PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
། ༢། ། ། ། ༅།] ...............in C.O. 885
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
provision has yet been made for the representation of Labrador in the House of Assembly.
2. That we think the Newfoundland Legislature has power to impose import duties and other taxes upon the inhabitants of that portion of the Labrador coast.
3. That we think it is competent for the Newfoundland Legislature, with the assent of the Crown, to make provision for the representation of Labrador in the Assembly. Under the Act 49 Geo. 3. c. 27., and the, commission of Sir Thomas Cochrane in 1832 (by virtue of which the Legislative Assembly of Newfoundland was first established), Labrador was made and treated as one of the dependencies of the Island' and Government of Newfoundland; and we think its position, in that respect, cannot be distinguished, so far as relates to the construction and legal effect of the latter in- strument, and the powers of the Assembly constituted under it from that of any other dependency of Newfoundland. In the Governor's instructions of 1832, and in the provisions of the Imperial Act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 120., we think the "dependencies" of Newfoundland must be understood as virtually included when that "island" itself is mentioned. It is impossible to hold that the legislative powers of the Assembly con- stituted under the commission and instructions of 1832 were limited, so far as the dependencies of the principal island are concerned, to such of them only as were in-` cluded in the nine electoral districts, then established. Eight of those districts, as defined by the proclamation of the 26th July 1832, seem to have been limited to certain parts of the principal island alone, the remaining district (that of Fogo) included Fogo island. There were, however, some other islands round the coast of Newfoundland not included in any of those districts, which, nevertheless, were, in every case dependencies of Newfoundland, and must undoubtedly have been subject to the legislative power of the Assembly; some of which have since been included in the present electoral districts, as remodelled by the Colonial Act of 30th November 1854. ("Copies of extracts of correspondence," &c., accompanying this case, page 124). And, although the part of the Labrador coast, which is annexed to the Government of Newfoundland, and to which the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland extends under 49 Geo. 3. c. 29. s. 15, is of much greater extent and geographical importance than these sub- ordinate islands, we think its legal position is exactly the same. We have, &c.. (Signed) WM. ATHERTON.
ROUNDELL PALMER.
His Grace the Duke of Newcastle, K.G.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
9329.
No. 210.
(BAHAMAS)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
MY LORD,
Temple, August 25, 1863. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Layard's letter of the 16th ultimo, stating that, with reference to our Report of the 9th of February last respecting the two boys of colour, Stirrup and Edwards, who were carried off from the Bahamas in an American vessel in March 1861, and sold into slavery, he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us, together with the previous papers, the subsequent correspondence as marked in the enclosed list, from which we would perceive that one of these boys, Stirrup, has been recovered and restored to his family, while the other, Edwards, is still held in slavery in the State of Georgia.
That the following are the points upon which it would seem that a decision is now required:-
As regards Stirrup, whether compensation can be claimed for him? (See Colonial Office letter of July 11.)
As regards Edwards, whether an endeavour should be made to purchase his freedom? (See Lord Lyons, No. 487, of May 29.)
And as regards both of these cases, whether some steps should not be taken by Her Majesty's Government to bring to justice the master of the American vessel in which they were carried off from their homes? (See Colonial Office letter of July 3, 1863.)
Mr. Layard was to request that we would take these several points into consideration and furnish your Lordship with our opinion thereupon.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the several points mentioned into consideration, and have the honour to
Report
That with respect to Stirrup, we are of opinion that no compensation can be claimed for him. The acts of kidnapping and detention were the criminal acts of individuals committed without the sanction of the Government either of the United States or of the Confederate States, so that neither Government was primarily implicated in the transaction, nor has anything hitherto occurred to entail responsibility which did not originally exist.
2. As regards Edwards, there seems to us to be very grave difficulties of principle in the way of the proposal to "purchase his freedom.""
The least, perhaps, of these objections is that if the transaction assumed the form of a purchase of the young man himself from a person claiming to have a right of property in him as a slave, it would be contrary to the letter (though not to the spirit) of the Slave Trade Act, 5 Geo. 4. cap. 113. sec. 2.
A graver objection seems to be that if the identity and place of detention of the young man were established (which it must be before any such transaction could take place) Her Majesty's Government would have a clear and unquestionable right to demand his delivery up without any ransom from the persons administering the Government of the Confederate States, and to bring the power of this country to bear, if necessary, for the purpose of enforcing that demand. Under any other circum- stances it could hardly be thought consistent with the dignity of this country to permit a British subject kidnapped within British territory to be forcibly detained in captivity in any other country to which he might have been unlawfully taken, and upon which the power of Great Britain could possibly be brought to bear, and we are by no means prepared to admit that the present anomalous condition of the Confederate States (as a power recognised by Her Majesty in the character of a belligerent though not of an independent nation) is a sufficient reason why redress should not be exacted for this or any other such enormous wrong if perpetrated within their territory upon British subjects.
The Government of the Confederate States have justifiably declined to communicate with Her Majesty's Government through consuls accredited to the Government of Washington, but we apprehend that it is in the power of Her Majesty's Government, and that it is, in fact (as the present case shows), absolutely necessary, to establish during the present state of things some other suitable means of communication with
16978.-969. 25.-2/84.
* No. 162.