PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:→→→
mmimimC.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
I have the honour to request you to take the papers sent herewith into your consideration, and to favour Lord Salisbury with your opinion on the following points:-
1. Is succession duty on real property in the British Central Africa Protec- torate, when it forms part of the estate of a deceased British subject or other person assimilated to a British subject in regard to such matters, leviable according to the provisions of the law on the subject for the time being in force in England, or according to any legislative provision issued under the authority of the Foreign Jurisdiction Acts, and applied in the proper manner to the Protectorate; or should succession to and succession duties on such real property be held to be subject to native custom ?
2. Would it be competent to the Queen or to Her Majesty's Representative in the Protectorate to regulate such matters in accordance with English law or other- wise on receiving a delegation of authority for the purpose from the native Ruler within whose sovereignty the property situated?
I have also the honour to request you to favour his Lordship with any observa- tions on the case generally which would, in your opinion, be of use to him in dealing with it.
List of Pupers.
(A.) Messrs. Stibbard, Gibson, and Wills
(B.) "Africa Order in Council, 1889,"
(C.) Fee Table annexed to the Instructions of July 31, 1801.
Report.
I have, &c.,
FRANCIS BERTIE.
October 17, 1896.
The English law as to succession duty is not applied to the British Central Africa Protectorate by the Order in Council of 1889. We cannot read clause 13 of that Order as imposing this tax.
Native custom is not applicable for the purpose of succession to and succession duty on real property of British subjects in the Protectorate. There is no settled system of native law in respect of real property to which it can be supposed that British subjects have submitted themselves. These matters ought to be regulated by Order in Council.
Her Majesty in substance and in fact exercises dominion in these territories subject to the rights of the Chiefs over their own followers, and the tribal usages observed by them.
We are of opinion that Her Majesty has authority to regulate succession to real property of British subjects and the succession duties payable. Great confusion would result if these matters were to be decided by ill-defined native usages-prob- ably quite inapplicable to Europeans-prevailing in different territories of very uncertain boundaries.
We therefore recommend that an Order in Council should be issued dealing with these matters. At present no succession duty is payable.
Royal Courts of Justice,
September 28, 1897.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
21271.
SIR,
No. 156.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
September 30th, 1897.
WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 18th instant, stating that with reference to our Report of 27th April 1896*, respecting the submission of Treaties by the South African Republic for the Queen's approval under Article IV. of the London Convention, he was directed by you to transmit to us a copy of the material part of the correspondence on the subject which had passed since our Report was made.
That Mr. Wingfield was also to transmit to us copies of two despatches which had
you addressed to the High Commissioner for South Africa on the 6th March last, dealing with certain breaches of the London Convention. That the former of those was sent in purseance of our Reports of 9th December 1896 and 1st March 1897†, on the subject of the Aliens Immigration Law of the South African Republic, That the latter contained a statement of the case generally in regard to breaches of the Convention, and included further observations on the submission of Treaties under Article IV.
That the reply of the Government of the South African Republic to those two despatches would be found in the despatch from the High Commissioner of 12th May last.
That Mr. Wingfield was to submit to us the draft-prepared in the Colonial Office and approved by the Foreign Office—of a despatch which it was proposed to send to the High Commissioner, containing the answer of Her Majesty's Government to the letters of the Government of the South African Republic of 8th April and 7th May last.
That Mr. Wingfiell was to draw our attention particularly to the last part of paragraph 12 of the draft despatch, and to the observations upon it in the Foreign Office letter, and to the alternative words suggested in black ink by the Colonial Office, and that he was to explain that the main object was to prevent Treaties negotiated by the South African Republic with a Foreign State being submitted to the Legislature of that Foreign State before the Treaty had been submitted for the Queen's approval.
That Mr. Wingfield was to enquire whether we concurred in the draft despatch as amended at the Foreign Office and Colonial Office, or whether we had any further amendiments to suggest; and that he was especially to request that we would advise you as to the wording of paragraph 12, with the view of meeting the objections pointed out in the Foreign Office letter of the 27th August, and, at the same time, attaining the object in view.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
That we are of opinion that in paragraph 12 of the draft despatch it would be better simply to adhere to the view that the Treaty must be submitted to Her Majesty as soon as it has been signed by the Plenipotentiaries, without making any alternative proposal.
If, however, an alternative proposal is to be made, we prefer the draft in black ink as last prepared by the Colonial Office. We think that the objections raised by the Foreign Office to the original draft are sound, as the proposal there made would be attended with difficulty in its working,
We do not understand the inverted commas in paragraph 21. We presume the passage included therein is cited from some official document. They do not occur in the Convention of 1884, and, while we agree in their substance, if-as we gather-they are only intended to give the effect of the Convention of London, the inverted commas should be omitted. If they are taken from some other official covering document, the date should be given.
We have made a slight alteration in paragraph 22.
The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
We have, &c.,
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
&c..
&c..
• No. 107.
14705-25-10 97 Wt 20260 D&S
&c.
Nos. 122 and 131A.
F'riuted here in Italic.
5