CO885-(15-16) — Page 234

40807

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

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

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

No. 164.

(BERMUDA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Questions connected with Burgher Prisoners of War who refuse to take the Oath

SIR,

of Allegiance.]

Feb., 1900.

Royal Courts of Justice,

September 30, 1902. We were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. C. P. Lucas's letter L. O. to of the 2nd instant, stating that with reference to our Report of the 30th June last* C. O., 5th and to previous Reportst as noted in the margin, he was directed by you to transmit L. O. to to us a despatch from the Governor of Bermuda, from which it appeared that certain C. O., 17th prisoners of war, burghers of the late Republics, refused to take the oath of allegiance May, 1900. or sign declarations of allegiance, some stating that they were willing to remain as L. O. to

C. O., 18th prisoners of war and others declining altogether to state their intentions.

May, 1900. That by Article II. of the Terms of Surrender, which would be found at page L. O. to 135 of the P.P. [Cd. 1163] of 1902, it was provided that all prisoners of war at G. O., 24th Sapt., 19.0.1. present outside South Africa who were burghers would be brought back to their F. O. to homes on duly declaring their position of subjects of His Majesty King Edward L. O., 2201 VII. and that His Majesty's Government decided (as would be seen from the tele- Oct., 1909, gram (No. 25902) sent by the Colonial Office to the Governor of Bermuda) that L. O. to

F. O., 25th burghers of the late Republics might proceed to South Africa at their own expense June, 1901. on declaring allegiance and furnishing proof of possessing means of subsistence, F. O. to or that they might go elsewhere than to South Africa at their own expense, but L. 0., 13th that if they did so without declaring allegiance they would not be allowed to return June, 1901. to South Africa. That it was further decided that burghers who did not wish to c. 0., 30th proceed to South Africa at their own expense would be repatriated by His Majesty's June, 1902. Government on their declaring their allegiance as soon as arrangements could be African made for their transport and for their reception in South Africa.

L. O. to

No. 696.

Gov. No. That it would be difficult indefinitely to detain the burghers in Bermuda who 113, 8th objected to take the oath of allegiance, as you assumed that there could be no general Aug.

P. P. [Cd. right so to detain prisoners of war after war was over, and that there might be some 1163]. difficulty and objection with regard to the special legislation which would presum- To Gov. of ably be required to detain them. That, with regard to the threat to refuse to allow Bermuda, them to return to South Africa, Mr. Lucas was to observe that as long as martial 28th Jane. law had been in force there has been no difficulty in giving effect to it, but that after Proclama the cessation of martial law it would be necessary, in the absence of any legislation nexing at present existing at the Cape, to obtain a special Act from the Cape Parliament, O. F. S. & which it was quite possible in existing circumstances might not be passed. That S. A. R. for the present, however, it would seem to be permissible to defer the liberation of the burghers in question until after that of other prisoners of war.

That before deciding the question of the proper manner of dealing with those burghers you would be glad to be advised as to what was the nationality of those persons, having regard to the fact that the Orange Free State and the Transvaal had been annexed. That it might be assumed that some of those burghers were actually in the Transvaal or Orange River Colony at the date of annexation, and were at that time either prisoners of war or still fighting against His Majesty's forces, and that others had been removed from South Africa as prisoners of war before annexation took place. That it was not clear to you whether absence from the annexed State affected the legal question of the nationality of those persons. That in our Report of 17th May, 1900, we advised that the "transfer of nationality ought not to be imposed on inhabitants who are not within the State unless they return to it after- wards," but that you were not certain whether those words, which (together with certain remarks on what had been usual in recent times) followed on the unqualified statement that "the inhabitants of the Orange Free State will become British subjects upon annexation," were intended to express the actual rule of English law,

• No. 158.

25 Wt 245 5/05 D & S

B

21440

† Nos. 19, 36A, 361, 52, 86a, and 158,

tions an-