CO885-(10-11) — Page 396

ཉ

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.

Reference :-

885

PÚBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

No. 323A.

(SIERRA LEONE.)

QUEEN'S ADVOCATE to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Doctors' Commons, March 31, 1865.

MY LORD,

I AM honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 22nd instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to me the accompanying Despatches which have been received from Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon, enclosing his correspondence with the Count d'Avila, who has been appointed Portuguese Plenipotentiary, to treat with him on the question of the right of sovereignty over the Island of Bulama, now in dispute between this country and Portugal. The correspondence which has taken place thereupon between the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office, together with a copy of the last Despatch to Sir A. Magenis, were also enclosed; and Mr. Hammond was pleased to request that I would take these papers into consideration, and report to your Lordship my opinion as to the instructions which should be addressed to Her Majesty's Minister thereon, especially on the question whether the British title, having been derived by purchase would, or would not, lapse from non-occupation as a title from discovery would: and further respecting the period of non-occupation after which a right by discovery or previous occupation lapses. The previous correspondence which has taken place on this subject was also enclosed for convenience of reference.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands I have taken these papers into con- sideration, and have the honour to

Report

That I am of opinion that instructions should be sent to Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon firmly to maintain the right of Her Majesty to the Island of Bulama. It seems to me unnecessary to state in detail the historical facts carefully collected and ably narrated in the Memorandum from the Colonial Office. The conclusion to which a perusal of all the documents has led me is as follows:-

J

I think that there is sufficient evidence that a title, such as, in the circumstances, would be recognised by international law, was acquired to that territory in the year 1792. The evidence is affirmative of the British right, and negative of the right of any other State. In that year possession was obtained by purchase from the owners or governors of the territory; the title so acquired was further strengthened by immediate I know no authority for saying that occupation, which was continued for 18 months. territory so acquired is lost by the single fact that, after the occupation, consequent on the purchase, bas lasted between one and two years, a considerable interval bas occurred during which no subject of the State which has acquired it has occupied the territory.

On the assumption which the history of the case appears fully to warrant-that the original sale of the Bijouga Chiefs to Captain Beaver and the English Company in 1792 was, in the circumstances, a valid sale and cession of territory duly purchased and duly granted, Bulama accrued at that time to the British Crown (which must be treated as the principal for whom Captain Beaver acted as agent), in the same way as any other territory acquired by purchase or cession. The power of a State so to acquire property is incontrovertible. All international jurists admit the proposition that the dominium over territory may be transferred from one State to another. Vattel may serve as a sample: "Quand une nation," he says, “a cédé quelque partie de ses "biens à une autre, la cession doit être tenue pour valide et irrévocable, comme elle "l'est en effet, en vertu de la notion de propriété." (Vattel lib. i, folio 262) Cessions of territory, though generally consequent on war, are not without precedents in time of peace. In 1777, I think, Portugal ceded to Spain the Islands of Annobon and Fernando del Po, in order to facilitate the slave trade of Spain with the Coast of Africa. In 1850, I believe, Denmark ceded to Great Britain, in consideration of the sum of 10,000, all the possessions of the Danish Crown on the Gold Coast or Coast of Guinea. I am of opinion that territory acquired by sale or by cession becomes the property of the State which acquires it, of which it cannot be divested, as it may be in certain

-

16278,-901. 25.-9/66,