of foreigners against the late Government of Upper Burma, we have the honour to forward, for Your Lordship's information, a list showing the sums awarded to each French, Italian or other European or American claimant since the date of our despatch above quoted.

2. We have to inform Your Lordship that all foreign claims against the late Burmese Government have now been decided with the exception of those preferred by Mons. D'Avera, a Frenchman, and by Sig. B. Canepa, an Italian. In all probability nothing will be payable upon these two claims indeed we had, as Your Lordship was informed in our despatch of the 28th February, determined upon their total rejection-but in order to prevent any possibility of hardship, the Chief Commissioner of Burma has been desired to make further inquiry regarding certain representations made on behalf of the claimants after their cases had been decided.

ANNEX 6 A.

Correspondence relating to the Claim of Signor Fea for Property destroyed by the Government of Mandalay, 1886.

No. 1.

C. Bernard, Esq, C.S.I., Chief Commissioner, British Burma, to the Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department, No. 20, dated Mandalay, January 5, 1886.

I HAVE the honour to submit copies of the papers, marginally noted, and to solicit the orders of the Government of India on the question therein raised.

2. Signor Fea, Sub-Curator of the Genoa Museum, came out to Burma to collect specimens. He was in Upper Burma when the recent war broke out. His property was on the Flotilla Company's Steamer Otpho plying between Mandalay and Bhamo, when that vessel was seized by messengers from the Mandalay Government. Signor Fea's property was all lost, stolen, or destroyed. He claims compensation for the property he lost, also for the valuable natural history collections destroyed, and for the loss of time he has suffered. Enquiries into the circumstances of the seizure of the Otpho have shown that the seizure was made without care for the possessions of neutrals, and was attended with special hardship and mal-treatment to the Captain and Officers of the vessel. There is no reason to doubt that Signor Fea's property was really stolen or destroyed, as he states, in a wanton way and quite apart from any necessary belligerent precautions.

3. Signor Fea is the subject of a neutral power, which might, if the independent realm of Burma still existed, claim compensation for his losses. The liability for paying any compensation fairly demandable would now seem to rest upon the British Government. The Law Bookst are not

Letter, dated 30th December, from Signor L. Fea, with list attested by the Italian Vice-Consul. Memorandum by Mr. Bernard, dated 1st January, 1886. Memorandum by Colonel E. B. Sladen, dated 2nd January, 1886.

† NOTE-Wheaton, sections 540, 346, and 151 I., does not give a very certain answer to such a question as now arises; but they read as if some compensation should in some cases be given. Halleck, page 256, Vol. 1, Sherston Baker's edition does not go much further. But we know that in the case of the Indian Mutiny losses, in the case of the Alexandria losses, some compensation was given.

quite clear whether compensation ought to be paid in such cases. But it seems to be recognized that some compensation is often given, and in the present case of the third Burmese war, followed by the incorporation of Upper Burma into Her Majesty's dominions, it seems advisable to treat tenderly the claims of the subjects of neutral friendly

powers.

4. Acting on this view, I have been trying to take up the claims preferred by Italian and French residents as soon as possible. It is not advisable to give these gentlemen reason for staying longer in Mandalay, if they are not going to engage in commerce here. Some of the claims are large and require much sifting. Perhaps they will be susceptible of reduction. Signor Fea's claim seemed moderate and plain. I therefore proposed to pay him Rs. 5,030, the value of the goods he had actually lost, but not to pay for the specimens and the time he had lost. My view was that the compensation would have to be made a charge upon the revenues of Upper Burma, whether the country is permanently annexed or whether it be made into a feudatory State.

5. As Colonel Sladen is now directing the administration of a part of the country through the Hlut-Daw or Darbar, I consulted him on the matter. His view is that Signor Fea had had no lawful or reasonable claim against the Burmese* Government in respect of those losses; and he further urges that the time is not opportune for going into claims of this kind at present. I have discussed the subject with Colonel Sladen since he wrote his note, and I gather that he had not considered the possible international bearings of the matter.

6. As to the legal bearings of the case, I am unable, in the absence of the Rangoon Government Advocate, to offer an opinion of any value. The Government of India will perhaps see fit to take advice upon the subject. But for the reasons stated above, I think it extremely desirable to settle as promptly as we can bonâ fide claims for compensation preferred by the subjects of friendly European Powers against us, as successors to the liabilities of the late Burmese Government. Signor Fea is a naturalist travelling in behalf of his Museum, and is just the sort of man to whom it would be a great boon to get his money quickly,

*NOTE.-When Colonel Sladen wrote his note the Proclamation of January 1 by his Excellency the Viceroy and Governor-General had not

in order that he may pursue his researches in less troublous realms.

7. I would therefore solicit that I may be favoured with orders whether I may pay the proposed compensation of Rs. 5,030 to Signor Fea at once. If the orders are in the affirmative, I should be glad to have intimation by telegraph. I should be glad also to be favoured with any general or special instructions the Government of India may be pleased to give for my guidance in the treatment of these or other claims against the late Government. I have not invited such claims, but many are being preferred, and I understand that the total including claims of British subjects and Native residents of Mandalay will perhaps aggregate several lakhs of rupees. My general instructions* to the officer who will have to sift these claims are

"I want specially to settle the Italian and French claims off as far as may be possible, so that foreigners may be enabled to clear out if they so wish. I cannot think they will wish to stay.

international law' authorities say

"I find that the pretty broadly and clearly

A power which succeeds another power in sovereignty over a State should fulfil the fiscal obligations and discharge the public debts of the State contracted previously.'

"Under public debts would be includable such as had been contracted in the name of the State by its authorized agents and for public purposes, not private debts of the Sovereign. Probably some of the claims now being made come under the latter category.

"It is a great object to avoid international complications with French or Italian Consuls. My idea is that we might put Mr. Fleming down at once to go into all French and Italian claims somewhat on this principle. We cannot pay unsubstantiated claims, or very old claims, or enormously large claims, and very probably claims in most cases may be reducible under compromise."

Mr. Fleming has not been available for the duty of investigating these claims; and Mr. Pilcher has taken up the matter pending the despatch of the Toungoo Column. But I should be glad to have any instructions you may see fit to send me on the general subject.

Dated 21st December, 1885.

No. 2.

R. L. Upton, Esq., Solicitor to the Government of India, to the Junior Under-Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department, dated Fort William, 30th January, 1886.

Referring to your No. 196E of the 28th instant, I have the honour to send herewith a copy of the Honorable the Advocate - General's opinion on the subject therein referred to.

Opinion.

Although a new Government succeeds to the fiscal rights and is bound to fulfil the fiscal obligations of the former government, and it is also responsible for debts previously contracted, I am not aware of any such proposition of law as renders a new government responsible for losses caused by depredations committed by or under the orders of the former government when in a state of war or otherwise. I am unable therefore to advise the payment of anything to Signor Fea, on the ground that he is entitled of right to compensation.

Whether, having regard to the unfortunate circumstances • in which he is placed, the Government should as a matter of favor or compassion make him an allowance or payment is a question which rests entirely in the discretion of the Government.

30.1.86.

G. C. PAUL.

No. 3.

H. M. Durand, Esq., C.S.I., Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department, to the Chief Commissioner, British Burma, dated Camp Mindoon, 21st February, 1886.

I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter No. 20, dated the 5th January 1886, regarding the claim of Signor Fea to compensation for losses incurred on board the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company's steamer Othpo.

2. I am to inform you that, as at present advised, His Excellency the Viceroy cannot accept on behalf of the British Government any responsibility for compensating