That it was not understood that there was any rule of international law limiting the right of an independent Chief to exercise full civil and criminal jurisdiction over any person, European or otherwise, within his territory, although the manner in which such jurisdiction had been exercised might, in different parts of the world, have been made the subject of foreign intervention.
That no definite acceptance of the above-mentioned offers had taken place, and that it was not proposed that Her Majesty should acquire any sovereign power in the territories of those Chiefs further than might be involved in the acceptance of legal jurisdiction over persons who were not British subjects nor Natives of the country.
That if we should be of opinion that it was impossible for Her Majesty to acquire jurisdiction over subjects of foreign civilized States by treaties or conventions with Native Chiefs, the further question would arise whether the particular words used by the above-named Chiefs were sufficient to confer such jurisdiction.
That should the language of those proposals or offers be insufficient for that purpose, no difficulty was anticipated in obtaining from the Chiefs a treaty in whatever form might be thought desirable.
That as illustrating the power of acquiring jurisdiction over foreigners by treaty with a third Power, Mr. Bramston was to draw our attention to the Conventions with the Sublime Porte (of which copies were enclosed) upon the authority of which Her Majesty's Government exercised full jurisdiction in Cyprus over all persons of whatever nationality.
That your Lordship would be obliged if we would take the subject into our consideration, and favour him with our advice upon it, reporting particularly whether in our opinion-
(i.) Her Majesty could lawfully acquire by treaty with the above-named Chiefs the right to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction over subjects of civilized Powers other than Great Britain within the territories of the Chiefs named ?
(ii.) Whether the language employed by those Chiefs in the proposals printed at pages 45-48 of the Blue Book (C.-4,588) would, if embodied in a formal agreement or treaty, suffice to confer such jurisdiction?
(iii.) If so, whether such jurisdiction could be properly exercised by Courts established under an Order in Council similar to the Order in Council of the 27th of January 1885, for all persons within the territories of Mankoroane and Montsioa? That Mr. Bramston was also to state that your Lordship would feel obliged if we would favour your Lordship with any observations upon the subject generally that might appear to us to be desirable.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have the honour to
Report
1. That we are of opinion that, as against the Chiefs, Her Majesty can lawfully acquire by treaty with them the right to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction over subjects of civilized Powers other than Great Britain within the territories of the Chiefs; but as against the subjects of other civilized Powers, we think that the jurisdiction (whatever may be its theoretical limits) should be exercised with, and cannot safely be exercised without, the assent of the Power concerned, given generally
or in the particular case.
2. Subject to our previous answer, we think that a formal agreement or treaty, embodying in more precise and artificial language what is said by the Chiefs, would suffice to confer such jurisdiction.
3. Subject as before, we think the jurisdiction can be properly exercised by Courts established under an Order in Council similar to that of 27th January 1885.
4. We assume that the Chiefs have sovereign territorial authority, and do not merely exercise tribal or personal authority as Chiefs.
We have, &c. (Signed) C. RUSSELL.
HORACE DAVEY.
The Right Hon. Earl Granville, K.G.
3