CO885-(13-15) — Page 178

PUBLIC

RECORD OFFICE

C.O.

Reference :-

•885

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

We have scarcely sufficient information to say positively that they were unlawful in Jamaica prior to 1879, but as at present advised we think that they were. Certainly the language of the Divorce Law, 1879, supports that view, as it recognises the existence in Jamaica of prohibited degrees which, if they existed, applied to Jews as well as to Christians.

Since 1879 such marriages have been clearly invalid in Jamaica, and, in our opinion, they should remain so.

The Right Hon.

Lord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.,

&c.

&c. &c.

We have, &c., (Signed)

•

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.

J. PARKER DEANE.

•

15550/98.

MY LORD,

No. 193A.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir T. V. Lister's

October 9, 1890. letter of the 10th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the papers noted on the accompanying list, relating to the refusal of the Italian Government to permit a British subject to act as an Emigration Agent in Italy.

That the principal points in the case were suummarized in the inclosed Memo- randum.

That Sir T. V. Lister was to request us to consider the papers, and to favour your Lordship with our opinion on the following questions, which would be found stated in the above-mentioned memorandum, with which they arose :—

an indication of the particular papers on

1. Whether, on the assumption that the business of an Emigration Agent was **Commerce within the meaning of the Commercial Treaty between Great Britain and Italy, the Italian Law which limited to Italian subjects the choice of the agent who might perform particular portions of a ship-owner's business was or was not in harmony with the said Treaty ?

2. Whether the business of an Emigration Agent, as defined by Italian Law, was or was not "commerce " within the meaning of the Treaty; and, if so, whether the provision of that law prohibiting emigration agency to foreigners, and therefore to British subjects, was not contrary to the provision of the Treaty which insured to British subjects the same rights in Italy in matters of commerce as were or might be enjoyed by Italian subjects ?

3. Whether the Italian Government was right in contending that a Law regulating the choice of Emigration Agents was regulating of the conditions under which persons might emigrate, and that such a Law not a limitation of free commerce, but a was thus, by its very nature, necessarily exempt from any of the obligations imposed by a Commercial Treaty?

4. Finally, Sir T. V. Lister was to request us to favour your Lordship with our opinion, or observations, on any other questions raised by the papers which might appear to us to be of importance in dealing with the case to which they referred.

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

Report.

1. That in our opinion, if the business of an Emigration Agent were

commerce

within the Treaty of 1883, the Italian Law would not be in harmony with the said Treaty,

17

and 3. But we are of opinion that the business of an Emigration Agent, as defined by Italian Law, cannot fairly be held to be "commerce of the Treaty, and that the Italian Law on emigration is not a contravention of the within the meaning Treaty.

We have, &c.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.

Is7-25-7-08 Wt 2161* D&S 5