CO885-(15-16) — Page 13

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

गणग

חדו!

Reference :-

FMIC.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

Mr. F. H. Sydney, 25th Jan. 1900.

Gov. Natal,

18th Jan.

(case of M.

Rous). Gov. Natal, 19th Jan.

That Mr. Cox was to point out that the letter of the Henderson Corporation, much of whose property was situated in Swaziland, appeared to assume that the High Com- missioner's notice of 26th January would apply to that country. That Mr. Cox was to observe that Swaziland, though administered by the Government of the South African Republic under the Swaziland Convention of 1894, had never been incorporated in that Republic, and that, although the claims of British property-holders in Swaziland to protection were similar to those in the Transvaal, the notice did not appear to cover Swaziland. That he was to add that Law No. 11 ut 1896, referred to by Mr. Whitty, was the law providing for the collection of direct taxes, and gave the Government in case of non-payment a lien first on the crops and then on the land. ̧

That Mr. Cox was also to enclose a despatch from the Governor of Natal forwarding a letter from Mr. W. A. Knight, who, having become a burgher of the South African Republic, inquired whether he could be "forced to take up arms against his country (i.., this country), at the peril of losing his property." That other papers relating to similar

cases were also enclosed.

That Mr. Cox was to observe that burghers of British origin, such as Mr. Knight, were undoubtedly bound by the Commando Law to take up arms against the Queen, but that to compel them to do so was a harsh measure, which, as Mr. Knight observed, had not been pursued with regard to the Dutch burgher forces at the Cape. That the High Com- missioner's notice appeared to cover the case of the confiscation of the land of a burgher such as Mr. Knight, who refused to fight, and that it appeared, on general principles, to be desirable to detach waverers from the armies of the Republics in that way.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was to request us to take the papers into our consideration,

(case of Mr. and inform you Barrett).

(1.) Whether we considered that a supplementary notice to that of 26th January, should be issued, und, if so, whether it should refer to the payment of ordinary rents and licenses, the payment of War Tax "and confiscation of land for failure to pay War Tax," and the confiscation of land of burghers who refused to fight against the Queen, or any of such matters; or whether we consider that the existing notice was sufficient, and whether it covered all or any of those cases, and, if so, in what terms the enclosed enquiries should be answered ?

(2.) That Mr. Cox was to request that if we considered a further notice was necessary, we would dratt the notice required. That it was desired that such a notice might either explicitly or implicitly make clear that no liability for giving compensation was thereby admitted by Her Majesty's Governinent.

¿

(3) That finally, Mr. Bertram Cox was to enquire whether the confiscation of the moveable property of British subjects in the South African Republic or Orange Free State was covered by the notice issued by the High Commissioner on 26th January, and, if so, whether the answers which had hitherto l'een given by Her Majesty's Govern- ment in regard to enquiries as to compensation were appropriate, and should still be given.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your com- mands, have the honour to

Report-

(1.) That in our opinion the existing notice is sufficient. It covers all the cases mentioned whether the confiscation be for the non-payment of ordinary rents or licenses, or for failure to pay the War Tax," or-for-refusal to fight against the Queen.

Though Swaziland is not mentioned in the notice we presume that Her Majesty's Government intend to include it under the general designation of the territories of the South African Republic. It certainly ought to be included, but, at present, no further notice to this effect seems to be necessary,

We think that the Henderson Corporation should be informed that it is not intended to issue any further proclamation or notice at present, and that while the "War Tax" must not be paid, Her Majesty's Government raise no objection to the payment of the ordinary rents or licenses reserved under the contracts by which the land was taken before the war.

As the letter of the Henderson Corporation states that the notice appears to cover property of all descriptions, it will be well to state incidentally in reply that it relates to immoveable property only.

Mr. Whitty should we think, be referred to the terms of the notice of 26th January, 1900, and informed that the "War Tax" must not be paid, but that there is no objection to the payment of ordinary rents and licenses.

3

Those who have written to enquire whether they will be indemnified in respect of the consequences of their refusal to serve against the Queen should be inforined that the notice of 26th January applies to the case of forfeiture or confiscation of innoveable property for refusal to serve.

(2.) Does not arise.

It -

(3.) The notice of 26th January has no application to moveable property. applies only to property situate in the territories of the South African Republic or Orange Free State, and the terms of the notice show that it is not intended to apply to moveables. The answers that have been given with regard to enquiries for com- pensation appear to us to be right. We think that in future the opportunity might be taken for stating that the Notice applies only to immoveable property.

The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.

&c.,

dc.,

&c.

We have, &c.,

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.