PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
تسليا
Reference :-
C.O. 885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
That shortly after the making of that Order in Council it was considered necessary for the peace of the country to prevent two persons named Renny Tailyour and Hassförther (the latter a German subject) from returning to Buluwayo, Lobengula'a chief place.
That Renny Tailyour was arrested at Tati, a place then nominally within Lobengula's territory, and within the limits of the Order: that Hassförther evaded arrest by escaping into the Transvaal. That Lobengula was much incensed at the occurrence, and that on the 18th August 1891 the High Commissioner sent the following telegram to be delivered to Lobengula :-
"My friend, I understand that you have spoken harsh words to Mr. Moffat, the Queen's representative, and that you have charged him with being the cause of the arrest of Mr. Renny Tailyour and Mr. Hassförther. I send this message to inform you that they have been arrested by my orders, because I have reason to know that they desire to make mischief between you and the Great Queen. This I cannot permit. I believe that you desire to live in friendship with the Great Queen and with her people. I am responsible for the good behaviour of all white people within territory, and to punish the evildoers. I trust, therefore, that you will take back Mr. Moffat into your confidence. He will convey to me truly any message you may desire to send to me with respect to Mr. Renny Tailyour and Mr. Hassförther or any other white men whom you may desire to visit you, and it will be my desire to meet your wishes if to do so will not endanger the peace of the country, or be injurious to your interests."
your
That the message was not delivered immediately, but that on the 31st August the High Commissioner telegraphed to Mr. Moffat at Buluwayo:-
You must exercise your discretion as to delivering my message to Lobengula, but viewing the question in all its bearings from here, I am of opinion it should be delivered so that Lobengula should realise that I exercise authority over all white men in the country."
That in reply Mr. Moffat telegraphed :
44
Buluwayo, September 11th-I read the Chief your message of 31st (should have been 18th) ultimo. He was quite willing to admit your right to deal with Europeans even up here."
That although there had been differences with Lobengula on other matters, which had unfortunately ended in hostilities, there had been no dispute of any kind as to the exercise of jurisdiction over white men.
That it was important that the British authorities should have the power of extradition over foreigners within the territory in question, and thus prevent the territory from becoming an asylum for criminals from the foreign countries adjacent and that if we should be of opinion that, under the circumstances detailed above, Her Majesty had not acquired that power from Lobengula either by grant or sufferance, care would be taken to secure it in the future settlement of the country which must soon be made in consequence of the recent hostilities.
That your Lordship apprehended that if the power of extradition had been acquired from Lobengula it should only be exercised over foreigners with the assent, express or implied, of their respective Sovereigns, and that on that point Mr. Wingfield was to invite our attention to Articles 1 to 5 of the General Acts of the Brussels Conference with a view to considering whether the assent of the Signatories of that Act had not been already given.
That Mr. Wingfield was to ask us to be good enough to favour your Lordship with our opinion:-
1. Whether Her Majesty had acquired from Lobengula, by grant or sufferance, the power of extradition in proper cases, in respect of foreigners accused of committing crimes in foreign countries?"
2. Whether such power, if acquired, could properly be exercised without the assent— express or implied-of the respective Sovereigns of such foreigners.
3. If not, whether such assent had been sufficiently given by the General Acts of the Berlin and Brussels Conferences so far as relates to the subjects of the Powers who were signatories of those Acts?
4. Whether it was competent to the High Commissioner, by virtue of his commission, to enter into extradition arrangements with the South African Republic, Orange Free State, and the authorities of the Portuguese possessions in South Africa?
4. Whether, if such arrangements were made, legislative sanction could be provided by proclamation of the High Commissioner under the Order in Council of 9th May 1891, or, if not, whether an Order in Council under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890, would suffice as in the case of Cyprus?
3
Mr. Wingfield also enclosed, as having a bearing on the exercise of jurisdiction over foreigners in an European Protectorate, the papers mentioned in the accompanying list relating to the case of a British subject, a Native of Mauritius, charged with having committed murder in the territory of the Sultan of Jehanna (which was under the protection of France), who had been removed to the French Colony of Réunion, and brought to trial there, in which the Cour de Cassation at Paris had upheld the jurisdiction of the Réunion Court, and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had informed Her Majesty's Consul at Réunion that Her Majesty's Government saw no objection to the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in the case by the Court of Réunion. We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your Lordship's commands have the honour to
Report-
1. That the answer to the first question depends entirely upon matters of fact, but the evidence before us does not in our opinion show that Her Majesty acquired from Lobengula such powers of extradition of foreigners as would form the basis of an effective system of extradition or dispense with the necessity of securing sufficient powers on the resettlement of the country. The correspondence referred to is, for instance, limited to white people or Europeans, and does not directly refer to the coloured subjects of foreign States, who, nevertheless, would have to be dealt with in any effective scheme.
2. That as a matter of strict law we see no reason why powers of extradition lawfully granted by the territorial Sovereign should not be exercised without the assent, express or implied, of the respective Sovereigns of foreigners to whom the powers are applied, but we do not differ from our predecessors who have advised that any juris- diction over foreigners in a protected State should as matter of prudence in general only be exercised with such consent. In the case of Cyprus no such consent seems to have been given, but the devolution of powers from the Sultan was unusually comprehensive.
3. That such assent has been given partially only by the General Acts of the Berlin and Brussels Conferences, so far as relates to the subjects of Powers who were Signatories. The provisions of Article V. of the Act of the Brussels Conference point directly to extradition, but are not sufficiently comprehensive to afford a basis for an effective system, being mainly confined to cases connected with the suppression of the slave trade, the immediate subject of the clauses.
4. That it is competent to the High Commissioner by virtue of his commission to enter into extradition arrangements with the South African Republic, Orange Free State, and the authorities of the Portuguese possessions in South Africa.
5. If such arrangements are made legislative sanction can be provided by Proclama- tion. The Order in Council of 9th May 1891, has, it seems to us, already committed to the High Commissioner the exercise on behalf of Her Majesty of all Her jurisdiction. including that under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890. The powers of the High Commissioner are to be exercised in conformity with instructions through a Secretary of State, and any acts of his are subject to disallowance, so that no difficulty is likely to arise from any excessive or undue exercise of the powers.
We have, &c. (Signed) C. RUSSELL.
JOHN RIGBY.
The Most Hon.
The Marquess of Ripon, K.G.
List of Papers.
Governor, Mauritius, to Secretary of State No. 323 September 18, 1893. Consul, Réunion, to Governor, Mauritius
Do.
Do.
"
Do. Do.
July
August 10,
22,
29
""
Pamphlet containing proceedings at Réunion. Order of Court of Cassation
Foreign Office to Colonial Office
October January
27,
"
5, 1894.
Colonial Office to Foreign Office
10,
""
Telegram Earl of Rosebery to Consul, Réunion
11,
"
"D