CO885-(13-15) — Page 642

།།།། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

السلبيا

C.O.

Reference :---

885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

That Sir E. Wingfield was to request us to take these matters into our considera- tion, and to advise you:—

1. Whether Her Majesty's Government were under any legal liability to pay compensation to (a) British subjects, (b) foreigners, in respect of damage to person or property caused by the insurgents during the rebellion in Sierra Leone, and if so, upon what grounds.

*

2. Whether any compensation was payable (a) to British subjects, and (b) to foreigners, in respect of damage done to person or property by the action of Her Majesty's Naval or Military officers engaged in the suppression of the insurrection, and if so, upon what grounds.

3. Whether the destruction of property by Her Majesty's officers under such circumstances, without the consent of the persons whose property was destroyed, afforded any, and what, ground for compensation; and,

4. Generally.

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

Report-

1. That Her Majesty's Government are not under any legal liability to pay com- pensation either to British subjects or to foreigners in respect of damage caused during the rebellion in Sierra Leone.

No Government guarantees either its own subjects or the subjects of Foreign States against the possibility of insurrection, and all residents in a State must take the chance of damage arising from such causes. In the case of foreigners the claim might be put forward by their Government, if it could be clearly established that the damage was the result of the neglect of some obvious and necessary precaution on the part of the Government of the State in which the insurrection took place, or that the insurrection was caused by misconduct or neglect on the part of the Government itself or its officials. Nothing of this kind has been suggested here.

2 and 3. There is, in our opinion, no right to compensation on the part either of British subjects or of foreigners in respect of damage done by the acts of Her Majesty's officers in suppressing the insurrection, so long as they acted reasonably and properly for the purpose of military operations.

If property be used by the officers of the State for the purpose of military opera- tions, a claim for compensation for such use and for any damages resulting therefrom may be sustainable, but the limits within which such a claim may arise are ill-defined, and there is no clear authority on the subject. The question is not raised by the cir- cumstances of the present case.

Of course, if wanton or unnecessary damage had been done by the officers of the Government a claim for compensation would arise, which might, in some cases, be enforced by action against the persons actively concerned in such wrongful act, and which might also afford just ground for a claim for compensation by the Govern- ment so far, at least, as foreigners are concerned. can be suggested here. The rebels were advancing upon the factories which were But nothing of this kind apparently destroyed by Captain Henderson, and we infer that he thought it expedient to destroy them to prevent their occupation by the enemy. If the enemy had not occupied them as military posts they would probably have destroyed them themselves, as in the case of other factories; so that it is difficult to see that any damage can be said to have resulted from Captain Henderson's action.

We presume there is no ground for attacking the action of other officers of Her Majesty's Government as being unreasonable or more than was called for by the military necessities of the case. We are, therefore, unable to see that there is in either of these cases any right to compensation.

4. We think that Her Majesty's Government should not admit

any such claim as

a matter of right, but while all legal liability is repudiated it may be matter for con- sideration whether, on grounds of policy, some allowance should be made to those whose property has been destroyed by British officers, as a matter of grace and favour. It is hardly for us to advise on this point, and, indeed, the circumstances are not before us in sufficient detail to enable us to express any opinion upon it. Of course, it may be

3

very difficult to recognise any particular case without leading to the putting forward' of a large number of claims against the Government in other cases.

If it should be determined to award any compensation as a matter of favour, no distinction ought to be drawn between the property of British subjects and that of foreigners destroyed under similar circumstances.

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

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

We have, &c.,

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

}

TE