port dues, though the effect of such exemption or abatement may, in a sense, be the same as that of a subsidy, is in essence widely different.
pecuniary
As the point raised by the Petition of the States of Guernsey involves a question of principle of great importance, I am to request that you will be good enough to take these papers into your consideration, and that you will-favour Lord Lansdowne with your opinion as to whether the prayer of the l'etition can properly be granted, regard being had to Treaty obligations and to the established practice of His Majesty's Government in such matters.
·
His Lordship will also be glad to receive any observations of a which you may have to offer on the subject.
I have, &c..
9231.
general nature
SIR,
MARTIN GOSSELIN.
No. 78.
(SOFTH AFRICA.)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
March 13, 1901.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
6
TTILLC.O. 885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
List of Papers.
Privy Council Office
To ditto
Privy Council Office
January 28, 1901. February 4, 1901. February 11, 1901.
11
Guernsey Orders in Council-
Parliamentary Paper, No. 13, Commercial (1887); and
No. 9, Commercial (1888).
Volume I, Livraison 8.
9.
10.
"
Report-
I am of opinion that the prayer of the Petition might be granted without infringing Treaty obligations.
The remission is proposed, not in favour of British vessels, but in favour of the vessels of two particular Companies which render special services.
It may, however, deserve consideration whether it would not be better, as a matter of policy and to avoid possible controversy, that the proposed indulgence should, if it can be so arranged without inconvenience, take the form of an annual subsidy of an amount which would be equivalent, or nearly so, to the proposed remission.
i:
Royal Courts of Justice,
March 12, 1901.
R. B. FINLAY.
I WAS honoured with your commands signified to me in Mr. Bertram Cox's letter C. 9343. of the 4th instant stating that he was directed by you to enclose a copy of the corres- H.C. No. pondence noted in the margin regarding the indemnity payable by the British South 470, 12 Africa Company on account of the raid of Dr. Jameson into the Transvaal.
July, 1899.
That it would be seen from the Colonial Office letter No. 3 in C. 9343 that when the Question raid occurred Her Majesty's Government had given a pledge that the British South Africa by Mr. Company "should make amends for this outrage," and that negotiations were conducted McNeil
and reply, with the Government of the South African Republic with the object of fixing the amount
19 Oct., to be paid by the Company. That those negotiations, largely owing to the excessive 1899. amount claimed by the Government of the South African Republic, were unfinished when Question war broke out, but that the British South Africa Company had agreed to the question of by Sir B. the amount of the indemnity being referred to arbitration "on the understanding that Gurdon the terms of the reference shall be limited to an adjudication upon the material dainages 14 June, claimed, and an audit of the expenses incurred which can be properly attributed to 1900. Dr. Jameson's incursion as distinct from the disturbances in Johannesburg."
That on the 15th June, 1900, you, in reply to a question by Sir B. Gurdon whether the indemnity had become the property of this country by right of conquest, and whether a reasonable sum would be claimed from the Company and applied to the expenses of the war, replied that "the claim to the indemnity would remain that of the Transvaal Government. It is premature to say now what action would be taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter hereafter."
That on the 1st September, 1900, the South African Republic was annexed to His Majesty's dominions.
That Mr. Bertram Cox was to enquire whether in my opinion the claim of the South African Republic against the British South Africa Company, the validity of which was accepted in principle by His Majesty's Government to the extent of the material damage and expense caused by the raid, had now passed either to His Majesty's Government, or to the Colonial Government of the Transvaal, or whether the declaration of war by the late South African Republic, the subsequent defeat of that Republic, and the annexation of its territory had relieved His Majesty's Government from all obligations in respect of such indemnity, and also whether those changes had in any way altered the liability of the British South Africa Company to pay compensation, and if not, to whom such compensation as settled by arbitration, or otherwise, was now to be paid.
I have taken the matter into my consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to
Report―
That I am of opinion that the outbreak of war and the annexation of the Transvaal have relieved His Majesty's Government from all obligations in respect of the indemnity claimed on account of the raid. That indemnity was claimed by the Government of the South African Republic from the Government of this country, and the Chartered Company in deference to our Government, expressed their willingness to pay a sum which would fairly represent any material damage done by the raid. It appears to me that by the incorporation of the South African Republic with the British dominions all obligations of His Majesty's Government in this matter have ceased.
The question remains as to the liability of the Chartered Company. The Chartered Company was never under any legal liability to the Government of the South African Republic, as no action could have been maintained against the Company by the South African Republic, in respect of the invasion of their territory. The Company had been guilty of a wrongful act, for which the South African Republic were entitled by diplomatic means to exact reparation, but it seems to me impossible to say that the right to exact such reparation has passed to His Majesty's Government.
The conqueror may
8468-30-3:1901 Wt 324 D & S
and reply,