PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
That again, when a question arose respecting the compensation to British subjects for losses or destruction of property during the Civil War in North America, the then Law Officers of the Crown had stated on the 21st October, 1861, as follows :—
"With regard to losses or destruction of property caused to British subjects exclusively by the officers or troops or by those acting by the authority or on behalf of the Government under whose authority such British subjects are living at the time, we can only say that, as a general principle, such Government is responsible for them, and that the fact of their having been committed during the existence of a civil war, although it may sometimes palliate or extenuate the conduct of those concerned, will not exonerate the Government from its general responsibility.'
That cases might also be cited in which diplomatic relations had been suspended between Her Majesty's Government and a foreign Government, and only renewed on condition that all pecuniary claims based on the acts of the Federal Government should be recognised.
That one of the most recent of such cases was that of the Provisional A between Her Majesty's Government and that of Mexico of the 6th August, 1884.
greement That, besides the case of Mr. Philip, others had been furnished by the Acting British Consul at Caracas, in which British subjects had suffered injury in their persons and property during the recent revolution by the acts of the de facto Government, as well as by those of the revolutionary party, who have now succeeded in displacing the former.
That it might be that upon further examination some of these cases would be found not to possess merits sufficient to entitle them to presentation by Her Majesty's Govern- ment to that of the Venezuelan Republic, but that it was assumed that any general principles as to the responsibility of the present Government of Venezuela for the acts of the accredited agents of previous Governments of that State, which might be adopted and urged in the case of Mr. Philip's claim, would be also of application with reference to such of any of those other claims as might appear primâ facie to be deserving of representation on their merits.
That Sir T. Villiers Lister was to request that we would take the papers transmitted with his letter into our consideration, and that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to-
1. Whether Her Majesty's Government were justified in holding the present Govern- ment of Venezuela responsible, under the circumstances, for the acts of the previous Government of that Republic.
2. Whether, assuming that our answer to the preceding question should be in the affirmative, Her Majesty's Government might properly urge upon the Venezuelan Government a claim, on Mr. Philip's behalf, for the full amount of 4007. mentioned by him, or for any, and, if so, what, less sum.
That Sir T. Villiers Lister was to add that your Lordship would be glad to receive any further observations which we might have to offer upon the case generally.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
That, in our opinion-
Report-
1. Her Majesty's Government are justified in holding the present Government of Venezuela responsible, under the circumstances, for the acts of the previous Government of the Republic.
2. That Her Majesty's Government may properly urge upon the Venezuelan Government a claim, on Mr. Philip's behalf, for the full sum of 4008
The Right Hon.
&c.
The Earl of Rosebery, K.G.,
&c.
&c.
We have, &c. (Signed)
C. RUSSELL. JOHN RIGBY.
15289.
No. 41. (NEWFOUNDLAND.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE. MY LORD,
Royal Courts of Justice, We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir T. Sanderson's
September 4, 1893. letter of the 1st ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the papers noted in the accompanying list relative to the recent action of the Newfoundland Government in exacting Customs Duties from French citizens on the Treaty Shore," and to the right of exemption claimed by the French Government. That Sir T. Sanderson was to request that we would take the matter again into our consideration, and inform your Lordship whether the arguments advanced in the Colonial Office letter of the 22nd of July last, and the fresh information forwarded in that of the 27th of that month, induced us to modify in any way the views which we expressed in our Report of the 14th of July last; and, if so, to what extent, and in what respects.
56
That, as regards our suggestion that the claim to exemption might be submitted to arbitration, Sir T. Sanderson was to observe that your Lordship, as then advised, would deprecate that course, since such a reference would appear to involve the Sovereign rights of the British Crown in Newfoundland-a matter which could not properly be made a subject of arbitration; but that your Lordship would be glad to have the advantage of considering any further observations which we might offer upon that point.
We were also honoured with Sir T. Sanderson's further letter of the 10th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to inform us that the recent correspon- dence respecting the claim for Customs Duties made by the Newfoundland Government upon French subjects on the " Treaty Shore" had been communicated to Mr. W. E. Hall, who, as we were aware, had been selected as the Representative of Her Majesty's Government upon the proposed Tribunal of Arbitration on the questions connected with the lobster fishery.
That that gentleman had now furnished your Lordship with a Memorandum, a copy of which was enclosed for our information.
That it would be observed that Mr. Hall, inter alia, called attention to the corre- spondence which took place in 1888-9, when an attempt to levy Customs Duties was met by the French Government with a distinct claim to exemption as of right.
That that correspondence had been marked for convenience of reference in accompanying volumes of confidential print; and that Sir T. Sanderson was to request that we would take those papers. into our consideration in connexion with the papers submitted to us in his letter of the 1st ultimo.
the
We were further honoured with a note, dated the 11th ultimo, from Sir T. Sanderson. transmitting two further communications. which had been received at the Foreign. Office respecting the matter in question.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have again taken the matter into our consideration, and have the honour to
in
Report
We concur in
That we find nothing in the further papers submitted to us to induce us to modify any way the views expressed by us in our report of 14th July last. the opinions set forth in Mr. Hall's Memorandum of the 3rd August 1893.
With reference to the suggestion that arbitration of the question of exemption would involve the Sovereign rights of the British Crown in Newfoundland, and would not therefore be a fit subject for arbitration, we would observe that Sovereign rights are equally brought into question in the arbitration already agreed upon, and, indeed, must be involved in every claim of French subjects to exercise-as of right-special. privileges in Newfoundland.
We have, &c. (Signed) C. RUSSELL.
JOHN RIGBY..
The Right Hon. the Earl of Rosebery, K.G.
&c.
&c.
&c.
Q 74772.-26.
25.--9/93.