them to the Imperial Government, under Article IV. of the London Convention. It claims that the Government of the Republic had acted under a natural interpretation of the Convention. Coming to the Expulsion Law, the Reply denies, on the basis of the reasoning in defence of the Aliens Law, that Her Majesty's Government would be able to object to the passing and enforcement of the law, though it "willingly concedes that Her Majesty's Government has the most perfect right to remonstrate against an unreasonably or unjustly harsh application of the law to any British subject. As for the Critic (newspaper) case the Government of the Republic cannot see how the Press Law, applicable alike to citizens and aliens of the Republic, can be considered to be in conflict with the Convention. The reply concludes as follows:-"The Government has now, as it earnestly hopes and trusts, given a satisfactory reply to the various points which it has pleased Her British Majesty's Government to submit to it. The complaint which Her British Majesty's Government has advanced in an unmistakably pronounced manner over an actual or possible breach of the Convention has deeply grieved this Government, as it thinks that it has fulfilled its obligations. It sees in the fulfilment of the mutual obligations under the Convention one of the best guarantees for the maintenance of a mutual good understanding and for the promotion of reciprocal confidence. To this good understanding and that confidence, however, severe shocks have been given by events which cannot be lightly forgotten. And if it were not that this Government wishes to guard itself against adopting a recriminating tone, it might put the question whether, for example, the incursion of Dr. Jameson, whether considered as a breach of the Convention or a grievance, is not of immeasurably greater importance than the various matters adduced by Her British Majesty's Government would be, even if the contention that they constitute breaches of the Convention could be accepted. There should, in the view of this Government, be a strong mutual endeavour to restore the shocked confidence and to calm the excited spirit which this Government with sincere regret sees reigning throughout almost the whole of South Africa. Government is anxious to co-operate for this end, for the desire of the Republic, with the maintenance of its independence and rights, is for peace, and where for the reasons given it has been unable to entertain the proposal of Her British Majesty's Government in the matter of the Aliens Law-and it appears very difficult to arrive at a solution of the question by means of correspondence-it wishes to come to a permanent good understanding along a peaceful course, not only with respect to its undisturbed right to make an alien law, but also with regard to all points touching the Convention which are referred to in the

This

two Despatches under reply by Her British Majesty's Government. While it respects. the opinion of Her British Majesty's Government, it takes the liberty, with full confidence in the correctness of its own views, to propose to Her British Majesty's Government the principle of arbitration with which the honourable the First Volksraad agrees,. in the hope that it will be taken in the conciliatory spirit in which it is made. It considers that it has every reason for this. proposal, the more so because the principle of arbitration is already laid down in that Convention in the only case in which, according to its opinion, at the time a difference could be foreseen, to wit, with regard to Article 1; because it has already been proposed by Her British Majesty's Government and accepted by this Government with regard to the difference in respect of Article 14 of the Convention arising in the matter of the so-called coolie question, which was settled by arbitration; because the Right Honourable the Secretary of State, Chamberlain himself, in his letter of the 4th September, 1895, to his Excellency the High Commissioner at Cape Town, favours this principle in the same question, where he says:-After 1886, as time went on, the manner in which this law was interpreted and worked, or was proposed to be worked, gave rise to complaints on the part of the British Government, and as it seemed impossible to come to an agreement by means of correspondence, the Marquis of Ripon took what is the approved course in such cases of proposing to the South African Republic that the dispute should be referred to arbitration. This was agreed ; because the principle of arbitration in matters such as this appears to the Government to be the most impartial, just, and most satisfactory way out of the existing difficulty, and, lastly, because one of the parties to a Convention, according to all principles of reasonableness, cannot expect that his interpretation will be respected by the other party as the only valid and correct one. And, although this Government is firmly convinced that a just and impartial decision might be obtained. even better in South Africa than anywhere else, it wishes, in view of the conflicting elements, interests, and aspirations, which are now apparent in South Africa, and in order to avoid even the appearance that it would be able or desire to exercise influencein order to obtain a decision favourable to it, to propose that the President of the Swiss Bondstate, who may be reckoned upon as standing altogether outside the question, and to feel sympathy or antipathy neither for the one party nor for the other, be requested to point out a competent jurist, as has already oftener been done in respect. of international disputes. The Government would have no objection that the arbitrator be subject to a limitation of time, and gives the assurance now already that it will willingly subject itself to any decision if such should, contrary to its expectation, be

to

given against it. The Government repeats the well-meant wish that this proposal may find favour with Her British Majesty's Government, and inasmuch as the allegations of breaches of the Convention find entrance now even in South Africa, and bring and keep the feelings more and more in a state of suspense, this Government will be pleased if it can learn the decision of Her British Majesty's Government as soon as possible." Mr. Chamberlain's answer to the above reply, dated October 16th, 1897, says that Her Majesty's Government have learned with much satisfaction of the Report of the Alien Law (No. 30), and noted the refusal of the Republic to enter a friendly discussion with Her Majesty's Government on the terms of a measure which would secure the objects of the enactment now repealed. Her Majesty's Government "propose to endeavour to come to an agreement with other Governments in South Africa as to the principles of legislation for the purpose of excluding dangerous or detrimental immigrants. Her Majesty's Government considers that a conference on this subject of the several South African Governments is desirable, but they cannot withdraw their claim to be consulted before any legislation is introduced in the South African Republic derogating from the rights secured by the Convention, to which the other South African Governments are not parties. Her Majesty's Government cannot accept the restricted construction which the Government of the South African Republic seek to give to Article 14 of the Convention. That Article contains one of the essential conditions upon which complete self-government was accorded by Her Majesty to the South African Republic; its terms clear and comprehensive, expressly including all persons, other than natives, without any other qualification than that of conforming to the laws of the Republic; and Her Majesty's Government maintain that, without their consent, the Government of the South African Republic are precluded from imposing any restriction upon the entrance of aliens other than natives. At the same time they have expressed their willingness to consider and confer with the Government of the South African Republic upon any proposed measure for effecting such restriction as may be shown to be necessary for the safety or good government of the Republic. Her Majesty's Government must remind the Government of the South African Republic that when they desired to enact a law excluding Asiatic immigrants they were advised by Dr. Leyds, then State Attorney, that such a law would be contrary to the London Convention. The words in Article 14, which make conformity with the laws of the Republic a condition of the right to enter, travel, and reside therein, do not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, give an implied power to the South African Republic to legislate for the purpose of excluding

are

The

persons who would otherwise be entitled to the benefit of the Article, by imposing conditions which it is impossible to fulfil. Such an implication would enable the Republic to reduce the Article to a nullity. arguments adduced in the Note of the Acting State Secretary, based on the general principles of international law as applied to ordinary treaties between independent Powers, and on the actual or proposed legislation of other nations (including the United Kingdom), do not, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, apply to the case under consideration, which is not that of a treaty between two States on an equal footing, but a declaration by the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland of the conditions. upon which she accorded complete selfgovernment to the South African Republic and subsequently ratified by the Volksraad. Her Majesty's Government maintain that the South African Republic is bound to adhere strictly to the terms of those con-. ditions, and is not entitled to import into them any qualifications based on rights of nations which are not bound by similar obligations arising out of similar circumstances." As regards the accession of the Republic to the Geneva Convention, and the matter of Extradition treaties with other States, Mr. Chamberlain points out that the objections of Her Majesty's Government were not to the arrangements themselves," but to the methods by which the Government of the South African Republic appeared to them to seek to avow the provision of Article 4 of the Convention." The Aliens Expulsion Law and the Press Law were referred to also not as in themselves necessarily in conflict with the Convention, but as containing provisions which, if applied to foreigners not shown to have failed to conform to the laws of the Republic, might amount to breaches of the Convention. A protest is made against the implication in the Republic's reply that the incursion of Dr. Jameson was either a breach of the Convention by Her Majesty's Government or a grievance against the latter. "The incursion was the act of private individuals unauthorised by Her Majesty's Government, and was repudiated by them immediately it became known. The immense importance to the Government of the Republic of that repudiation, and of the proclamation issued by the High Commissioner under instructions from Her Majesty's Government is recognised throughout South Africa." Mr. Chamberlain concludes:- "Her Majesty's Government maintain strongly that since the Convention of 1881 there has never been any breach or even any allegation of a breach on their part of that or the subsequent Convention, and, as the subject has been raised by the implied accusation contained in the Note under consideration, Her Majesty's Government feel constrained to contrast their loyal action in the case of the Jameson Raid with the cases in which they have had cause to complain that the

Her

Government of the South African Republic failed to interfere with, if they did not countenance, invasions of the adjacent territories by its burghers in violation of the Convention, and they feel bound to remind the Government of the Republic that in one of these cases Her Majesty's Government were compelled to maintain their rights by an armed expedition at the cost of about one million sterling, for which no compensation has ever been received by them. Finally, the Government of the South African Republic propose that all points in dispute between Her Majesty's Government and themselves relating to the Convention should be referred to arbitration, the arbitrator to be nominated by the President of the Swiss Republic. In making this proposal the Government of the South African Republic appear to have overlooked the distinction between the Conventions of 1881 and 1884 and an ordinary treaty between two independent Powers, questions arising upon which may properly be the subject of arbitration. By the Pretoria Convention of 1881 Majesty, as Sovereign of the Transvaal Territory, accorded to the inhabitants of that territory complete self-government subject to the suzerainty of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, upon certain terms and conditions and subject to certain reservations and limitations set forth in 33 articles, and by the London Convention of 1884 Her Majesty, while maintaining the preamble of the earlier instrument, directed and declared that certain other articles embodied therein should be substituted for the articles embodied in the Convention of 1881. The Articles of the Convention of 1881 were accepted by the Volksraad of the Transvaal State, and those of the Convention of 1884 by the Volksraad of the South African Republic. these Conventions, therefore, Her Majesty holds towards the South African Republic the relation of a suzerain who has accorded to the people of that Republic self-government upon certain conditions, and it would be incompatible with that position to submit to arbitration the construction of the conditions on which she accorded selfgovernment to the Republic. One of the main objects which Her Majesty's Government had in view was the prevention of the interference of any foreign Power between Her Majesty and the South African Republic-a matter which they then held, and which Her Majesty's present Government hold, to be essential to British interests, and this object would be defeated by the course now proposed. The clear intention of Her Majesty's Government at the time of the London Convention, that questions in relation to it should not be submitted to arbitration, is shown by the fact that when the delegates of the South African Republic, in the negotiations which preceded that Convention, submitted to Her Majesty's Government in the first instance (in a letter of the 26th of November,

Under

1883, which will be found on page 9 of the Parliamentary Paper C 3947 of 1884) the draft of a treaty or convention containing an arbitration clause, they were informed by the Earl of Derby that it was neither in form nor in substance such as Her Majesty's Government could adopt. The Government of the South African Republic put forward as a precedent for the proposed arbitration the provision in Article 1 of the London Convention for the settlement of the details of the line to be fixed as the boundary of the Republic; but there can be no comparison between the fixing of the exact details, which could not be ascertained before the signature of the Convention, of a boundary which had been agreed upon in principle, and the construction of the conditions laid down in the Convention itself. The other case relied on as precedent is one in which Her Majesty's Government agreed to submit to the arbitration of the Chief Justice of the Orange Free State a question arising out of the construction of a law which had been passed by the Volksraad. It is essential, however, to the proper conception of this transaction to point out that this law had only been passed by the Volksraad on the prior and voluntary assurance of Her Majesty's Government that Her Majesty would, for the occasion, waive the rights she had reserved to herself under the Convention in respect of the law proposed, and as a matter of fact the construction of the law and not of the Convention (though it had some bearing on the question in dispute) was the subject of arbitration. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, for the foregoing reasons, cannot consent to submit questions as to the infringement of the Convention to the arbitration of any foreign State or of the nominee of any foreign State. I request that you will instruct Her Majesty's Agent at Pretoria to communicate a copy of this Despatch to the Government of the South African Republic."

STARVATION.

Deaths from, or Accelerated by, Privation in London.-The return of deaths of this class for 1897 in the county of London gives a total of 41-13 in the Eastern district, 10 in the North-Eastern, 4 in the Central, 5 in the Western, 4 in the SouthEastern, 2 in the Borough of Southwark, and 3 in the City and Liberty of Westminster. The detailed returns give the remarks of the Boards of Guardians in each case, the general effect of the latter being that there had been neglect on the part of the deceased persons in applying for relief.

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

Report for 1897.-Revenue for Singapore, Penang, and Malacca (the three Settlements) $4,320,207, expenditure $4,430,603. Population 580,563. Decrease in Chinese emigra

tion; increase into, from India, both free and statute. Imports $187,500,000, an increase of $11,000,000, and exports $162,500,000, also an increase of $11,000,000. Exports of tin largely declined. Population was peaceful, though apprehensions of disturbances were at times excited. Police force had been inadequate in numbers and discipline.

SUGAR BOUNTIES.

(Conference on) Commercial Nos. III. and VI., 1898. Presented (respectively) May and June, 1898.-In reply to various memorials as to the injurious effects of foreign bounties on the cultivation and export of beet-sugar, on the refining industry of the United Kingdom, the Colonial Office wrote (Dec. 15th, 1897) as follows to the Foreign Office :-"As the Marquis of Salisbury is well aware, the present critical state of the West Indian Colonies is receiving Mr. Chamberlain's most serious attention. The Report of the West Indian Royal Commission confirms the views which had already been formed of the dangerous position in which these Colonies are placed, some of them being within measurable distance of bankruptcy, which may be followed by social disorder and other serious consequences. It proves that the sugar industry, which is the mainstay of the West Indies, is, as a whole, in danger of extinction, and that the bounty system is very largely contributing to this result. By proving so conclusively how deep and how widespread is the evil, the Report of the Commissioners has itself aggravated the position, for since its publication any remains of credit which West Indian interests and the sugar industry still retained have disappeared, so that the outlook for these Colonies is dark in the extreme. Measures, as the Prime Minister is aware, are under consideration, which may in time alleviate, though they will not remedy, the most pressing difficulties; but no time should, in Mr. Chamberlain's opinion, be lost in attempting, by international negotiations, to put an end to the bounty system, which has had such disastrous results. In the words of the Commissioners' Report (p. 69):-'The best immediate remedy for the state of things which we have shown to exist would be the abandonment of the bounty system by continental nations;' and again (p. 9), 'We have no hesitation in saying that the abolition of the bounty system is an object at which Your Majesty's Government should aim.' It is hoped that foreign Governments, or some of them, may welcome a reasonable plea for abandoning a system under which, out of the pockets of the taxpayers, the British public has been provided with abnormally cheap sugar, with the result that some of the British Colonies have been deplorably injured, and that an artificial and unsound competition has been stimulated between bounty-giving countries. Mr. Chamberlain would suggest

that, after such informal preliminaries as may be considered necessary, invitations to a Conference should be sent with as little delay as possible, that Paris should be proposed as the place of the Conference, and that while the invitations should contain no menace of any kind, it should be intimated in a friendly manner to the foreign Powers concerned that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of allowing the West Indian sugar industry to be ruined by the operation of hostile bounties, and that in one form or another the Imperial Parliament on its meeting in February next will be asked to give assistance to the Colonies. Before issuing any formal instructions, his Lordship will probably think fit to sound the foreign Governments most concerned, more especially the Governments of France and Germany; but Mr. Chamberlain trusts that, formally or informally, immediate action may be taken. From such information as has reached him on the subject he gathers that a movement in the direction of the abolition of bounties would find considerable support in France, and a statement in the newspapers points to a similar attitude on the part of the German Government. Should some other country than Great Britain be willing to make the first move in the matter Mr. Chamberlain would welcome the fact, but immediate action is required, and if no advances are being made from other quarters, this country should, in Mr. Chamberlain's opinion, lead the way." Lord Salisbury then opened communications with Austria-Hungary, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburg, Brussels, the Hague, and Copenhagen with a view of arranging a Conference of the Powers on the subject. It appeared, however, that the Belgian Government had intended to invite the European countries which export beetroot sugar to a conference, "with the object of examining the question of the abolition of bounties and the points connected with the subject;" and to ask the British Government to participate. Lord Salisbury inquired whether the scope of the Conference would include the suppression of internal bounties on the production of beet and beet sugar. Baron Whettnal replied:-"It must be clearly understood that the question may be regarded from every point of view, and that no points which appear connected with the question may be excluded from the deliberations of the Conference on the ground of their not being included in the programme; above all those designated in your Lordship's despatch of the 10th inst. It is with this object that the invitation stipulates that the Conference is convened for the purpose of examining the question of the abolition of bounties on the exportation of sugar and the points connected with it." On this basis the invitation of the Belgian Government was accepted. On behalf of the British Government Sir F. Plunkett, Sir H. Bergne, Lord Ampthill, and Mr. E. C. Ozanne were appointed delegates, with Sir Nevill Lubbock and

Mr. G. Martineau as experts. The following general instructions were given to them:-"It being the earnest desire of Her Majesty's Government to secure the suppression of all bounties on sugar, which they consider to be prejudicial to the general interests of the British Empire, you are authorized to press for and to assist in the negotiation of an International Convention for this purpose; but, inasmuch as no bounties are given in the United Kingdom, it will be your duty to consider, and to report to me upon any proposals which may be made by the delegates of Belgium or of other bounty-giving States, rather than to put forward, in the first instance, any definite proposals on behalf of Great Britain. Her Majesty's Government sincerely trust that the result of the deliberations at Brussels may relieve them from the necessity of prosecuting any ulterior measures which might be rendered necessary, especially in regard to the British Colonies, if the system of bounties should still be retained; but in this respect it will be desirable that you should maintain an attitude of reserve at the Conference, reporting to me from time to time as to any suggestions which may be put forward. No detailed programme having been received as to the exact manner in which the subject is to be approached at the Conference, I am unable at present to furnish you with more precise instructions upon the various points which may come under discussion, and I must leave to your discretion the manner in which you will deal with them, bearing in mind that upon any points of importance it will be desirable that you should ask for instructions before committing Her Majesty's Government to any definite line of action." The countries represented were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Spain, France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Russia and Sweden. The Conference met at Brussels in June under the Presidency of M. de Smet de Naeyer, the Belgian Premier and Minister of Finance, who, in his opening speech, defined the objects as "an examination of the question of the suppression of bounties on the exportation of sugar and the points connected therewith." The Report of the British delegates (dated June 27th), shows that after four sittings no conclusive result was reached.

66

'It became evident that great interest was attached to the views which might be entertained by Great Britain in regard to a penal clause for the imposition of countervailing duties on, or the prohibition of, bounty fed sugar. We, however, maintained our attitude of reserve on this point, stating that the decision of Her Majesty's Government could not be taken until they were in possession of some definite project of agreement, and were in a position to know which Powers were willing to become parties to it." The Report concludes as follows:"A Commission was then constituted to examine certain technical points connected with sugar refining. The Report of this

Commission will be found in the procèsverbaux, but does not present any special features of interest at the present moment. The next meeting of the Conference was held on the 18th instant, when the Russian delegate made a statement showing the conditions under which the sugar industry is at present carried on in Russia. The Report of the Commission on Sugar Refining was examined, and an exchange of views took place as to the true definition of the term 'bounty.' At the sitting held on the 24th instant the Austro-Hungarian delegate made a statement in regard to the real effect of the Russian system, which his Government regarded as being equivalent to a bounty on exportation. The Russian delegate, however, stated categorically that his Government had no intention of altering their existing legislation on the subject. The French delegate followed with a further statement showing the necessity for France to retain her existing Law of 1884. The President then brought forward two alternative proposals which had been elaborated by the Belgian and Dutch delegations as the result of several informal conferences with ourselves and various other delegates. It was hoped that these might possibly furnish a basis for an arrangement which might at once be acceptable to France and to the other sugar-producing States. It had become evident that of all the countries represented at the Conference only one, namely France, was opposed to the complete suppression of all export bounties, whether direct or indirect; and that one Power, namely Russia, declined to discuss the question of her internal legislation, contending that her system does not in fact amount to a bounty on the exportation of sugar. These two Powers, therefore, presented an insurmountable obstacle to any agreement unless some satisfactory compromise could be arrived at. The two alternative solutions proposed by the President were to the following effect :(a) France to abolish her direct export bounty granted by the law of 1897, and further, to engage that in each year in which her annual export of sugar should exceed 235,000 tons (being the mean of the years 1892-3 to 1896-7), she would reduce her indirect bounty under the Law of 1884 by one-fourth until the bounty should be completely abolished. (b) France to abolish her direct export bounty under the Law of 1897, and further, to levy a duty on exported sugar equal to the amount of the bounty given on production. A quantity, not to exceed 50,000 tons per annum, to be, however, exempt from such export duty. Should France be willing to accept either of these suggestions in principle, it was contemplated to suggest to Russia a compromise on somewhat similar terms. The French delegate, however, declined to discuss either proposal in the Conference, repeating that his instructions precluded him from considering in any way an alteration in the French Law of 1884, and