N
עב בבוורה -
C.O.
885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
| CÓPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
of mails, share of profits, &c. this contract, and the provisions into force.
2
That the railway had been constructed under
of the contract had, so far as might be, come
That the British South Africa Company might thus be said to have, so far as the railway was concerned, fulfilled their part of the arrangement set forth in Lord Ripon's despatch of 20th December, 1892.
That in October and November, 1895, negotiations took place for the transfer of the administration of the Protectorate to the British South Africa Company. That the three principal chiefs who were unwilling to be plated under the Company's administration visited this Company to represent their views, and eventually agreed to a settlement by Mr. Chamberlain, the terms of which, so far as it affected the natives, were embodied in a letter addressed to the Rev. W. Willoughby on the 7th November, 1895, and printed at page 21 of the Blue Book C. 7962, a copy of which was enclosed. That the effect of the settlement was briefly that the three chiefs were to be allotted reserves, within which they and their people would remain under the administration of the High Commissioner. That the remainder of the Protectorate '(except some small portions under the juris- diction of other chiefs) was to be handed over to the British South Africa Company for the purposes of administration and development, the Company to undertake the cost, including the Government subsidy to the Railway Company, and to reap any profits which might arise.
That some part of the Protectorate outside the proposed reserves was now believed to have been under no effective native jurisdiction, being inhabited only by nomadie Bushmen; but as regarded the whole of it, it was understood that the three chiefs, in agreeing to the settlement, abandoned whatever rights (other than hunting rights) they
night have had outside the proposed reserves.
That owing to the armed incursion into the South African Republic of Dr. Jameson and other officers of the British South Africa Company, and consequent events, the arrangement made by you in October, 1895, had been carried out only in so far as the native chiefs were concerned, and it was not even now proposed to transfer the administration of any portion of the Protectorate to the British South Africa Company.
That there remained, however, the question raised by Sir Alfred Milner in the first- mentioned enclosure to Mr. Graham's letter as to rights to land and minerals, and that you would be obliged if we would take the papers specified into our consideration and favour you with our opinion as to :—
(1) What were the rights which the British South Africa Company were entitled to claim under the despatches of Lord Ripon and Lord Knutsford above referred to.
(2) How far and to what extent those rights may be regarded as still subsisting. (3) What rights the Company have in respect of lands over which there exist no such rights of jurisdiction in native chiefs as would enable them to grant concessions, (4) Where it may be found that no such jurisdiction ever existed,
(6) Where such jurisdiction may be held to have been abandoned by the chiefs
at their interviews with you on November 6th, 1895.
(1) Generally upon the question.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to
Report―
That the nature of the rights of the Company is not, very precisely stated, but on the fair reading of these despatches, taken as a whole, it seems to us to be as follows :—
(1) The Government bound itself in express terms to help the Company to get concessions of minerals, agricultural lands, and town sites in the Protectorate on certain conditions (C. 7154, p. 29. Art. IV.) and the intention that the Company should have preferential rights in respect of such concessions is necessarily implied, as it would be inconsistent with this engagement that the Government recognise such concessions to other persons until the Company had had the option.
But we do not think that the Company's rights were incant to be exclusive. The Company invokes Article VI. on page 30 of C. 7154, but this appears to us to be only a direction to Sir Henry Loch as to how he was to deal with the concessions already granted, which were to be investigated under Article V. in cases where they had been granted since the date of the Charter. We do not think that it amounts to an undertaking that for all time to come no concession to other persons would be recognised We think that even if the Company had declined to accept and work such concessions.
3
the Company are entitled to the preference, but if they decline, the Government may, particularly in cases of public utility, properly recognise concessions to others,
(2) These preferential rights still exist, except in so far as they have been modified by the fact that administration is not to be granted to the Company. This circumstance makes it, we think, eminently reasonable that the Government should reserve to itself the right of taking land for Government purposes in all cases, and should impose the payment of a fair contribution out of the profits toward the expenses of the administration of the country on which the prosperity of every such enterprise must depend.
(3) We think that though there is no express agreement on the point, it collected from these despatches that it was intended that the Company should have the same rights in lands over which there exist no such rights in native chiefs as would enable them to grant concessions, and this both (a), where no such rights ever existed, and (b) where such rights were abandoned by the chiefs to the Secretary of State on November 6th, 1895.
may
be
This may, we think, be inferred from Sir H. Loch's statement on 19th August, 1892, that the land and rights under the High Commissioner's administrative control were in the meanwhile conserved for the Company.
It must be admitted that the despatches are on this point very vague, and stop short of any legal agreement, but looking to the spirit of the arrangement we think that it may fairly be conceded to the Company subject to such reasonable conditions as are indicatedl by Sir A. Milner.
(4) We think that if as a matter of policy it is deemed expedient to put the arrangement on a more definite footing than that presented by the somewhat vague terms of the despatches, the claim of the Company should be recognised only subject to the three conditions mentionel in Sir A. Milner's despatch, viz., that the right of the Company is preferential, not exclusive, that the Government may take any land required. for Government purposes, and that a fair contribution should be made to the expenses of administration.
The Right Honourable J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.,
&c.,
&c.
We have, &c..
RICHARD E: WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.