PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
गय
C.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
consequence of the recent insurrection in Sierra Leone, and more especially to the first paragraph, in which we stated that Her Majesty's Government were not under any legal liability to pay compensation either to British subjects or to foreigners in respect of damage caused during the rebellion in that Colony.
*
That Mr. Grahamn was also to refer us to Articles VI., VII., VIII., and IX. of the Pretoria Convention of 1881, which laid down the principles of compensation for losses and damage sustained by individuals during the hostilities which preceded that Convention.
That Mr. Graham was to request us to take the papers into our consideration and to favour you with our opinion
1. Whether Her Majesty's Government should go further than the pledge already given by the High Commissioner's telegram of the 25th May as approved by the Secretary of State, and if so, what instructions should be sent to the High Commissioner on the subject ?
2. Whether the assurances of the Governor of Natal as to reparation and redress, reported in his telegrams of 4th October No. 1, and 4th October No. 2, were in harmony with the pledge of the High Commissioner as approved by the Secretary of State, or went beyond it.
3. To what extent Her Majesty's Government was committed to grant or secure compensation to individuals in consequence of damage occasioned by the hostilities :
(a) either generally as a belligerent, or
(6) by reason of the assurances given in the telegrams above referred to.
4. Generally.
That Mr. Graham was to add that you regarded the question as one of the utmost importance, as, should the Boer forces succeed in wrecking the mines at Kimberley, or destroy the mines of the Rand, claims for compensation of enormous amount would almost certainly be presented by the Companies whose property had been thus injured.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report
1. That we think that Her Majesty's Government should not go further in the way of promises of compensation.
2. The assurances of the Governor of Natal are in harmony with the pledge of the High Commissioner as approved by the Secretary of State, and do not go beyond it.
3. By these various pledges Her Majesty's Government is committed to exact redress to individuals in Natal for damage occasioned by the hostilities. There is no such obligation on a belligerent; it depends on the assurances given in this case.
A promise to exact redress to Natal means, in the connection in which these words were used, a promise to exact redress to the individual inhabitants who have been damnified.
4. No question of this kind can arise with regard to the mines at Kimberley or in the Rand, as no pledge has been given with regard to them.
The pledge that has been given is not that Her Majesty's Government will make compensation, but that Her Majesty's Government will exact it from the Boers.
The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.,
&C.,
&c.
We have, &c.,
African No. 238.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
30482.
MY LORD,
No. 236.
(GENERAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
-
Royal Courts of Justice,
October 27, 1899. WE were honoured with Your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bertie's letter of the 6th October, stating that he was directed to transmit to us the papers relating to the question of the Import duties to be paid in Japan on goods the produce or manufacture of British Colonies or Possessions which were not parties to the Treaty between Great Britain and Japan of the 16th July, 1894.
That a copy of the Treaty, followed by a Protocol signed on the same day, was enclosed with Mr. Bertie's letter (Paper A).
That in our Report of the 23rd of January last we stated our opinion, that the fair meaning of the Treaty was that all persons who by British law were recognised as possessing the rights of British citizenship all over the world were entitled to the benefits of its stipulations, that Article XIX. did not discriminate between different classes of British subjects, and that its effect was merely to provide that the privileges and obligations of the Treaty should not enure for the benefit of non-adhering Colonies or Dependencies,
That, for instance, goods the produce or manufacture of a non-adhering Colony or Dependency would not be entitled to the tariff prescribed by the Treaty.
That our opinion was communicated to Her Majesty's Minister at Tokio for his guidance, and that he took an opportunity of informing the Japanese Government of the views of Her Majesty's Government on the matter.
That in two previous despatches from Sir E. Satow (No. 6, of January 9th, and No. 13, of January 13th, Paper II.) the question was, however, raised whether British Colonies and Possessions not parties to the Treaty, although they were excluded from participation in the advantages conferred by it, were not entitled to the benefits of the tariff annexed to the Protocol of the same date.
That the same question was raised in a letter from the Colonial Office of September 8th, which was also enclosed, together with minutes written on it in the Foreign Office. That the enclosure in that letter argued that no reference being made in the Protocol to Article XIX. of the Treaty, and the Protocol being made to regulate certain matters "apart from the Treaty," British Colonies which had not adhered to the Treaty were nevertheless entitled to the benefits of the tariff annexed to the Protocol, although not to the benefit of the most-favoured nation and other stipulations contained in the Treaty.
Mr. Bertie requested that we would favour Your Lordship with our opinion on this point, and with any general observations which we might have to make on the matters dealt with in the papers transmitted to us.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and in obedience to Your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report―
That the construction contended on behalf of Canada is by no means an impossible one, and if Her Majesty's Government would be justified in contending that the arrange- ment embodied in the Protocol constituted a bargain between Great Britain and Japan, independently of the Treaty, we think that contention might be supported.
It is, however, quite clear that the Treaty and the Protocol were negociated together as part of one arrangement, and under these circumstances we are of opinion that the Protocol, with its schedule, must be read as applying, after the coming into force of the Treaty of 1894, only to such of the Colonies and Possessions enumerated in Article XIX, as accede to the Treaty.
Moreover the Treaty and Protocol were signed on the same day, the ratification of the Treaty was to constitute approval of the Protocol, and the reference to Articles V. and XV. of the Treaty seems to indicate that the scope of the two was to be co-extensive. We attach no importance to the omission of any reference to Article XIX.; the only
4203-25-11.99
Wi 439 D&S
ة