CO885-(13-15) — Page 106

4385.

། । ༄། ༅། ་། །།

C.O.

885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE [ BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

The Oriental Empire might be more advisedly left to itself. Thus I should say that-

(a.) Action by Imperial legislation such as proposed would, as to the whole Empire, be rather a strained use of the Imperial position on such a matter as mere Revenue protection, and might be resented if attempted to be imposed and put in effect.

(b.) That while the Imperial laws would be in no way injured by such a provision being added to them and made applicable to the Empire, and while with proper requirements as to previous notice and information, and as to payment of damages, it might probably be worked without objection, it is not needed for the Revenue of the United Kingdom.

Coming down, however, to the West India Islands, and subject to what I have said above generally, if it were thought expedient to have some provision for inter-action in the way suggested between these islands, it would certainly not be either illegal or unconstitutional, especially with regard to dependencies with legislative bodies of the character only of those in the West Indies, for an Imperial enactment to provide somewhat to the following effect:--

"With regard to the Colonies of Jamaica, Trinidad, Bahamas, Barbados, and the Federal Colonies of the Leeward and the Windward Islands, it shall be lawful for officers of Customs in any one of the said Colonies, or in any island forming part thereof, to seize in the territorial waters of such Colony or island, any vessels which by reason of a breach of the Customs or Revenue laws of any other of the said Colonies or islands have become liable either to seizure or forfeiture."

Such a provision as this might indeed even be passed amongst other clauses amending the Imperial Customs Act, and so avoid a separate Bill especially for the purpose.

There would have to be some provision for specifying the nature of the request or notice upon which the officers in one Colony are to act in relation to an offence in another, and perhaps some statement that the seizure would be, so far as damages might be involved, considered to be the seizure of the Colony making the request; but these are matters of detail scarcely within the scope of the single question put by the Colonial Office.

CHARLES J. FOLLETT.

23rd February 1889.

1

(Signed)

No. 141.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice,

MY LORD,

WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Bramston's

February 28, 1889. letter of the 14th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to acquaint us that information had been received from South Africa to the effect that the South African Republic, without reference to Her Majesty's Government, had bought for the sum of 15,000l. a railway concession which had been granted by the Swazi King to one Keyser, that the same Government had bought for 8,000l. a postal concession including the right to sell postage stamps which had been granted to one Harrington, and that the purchase of a banking concession was then being negotiated.

That Swaziland was a native territory to the eastward of the South African Republic, and that it appeared to your Lordship that commercial concessions of the above nature, whether granted by the Swazi King or Chief direct to the Government of the South African Republic, or purchased from that Government from third parties, did constitute engagements between the South African Republic and the Swazis, but that your Lordship doubted whether they were engagements of the nature contemplated by the 4th Article of the Convention of London of 1884, of which a copy was enclosed. That the terms of the Article and the fact that engagements were there coupled with treaties rather pointed to engagements, not commercial but of a political or semi-political character, to which the approval of the Quee would be required.

That Mr. Bramston was to invite our attention also to the 12th Article of the Convention and to inquire whether in our opinion the South African Republic by acquiring, without the approval of Her Majesty, concessions of the nature described, granted by a native tribe to the eastward of the Republic to individuals, and so taking the place of persons who had entered into engagements with such native tribe, had committed an infraction or evasion of the Convention of London.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to

Report

That, in our opinion, the South African Republic has not by acquiring the commercial concessions mentioned, committed an infraction of the Convention of London.

It is possible that a contract not coming within the terms of the Convention might constitute an evasion of that instrument, and involve the same results as a direct diplomatic engagement, but to determine this point it would be necessary to examine the terms of the particular concession and the circumstances in which it was granted.

The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.

EDWARD CLARKE.

57014.-9. 25.-3/89.