(A) As to the rights of the Mission as against (a) the Government, and (b) the company; and
(B) As to the obligation of the Government towards the Company! We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
That (1) we think that the Government of Nyasaland is entitled to exercise the right reserved to it by condition 5 of the Certificate of Claim granted to the Foreign Mission Committee of the Church of Scotland for the purpose of the con- struction by the Company of the railway in question.
``(2) (A) (a) (b). In the event of the Courts of the Protectorate declining to adopt the construction of condition 4 above indicated, the Mission will be entitled to prevent the making of the railway (apart from agreement), unless there exist powers of compulsory acquisition of land by the Government of which we are not informed.
(B). The Government is bound to put the Company into quiet possession of the lands defined in the contract even if it become necessary for that purpose to acquire such lands by purchase. In that case, however, the Company would be liable to compensate the vendor.
The Right Honourable
The Earl of Elgin, K.G..
&c.,
&c..
&c.
p
We have, &c.,
W. S. ROBSON. SAMUEL T. EVANS.
11525
No. 95.
(NATAL.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE,
[Whether the Zulu Chief Dinuzulu can be removed from the Colony and tried in England.]
Royal Courts of Justice, MY LORD,
31st March, 1908. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands signified to us in Sir Francis Hopwood's letter of the 10th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to submit to us, for our consideration, a letter addressed to the Colonial Office by Mr. E. G. Jellicoe with reference to a proposal that Dinuzulu, a Zulu Chief now under preliminary examination in Natal after arrest upon a Warrant charging him with treason, inciting to murder, and other offences, as shown in the telegram of the 7th February last, should be brought to this country for trial.
That it appeared to your Lordship that it was open to some doubt whether the Statute 35 Henry VIII., C. 2, Section 1, cited by Mr. Jellicoe, and the law of England relating to treason applied to Dinuzulu at all, and whether the Courts of this country would have jurisdiction to entertain his case.
That Dinuzulu was a native of Natal, a Colony to which the common law of England and the criminal law of England had never been applied. That in this connection Sir Francis Hopwood was to enclose a volume of the Consolidated Statutes of Natal from which it would be seen that by the Supreme Court Act No. 39, of 1896, which in this respect re-enacted earlier legislation, the Roman Dutch Law, was the law of Natal.
That apart from this question, it appeared that no legal power existed under which Dinuzulu could be brought from Natal to this country.
That the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881 (44, 45 Vict., C. 69) only applied in cases where an offender having committed an offence in one part of His Majesty's Dominions had left that part for another, but that Dinuzulu's alleged offences were not committed in Great Britain, but in Natal.
That in the absence of any legal authority covering the removal of Dinuzulu to this country, it was conceived that, even if the Natal Government consented to his removal, Dinuzulu would be in no legal custody while in transit, and that he would have a right of action against the captain of the ship which conveyed him to England or any other person who restrained his liberty while upon the high seas or in a foreign port.
That Sir Francis Hopwood was accordingly to request us to take these matters into our consideration, and to favour your Lordship with our report as to-
(1) Whether the Statute 35 Henry VIII. and the law of England applied to Dinuzulu under the circumstances?
(2) Whether the Courts of this country would have jurisdiction to try Dinuzulu for the alleged offences committed in Natal if he were brought to this country?
(3) Whether any procedure existed under which Dinuzulu could be brought to this country for trial--
(a) Without the consent of Dinuzulu and the Natal and British Governments. (6) Without the consent of Dinuzulu, but with the consent of the Natal and
British Governments.
(c) With the consent of Dinuzulu and the British Government, but without
the consent of the Government of Natal?
(4) What answer should be returned to Mr. Jellicoe?
We have taken the matters into our cohsideration, and in obedience to your Lordship's commands have the honour to
Report-
(1) We are of opinion that the Statute 35 Henry VIII., C. 2. in the present circumstances is not applicable, and that any steps taken to remove Dinuzulu from the jurisdiction of the local Courts in order to bring him to England for trial, even if practicable, would not be justifiable. Such a course would be in derogation of the rights and powers which are by law vested in the judicial Courts of the Colony.
23 Wt 231 4,08 D&S 5 31843
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
وا
C.O.88
Reference :-
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.