DEPORTATION OF A REBEL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2809, 15 January 1908, Page 63

DEPORTATION OF A REBEL.

ME, JELLIOOE TO THE RESCUE. (From Oirs Own Cohkespondent.) LONDON, November 27. In the King's Bench Division of th« High Court on Tuesday, before Mr Jus* tioe Darling and Mr Justice 'Lawrence, Ms E. 6. Jellicoe moved, on behalf of Tilonko, j a Zulu chief, of Natal, for a rule nisi fos a . certiorari to bring up -a. certain ordor made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, under which Tilonko was deported to St: Helena, in order .that it might be quashed. ' ' The facts appeared from an affidavits made by Mr Francis Ernest Colenso, bar* rister-at-law of the Supreme Court of Natal, who purported to derive his knowledge as to the official despatches from correspondence set out in "the ' Blue-books specified in the affidavit. It wa6 there set out that on May 2, 1907, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lprd Elgin, by an ordefi under "The Cplonial Prisoners' Removal Act, 1884" (47 and 48 Viet., c. 31), ordered that Tilonko, then in prison at Pieter-. mariteburg, should be removed to ,Stl Helena in order to complete a -sentence o£ imprisoment. The order purported to be> '■ made upon proof (1) that the prisoner had been convicted on w July 10, 1906, by oourt-martial, of sedition and public violence, and. sentenced to 10- years' imprisonment and a fine of 500 cattle; (2) that by "The Natal Indemnity Act, 1906," tha above sentence was confirmed; and (3) that "under section 2 ■ (d) of the Colonial Prisoners' Removal Act, the rejnoval of the prisoner was expedient for his safe custody and for more efficiently carrying his sentence into effect. The" affidavit stated that Tilonko had not been oonvicted on July 10, but on August 17, as appeared | from the official despatches. After setting forth the facts of the case and quoting authorities, Mr Jellicoe said that the Blue-books showed that there was no conviction on July 10 as recited in the court, -but that it was on August 17, and the date was very important. " The Natal , Indemnity Act, 1906," was passed to validate sentences which would otherwise be^ illegal. The Parliament which passed the' act was dissolved on August 15, two days before the conviction, and the royal assent to the* -act . was not given until October 2. He oontended, in the first place, that assent having been given after the dueolu- . tion the^aet was no act." Mr Justice Darling: This is rather serious, for every aot passed after the dissolution of the last Parliament is mere waste" paper. But the Parliament .was not quits dissolved; the Sovereign still remained, and' n'e is a member of Parliament: Hemight write M.P. after his name if he ohoee. — (Laughter.) I Mr Jellicoe contended, further, that it could not be supposed that the act was; , intended to' validate - convictions passed! after the Parliament had ceased to exist. There was no evidence of the circumstances I which must be shown to the Secretary of State before he could make the order*. He submitted also that the order was bach, inasmuch as it had not been made with! the concurrence of the Governor of St.- , Helena, in accordance with section 5 of tha act, as he had only ' affixed his signature after Lord Elgin had made it. It was evident that the removal had been made from mere motives of expediency, i Mr Justice Darling;: Another gentleman was once sent there for exactly the same; reasons. — (Laughter.) Mr Jellicoe: But he made no applica* tion to your Lordships. The case ought ,nof to be determined on such considerations as these. Mr Justice .Darling, in giving judgment^ said that in this very singular case application was made to them, to exercise a jurisdiction inherent in the Court of EZingta Bench. Assuming, such jurisdiction really to exist, and that it was competent in them to grant the application, he had come tot - the conclusion that no sufficient grounds " had beeen shown to induce them to da so. Mr Jellicoe, who had argued the case with very great skill, asked them to grant " a rule nisi to bring up an order made by' the of State in order that it might be quashed. After recapitulating the facts and- citing authorities the learned judge' said the Secretory of State had to. consider . what he ought "to do under the; act, which,' by section 2. said he might 1 make the order. Xord Elgin deoided thai* the removal was expedient. Mr Jellicoe said there was no evidenca that it was. Butt, there was the deliberate opinion of thoj responsible Ministers of the Crown in' Natal, and if a Constitutional ' Sovereign) acted rightly, who acted on the advice of his Ministers, surely Lord Elgin, acting on the same advice, was also right. In tha _ next place it was said that the order wal bad, as not being made teith the con* currence of the Governor of St. Helena? In faci> there was a written consent, bat iti appeared to have been giv.en after the making of the order of deportation. He warn not prepared 'to say that it was necessary: that the concurrence should be- in writing at all, and certainly not that it muet be given "before the order was made. If they were so to hold it would,' to his mind, be very difficult, perhaps- impossible, for thS Secretary of State to exercise his powers in cases of the gravest danger to Mm - Majesty's Dominions. These powers -had .to be exercised in countries, of huge extent, - and often very unsettled, and not m eho city of London, with its rapid means of communication. The act would often bo unworkable in the very circumstances in- • which it was most necessary to apply it. Mr Justice Lawrence gave judgment to the same effect, adding that the order <;ouW be made, as it had been in this case, 'but' that it should not be acted upon until tha concurrence of i;he different Governors men* tioned in -section 5 had been shown.