one of the two authorities named by Sir H. Wrenfordsley for his statements, in which the writer emphatically denied any of the statements attributed to him by the Chief Justice. That you had not proposed until Sir H. Wrenfordsley made specific charges to refer to Sir George Melville, and you still did not propose at this stage to enquire of Dr. Pierez, the second gentleman quoted by Sir H. Wrenfordsley as an authority.

That on the facts as above set forth, it appeared to you that you had no other course further open but to dispense with the services of Sir H. Wrenfordsley, and that you considered that this step should be taken without conceding the retiring allowance which would, or might have been due to the Chief Justice, had his service been certified as meritorious.

That you were strengthened in your opinion that Sir Henry Wrenfordsley was not a fit person to retain in the position of Chief Justice by the further facts which had come to your knowledge in connection with a correspondence (which was also forwarded by Mr. Lucas in original) as to a claim by one Manoel Gomes against the Chief Justice. That from this correspondence, it appeared that Manoel Gomes having made a claim for 22 188. 74. against Sir H. Whenfordsley, the latter not only denied the debt, strengthen- 1900, with ing his denial by an affidavit, but also apparently took advantage of the means which his enclosure official position gave him to evade responsibility for the debt, and that when, in spite of in original. obstacles the case was submitted to the Court, the debt was at once proved in spite of Gov.,

the denial.

Gov., 23 May,

20 May,

with en.

closure in

original.

Gov.,

1 June, with en-

closure in original.

That having taken all these circumstances into consideration, you were inclined to the following course: to instruct the Governor to insist on the immediate retirement of Sir H. Wrenfordsley, who was now 74 years of age, under the Leeward Islands Ordinance 7 of 1881, the 6th clause of which provided that it should be lawful for the Governor in Council, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State to require any public officer who should have attained upwards of 60 years of age to retire, and such retirement should be compulsory on such officer. That as regarded the question of retiring allowance, it was probable that Sir H. Wrenfordsley's service not having been continuous as required by law, no pension could in any case be given, but only a lump sum gratuity.

That you proposed however to refuse to sanction any retiring allowance whatever to Sir H. Wrenfordsley, if such were due, basing your refusal on clause 9 of Leeward Islands Ordinance 13 of 1878, which provided that no public officer should have an absolute right to compensation for past services, or to any pension under that Act, and that Her Majesty's Government should retain the power and authority to dismiss any public officer without compensation.

That Mr. Lucas was also to enclose:-(i) Copy of a parliamentary paper No. (C-139) 1870, dealing with the question of the removal of Colonial Judges, and was to call our attention to the provisions of section 2 of the Imperial Act, 22 Geo. (II. c. 75. (ii) Letters Patent and Instructions of Leeward Islands showing the manner in which the suspension and removal of public officers was to be carried out; and further that Mr. Lucas was to ask us to be good enough to favour you with our opinion as to whether the course which it was proposed to take was legally justifiable, or whether it would be preferable to effect the same end (a) by using the powers of the Governor under the Act, 22 Geo. III. c. 75, or (b) by using the powers of suspension and removal con- ferred upon the Governor by Her Majesty's Commission and Instructions.

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

K

$

2. In case of misconduct, the Chief Justice could be removed or suspended under Burke's Act (22 Geo. III. c. 75), or under the powers of the Commission and Instructions.

We ought, however, to add that we do not think that in the event of the case being brought before the Privy Council it would be held that the facts disclosed amounted to judicial misconduct justifying dismissal, and moreover having regard to the personal relations between the Governor and the Chief Justice, it is undesirable that the Governor should remove or suspend him.

We have, &c.,

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

&C.,

&c.,

&c.

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

Report

1. That in our opinion the proposed course is not legally justifiable.

during

The Chief Justice appears to have been appointed under the Act of 1880 good behaviour," and even if the terms of his appointment in 1891 could be considered as qualified by 8. 6 of No. 7 of 1881, which we consider more than doubtful-we are of opinion that this power of compulsory retirement could not be properly exercised from a legal point of view in a case where the question is really one of misconduct.

•