CO885-(10-11) — Page 672

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

سلسلة

PILTIC.O. 885

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

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

2

the British Government would have left the mouth of the river and the interior country free for the citizens of the Republic to settle in, the non-abandonment of that river by the British is an insuperable obstacle to the Republic acquiring rightful possession either of the mouth of the river or of the interior country through which it flows.

I think that Her Majesty's Government may properly notify to the Republic that if the proceedings of the Volksraad have been correctly reported in the Staats-Courant of the Transvaal they are founded on a misapprehension as to the British Government having declared the mouth of the River Umzuti in Delagos Bay to be free, and that Her Majesty's Government is also at liberty to declare that it will not recognise any part of the territory watered by that river to be a possession of the Republic. The question of slavery as regards the Convention is rather more difficult, as the Republic would probably deny the fact that slavery is either permitted or practised by the emigrant farmers in violation of the Convention.

At the same time if your Lordship is satisfied that the Republic does, in fact, permit its citizens to capture or to purchase native Africans, and to hold them in bondage in the manner reported to the Colonial authorities, there can be no doubt that a funda- mental article of the Convention has been violated by the Republic,

Under these circumstances I am of opinion that Great Britain will be at liberty to hold herself discharged from all further observance of her engagements towards the Republic under the Convention, as each article of the Convention has the force of a condition, and the Republic will have failed to fulfil a most important condition on its part, the non-observance of which strikes at the root of the compact between the two Governments.

The Lord Stanley, M.P.

&c.

&c.

I have, &c. (Signed) TRAVERS TWISS.

12206.

No. 536.

(JAMAICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Temple, November 4, 1868. MY LORD Duke,

We are honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Mr. Elliot's letter of the 14th of September last, stating that he was directed by your Grace to transmit to us the enclosed copy of a report* furnished by the Attorney General and the late Solicitor General on the several questions of the validity of certain Acts of the Jamaica Legislature imposing import duties, and, if invalid, of the proper mode of curing their invalidity.

Mr. Elliot was also directed to transmit to us the enclosed copy of a Despatch from No. 186.

the Governor of Jamaica, and to request that we would favour your Grace with our 6 Aug. 1868, opinion whether there is anything in it to modify the views expressed in the above- mentioned report.

Copies were annexed of the documents referred to in that report.

In obedience to your Grace's commanda, we have taken this matter into our con- sideration, and have the honour to

Report

That we are unable to concur in the views expressed by the Governor of Jamaica in favour of the validity of the acts of the local legislature.

The terms of the 3rd section of the Imperial Acts 17 & 18 Vict. c. 54., especially when read in connexion with the recital in the preamble of the Colonial Act, are most precise, and provide that no Acts passed by the Legislature of Jamaica repealing or reducing the duties enumerated in Schedule C. to the Colonial Act (17 Vict. c. 29.) shall be valid unless the same contain a suspending clause as therein mentioned. Each of the Colonial Acts 28 Vict. c, 10. and 29 Vict. c. 21., as well as the Law 11 of 1867 purports to repeal or reduce some of the duties imposed by the Act 17 Vict. c. 29., and as neither of them contains the suspending clause, they were, and are, in our opinion, respectively invalid.

It is suggested by the Governor that "other full and complete provision for the due "payment and application of the several sums of 30,000l. and 25,0001." has been made by the Legislature of Jamaica under the 42nd section of the Act 17 Vict. c. 29., and that under these circumstances the Imperial statute does not apply. In this reasoning and in the views expressed by the Governor we cannot concur, and we think that the Colonial Acts by which it is said that such full and complete provision has We see no reason, therefore, been made are, for the reasons above-mentioned, invalid.

to modify the views expressed in the Report furnished to your Grace by the Attorney General and the late Solicitor General under date the 8th July last.

We may observe that, with reference to that part of the Governor's letter in which he states that it will be well if resort to legislation to remedy defects in former acts can be avoided, it appears to us that as it is not likely that any person in the Colony will raise the question whether the Acts without a suspending clause were or were not authorised, such legislation as suggested in the Law Officer's Report of the 8th of July may safely be postponed, but any future local Act imposing duties other than those in Schedule C should contain the suspending clause, the existing Acts, unless they are only temporary and are about to expire shortly, being repealed by such new Act.

We have, &c. (Signed) JOHN B. KARSLAKE.

RICHARD BAGGALLAY.

His Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos,

&c.

&c.

&c.

• No. 518.

0 16978.--362.

25.-7/86.