CO885-(13-15) — Page 633

2

gun.

2. We think that the Concession confers a monopoly of the right to manufacture powder and other explosives, and of the right to import, export, sell, or trade in all powder and other explosives. But this right is, we think, subject to a power of regulation by the Ruling Powers of Swaziland in the interests of the State.

3. We think timt the Proclamation of the Government of the South African Republic does not constitute a breach of Article VII., or of any other Article, of the Convention of 10th December, 1894, in so far as it requires a permit from the State Secretary for the import of gunpowder, dynamite, or other explosives. Article VII, confirms Concessions to British subjects, but provides that they shall obey the Govern- ment and conform to the laws established for Swaziland. law should be passed requiring a permit for the introduction, of such articles as gun- It is only reasonable that a powder and lynamite, and we do not think the Proclamation constitutes a breach of the Convention.

The Government of the South African Republic must not, however, use the power under this Proclamation otherwise than honestly for the purposes of public safety. If it were used to prevent the import by the Concessionaires of gunpowder and dynamite while these articles were being imported into Swaziland from other quarters, this would, of course, constitute a breach of the Convention. The Concessionaires are entitled to a monopoly of the import of such articles into Swaziland, but are not entitled to complain of the prohibition of such imports in the interest of public safety.

We therefore think that no remonstrance should be presented on this head unless it is found that the power conferred by the Proclamation is being abused.

We think that the imposition of the duty of 94. per pound under Clause 2 of the Proclamation is a breach of Article VII, of the Convention. clearly that the importation by the Concessionaries is to be free of duty, and, indeed, the The Concession shows quite Government of the South African Republic admit this, but seek to confine its operation in a way which we think untenable.

gun-

As the Concession, in our judgment, applies to the import into Swaziland of powder and other explosives, wherever manufactured, it follows that the Government of the South African Republic are not justified in imposing any duty. rid of the exemption from duty they must do so by expropriation with proper compen- If they desire to get sation under Article X. of the Convention.

4. We think that the circumstances are such as to entitle Her Majesty's Government to make diplomatic representations, on behalf of the Concessionaires, with reference to the imposition of duty and with reference to any abuse in practice, if it should occur, of the power of requiring permits for importation. The power of making such represent- ations is expressly reserved by Article XIV. of the Convention.

It is not easy to see how, in face of the Proclamation, which would probably be regarded by the Courts of Swaziland as having the force of law, the Concessionaires could obtain in these Courts any redress on the ground that the rights they have under the Convention in respect of the Concession have been infringed.

5. We have nothing to add.

The Right Hon. J. Chamberlain, M.I'..

dc..

&c..

&c.

We have, &c.,

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

W

16698.

SIR,

No. 217.

(MAURITIUS.)

LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, June 27, 1899.

WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Bertrani Cox's letter of the 15th instant stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us a copy of a

ril 2. despatch (with enclosures) which had been received from the Governor of Mauritius relating to the subject of the mutual recognition of British and Colonial Probates.

That it would be observed that the Procureur-General of Mauritius appeared to doubt, for the reasons stated in his Minute, whether the Colonial Probates Act, 1892 55 Vic,, cap. 6) could be made applicable to Mauritius without some amendment. Mr. Pigott cited five different methods of obtaining Probate in Mauritius, only two of That which implied an actual Order of the Court, while the remaining three merely required the observation of certain formalities of registration, &c., of notarial instruments without the intervention of the Court; and he raised the question whether. in the latter cases, there was a grant of probate by a Court of Probate sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 2 (1) of the Imperial Statute.

That the Draft Ordinance which formed one of the enclosures to the despatch had been framed by the Procureur-General with the intention of meeting all the cases which could possibly arise, whether under French or Roman-Dutch law, as would be seen from the definitions of “ Probate," " Letters of Administration," and "Grant," which had been introduced in clause 1. That before it was passed, however, it was desirable, in your opinion, that the doubt expressed as the applicability of the Imperial Statute to Mauritius should be set at rest.

papers into

That Mr. Bertram Cox was therefore to request that we would take the our consideration, and to favour you with our opinion upon the following points :—

1. Did the methods of obtaining the effect of probate in Mauritius enumerated in the Procureur-General's Minute, or any-and, if so, which of them-comply with the provisions of section 2 (1) of 55 Vict., cap. 6.

2. Was the Draft Ordinance sufficient for its purpose, or did it require any, and, if so, what amendment, and

3. Generally.

In obedience to your commands we have taken the papers into our consideration, and have the honour to

Report-

THAT (1) We think that none of the methods enumerated in the Procureur-General's Minute comply with the provisions of the Statute, except (3) and (4), and even as to these we should require further information before we could say positively that they do Comply with the Statute,

(2) The Draft Ordinance seems to us sufficient for its purpose. (3) We have nothing to add.

The Right Honourable J. Chamberlain, M.P.,

We have, &c.,

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

ke..

..

325-25-6999 Wt 439 D & S

t

&c.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

། ། ། ། ་། །

Reference :-

C.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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