CO885-(15-16) — Page 18

10834.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

| 9|

Reference :--

།「ཟ། །། ། །「 。 mimimC.O. 885

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

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

No. 26.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice, MY LORD,

March 19, 1900. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Bertie's letter of the 15th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to inform us that your Lordship had learned from the Robinson South African Banking Company that the Government of the South African Republic had endeavoured to force the Manager and Staff of their branch bank at Johannesburg, all of whom were represented as being British subjects, to "go on commando," and that, on their refusal to take up arms against their Sovereign, preparations had been made for expelling them from the territories of the Republic.

That the question was thus raised: how far one belligerent State was justified during war in ejecting from its territories the non-combatant subjects of the other belligerent State.

That the modern practice seemed to tend towards the establishment of a usage whereby enemy non-combatant subjects were permitted to remain in the enemy country during good behaviour,

That this usage could not, however, be said to be either authoritative or of universal acceptance, and that your Lordship would therefore be glad if we would take the question raised by the Robinson South African Banking Company into our consideration, and favour your Lordship with our opinion as to whether any, and, if so, what action should be taken in the matter by Her Majesty's Government, and with any observations of a general nature which we might have to offer on the case.

1

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

Report-

"

That it cannot be said that the expulsion of enemy non-combatant subjects is a violation of International Law, but it is a harsh measure, and, in the absence of some good reason for it, is not in accordance with modern practice.

It is, however, most unusual and improper to require such persons to bear arms against their own Sovereign. The true rule on this subject is laid down in Section 391 of Bluntschli's Droit International (5th Edition, 1891) and the accompanying note.

We think that the expulsion of British subjects because of their refusal to bear arms against their own country affords fair ground for remonstrance. Such a remonstrance may be useful by way of calling attention to the very oppressive conduct of the Transvaal Government in this matter.

We have, &c.,

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

The Marquess of Salisbury, K.G.,

&c., &c.,

&c.

8558 - 25—4/1900 WC321 P&S

1