CO885-(13-15) — Page 485

D

ད་

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

C.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

2

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and have the honour to

Report-

1. That the question of the construction of Article V. of the Press Law of 1896 is one very proper to be raised in the courts of the Transvaal as suggested in the joint opinion sent by Messrs. Guedalla and Cross, and is a very arguable one.

If the Courts of the Transvaal should hold that it bears the construction put upon it by the Transvaal Government, we do not think that Her Majesty's Government could properly contend that this construction was one which the words would not bear, and make such a decision the subject of diplomatic remonstrance.

On this point we refer to our previous Report.

We must, however, point out that the nower of prohibition under Article V. must be confined to cases where there is reasonable ground for believing that the publication will be dangerous to public pence, or contrary to good morals. In such a case we think it might very reasonably be held that there might be prohibition without waiting till the mischief had been done. But it is almost impossible to suppose that the permanent suppression of a newspaper could be justified on this ground. A temporary prohibition is another matter, as it might appear that the circumstances were such that, having regard to the antecedents of the newspaper, it was reasonably certain that the issues in the near future would be dangerous.

As we before stated, if the naked question of construction stood alone we should not advise Her Majesty's Government to interfere.

2. Such a law would not be an infringement of the Convention: the law being the same for foreigners and citizens.

3. Her Majesty's Government is entitled to call on the President to explain the reasons for such a suppression of a newspaper, the property of a British subject. A very strong case as regards the past issues of the newspaper would be required to justify the inference with reasonable certainty that further issues must be dangerous. If the accounts supplied to the Colonial Office of the character of the "Critiq be relied on, there has been a gross abuse of the powers of the Act, which would justify Her Majesty's Government in insisting upon compensation.

"

can

4. The grounds referred to in this question are rather for the Courts of the Transvaal to decide upon. If they exist (and we observe that Mr. Asquith's view appears to have been modified in consultation) they are, in our opinion, grounds on which Her Majesty's Government is entitled to rely, remonstrating with the Government of the Transvaal, and demanding redress. British subjects are entitled to be treated in the Transvaal according to law, and if the Act in question has not been properly passed, or is void as unconstitutional, the suspension of the "Critic" is wholly illegal.

We think that redress should be demanded for Mr. Hess. The main ground of remonstrance should, we think, be that the character of the paper shows that the suspension was unjustifiable. Indeed, the further papers now before us lead to the suspicion that the allegation of danger to the public peace was a more pretence, and, even if there had been any matter of offence in the past numbers, it is difficult to see how the conclusion was reached that the "Critic" must be dangerous for so long a period as six months.

We think that the question as to the construction of Article V., and the validity of the law, may be also touched on, but the greatest stress should be laid on the fact that, in any view, danger cannot have been reasonably apprehended from the continued publication of the "Critic".

The Right Hon, J. Chamberlain, P.C.

We have, &c.

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

3114.

SIR.

No. 129.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, February 9, 1897. We were honoured with your commands signified to us in Mr. Bramston's letter of the 13th ultimo stating that he was directed to request that we would favour you with our opinion on certain questions connected with the removal to within the South African Republic of the Registry of Deeds relating to Swaziland, which formed the principal subject of the correspondence which accompanied his letter.

**

That Mr. Bramston was to explain that by a Convention (copy of which was enclosed) between Great Britain and the South African Republic, commonly called the Convention of 1891, which took effect in 1895, the Government of the South African Republic obtained the right to administer the Government in Swaziland, subject to certain restrictions and conditions, which, so far as they affected the present questions, were contained in Articles II. IV. and IX. of the Convention, and that the South African Republic actually did so administer the Government of Swaziland through an officer (Mr. J. C. Krogh) referred to in the correspondence as "the Special Commissioner."

That copies of two proclamations of the Government of the South African Republic, dated 19th February and 15th March 1895 respectively, giving effect to the Convention and applying to Swaziland the laws of the South African Republic were also enclosed.

That, in further explanation of the questions now raised, Mr. Bramston was to explain that Mr. Theophilus Shepstone (referred to in the correspondence as bad been" Resident Adviser"

Shepstone "), of the Swazi nation, and that until the Convention of 1891 took effect had been recognised as such by Her Majesty's Government, and that in that capacity he had received the rents, and kept the records, of numerous ** concessions granted by a former Swazi king. That after the conclusion of the Convention of 1894 all the books and papers in Mr. Shepstone's custody had been removed to Pretoria for the purposes of audit, and of a settlement of account between Mr. Shepstone and the Swazi nation which were then in dispute. That although the matters of account between Mr. Shepstone and the Swazi nation hɩd boen settled, the books and papers had not been returned to Swaziland, and that the Government of the South African Republic had established at Pretoria the Registry Office for Swaziland Deeds, &c., and had announced that all such deeds must be drawn in the Dutch language.

That so far as the matter affected the Swazi nation, it did not appear likely that further difficulties would arise, for the Government of the South African Republic were the holders of a concession whereby they had the right to collect what was called " King's private revenue," including the rents of concessions, in consideration of certain the payments to the King, and that it would be seen from Lord Rosmead's Despatch of the 10th October that he did not propose to take any action in the matter in the absence of any complaint on the part of the Swazis.

But that, as regarded white persons, it was suggested that the course taken by the Government of the South African Republic was calculated to give rise to grave inconveniences and legal difficulties, and was, moreover, a breach of one or more Articles of the Convention of 1894. That in this connexion, Mr. Bramston was to call our attention especially to enclosures 5 and 6 of Sir H. Robinson's Despatch of 24th September 1895, enclosures 1, 2, 3, and 5 of Sir H. Robinson's Despatch of 1st October 1895, enclosure 1 of Sir H. Robinson's Despatch of 5th October 1895, Mr. Chamberlain's Despatch of 6th December 1895, enclosure 7 of Sir H. Robinson's Despatch of 23rd December 1895, enclosure 1 of Sir H. Robinson's Despatch of 11th May 1896, Mr. Chamberlain's Despatch of 21st August 1896, and Lord Rosmead's Despatches of 7th September and 10th December 1896, as showing (1) the difficulties which had been suggested, (2) the opinion of Mr. Searle, the High Commissioner's legal adviser, (3) the remonstrances made by the High Commissioner to the Government of the South African Republic, and (4) the reply of the Government of the South African Republic. Mr. Bramston further stated that you would be glad to have our views generally on the questions raised, and especially as to whether the measures taken by the Government of the South African Republic involved a breach of Articles IV. and IX. of the

95386.-8. 25.-2/97.