case, you are authorised as an act of favor to advance to him the sum of Rs. 1,000.

No. 4.

Translation of a Letter from Signor J Gallian, ConsulGeneral for Italy, dated Calcutta, 12th March, 1886, to the Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department.

Mr. Fea, an Italian subject and distinguished naturalist, from a pure love of science and in order to collect at his own expense every kind of specimen, betook himself some time ago to Burma. to Burma. Before the outbreak of hostilities he had shipped several cases containing the results of his studies and untiring research, as also his personal effects, on board one of the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company's Steamers; and this steamer was a short time afterwards unfortunately plundered by the Burmese

As it is thought likely that the Government of India will compensate the said Navigation Company for the losses they have suffered on account of this loot, the King's Government have directed me to request that to this sum the amount which concerns Mr. Fea may be added; this has, I believe, already been mentioned by him (Mr. Fea) to the English authorities at Mandalay, and it is hoped that the amount may be refunded to him as soon as possible.

The King's Government, moreover, have directed me to invite the Government of India to protect the interests of Mr. Fea, whose well known good character, according to the Foreign Minister's despatch, dated 17th February last, affords a guarantee that the sum he demands as compensation is proportionate to the losses he has incurred.

The Italian Government would also be glad if the English authorities, both Military and Civil, could kindly afford their protection to Mr. Fea during his future scientific explorations.

In the hope, Sir, that the Government of India may be pleased to meet the wishes of the Government of the King.

No. 5.

Translation of a Telegram, dated 26th April, 1886, from Consul-General for Italy, to Foreign Secretary.

Begs for an answer regarding Fea's indemnities, as the Italian Government is much interested in him.

No. 6.

Telegram duted 3rd May, 1886, from Foreign Secretary to Chief Commissioner, Mandalay.

The Italian Government are pressing us about Signor Fea. Government of India reluctant to decide any one claim separately for fear of creating precedent and claims from others. Are you sending us a report on foreigners' cases generally, other than claims for wages?

No. 7.

Telegram dated 10th May, 1886, from Foreign Secretary to Consul-General of Italy, Calcutta.

Your telegram 26th. I fear it is impossible for Government of India to consider Mr. Fea's case separately.

The Chief Commissioner will submit in course of few weeks the claims of all Europeans against Burmese Government, and Mr. Fea's claim will be considered among them.

Hitherto his claim has not been regarded as admissible. Sorry I could not answer before. I had to communicate with Mandalay.

ANNEX 7.

West Rand Central Gold Mining Company (Limited) v. The King.

(Reprinted from Law Reports, 1905, 2 King's Bench, 391.) Petition of Right—International Law-Annexation-Liabilities of Conquered State-Creditor's Rights against Conqueror-Act of State-Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts.

A petition of right alleged that, before the outbreak of war between the late South African Republic and Great Britain, gold, the produce of a mine in the Republic owned by the suppliants, had been taken from the suppliants by officials acting on behalf of the Government of the Republic; that the Government by the laws of the Republic was liable to return the gold or its value to the suppliants; and that by reason of the corquest and annexation of the territories of the Republic by Her late Majesty the obligation of the Government of the Republic towards the suppliants in respect of the gold was now binding upon His Majesty the King.

Held, on demurrer, that the petition disclosed no right on the part of the suppliants which could be enforced against His Majesty in any municipal Court.

There is no principle of international law by which, after annexation of conquered territory, the conquering State becomes liable, in the absence of express stipulation to the contrary, to discharge financial liabilities of the conquered State incurred before the outbreak of war.

Petition of Right by the West Rand Central Gold Mining Company, Limited.

1. The suppliants are a company registered in England under the Companies Acts and owning and working a gold mine in His Majesty's Transvaal Colony.

2. On October 2, 1899, 283.90 ounces of gold of the value of £1,104, the property of the suppliants, while in transit by train from Johannesburg to Cape Town, were taken possession of at Vereeniging by an official of the late South African Republic, namely, one Hugo, the resident magistrate of the district; the said Hugo was acting upon the instructions of the State Attorney of the said Republic, who ordered him to take the said gold into safe keeping.

3. The said Hugo gave for the said gold (together with other gold taken at the same time) a receipt, of which the following is a translation:-

66

Vereeniging Station. "Seized this day by order of the Attorney-General S. A. R. (117) one hundred and seventeen cases containing gold and valuables sealed as usual and conveyed by the mail train from Johannesburg.

"2 October, 1899."

J. S. N. HUGO, Res. J.P."

4. Further, two bars of gold weighing 767 20 ounces of the value of 2700l., the property of the suppliants, and being then in the custody of the African Banking Corporation of Johannesburg, were on October 9, 1899, taken possession of upon the premises of the said bank by two officials of the Government of the said Republic, namely, one Wagner and one Krause.

5. The said two officials gave for the said gold (together with other gold taken at the same time) a sealed receipt of which the following is a translation :

"Received eight bars of raw gold weighing 2617-23 ounces, value 89967., namely :

"Government Commission of Peace and Order upon instructions of State Secretary.

"On behalf of the Government Commission, Witwatersrand, 10 October, 1899, S. A. R. Division of Peace and Order.

(Seal)

MARTIN MULDER,

JOSEPH VAN GELDER, Secretaries.

6. The said gold was in each case taken possession of by and on behalf of and for the purposes of the then existing Government of the said Republic, and the said

liability to return the said gold or its value to your suppliants. None of the said gold has been returned to the suppliants, nor did the Government make any payment in respect thereof.

7. A state of war between Her late Majesty Queen Victoria and the said Republic commenced at 5 P.M. ou October 11, 1899.

8. Her late Majesty's forces conquered the said Republic, and by a Proclamation in the name of Her late Majesty dated September 1, 1900, the whole of the territories of the said Republic were annexed to and became part of Her dominions, and the late Government of the said Republic thereby ceased to exist.

9. By reason of the said conquest and annexation Her late Majesty succeeded to the Sovereignty of the said Government with all its rights and duties, and became entitled to the whole property of the said Government, and the obligation which vested in the said Government in respect of the said gold is now as binding upon His Majesty as though the acts and things which gave rise to such obligation had been done or suffered by Her late Majesty.

The suppliants therefore humbly pray the return of the said gold, or payment to them of the said sum of 38041.

Demurrer: "His Majesty's Attorney-General on behalf of our Lord the King gives the Court here to understand and be informed that the petition of right is bad in substance and in law, in that it does not disclose a sufficient or lawful or any obligation on His Majesty towards the suppliants, or any legal or equitable right of the suppliants against His Majesty cognizable by the Courts of this country or enforceable therein and on other grounds sufficient in law to sustain this demurrer."

Joinder: "The petition herein is good in substance and in law."

Sir R. Finlay, A.-G., and Sir E. Carson, S.-G. (H. Sutton with them), for the Crown. The facts alleged in the petition of right disclose no obligation on the part of His Majesty towards the suppliants, nor any right enforceable in this Court. Where the Sovereign annexes a foreign country the terms on which he does so are settled by him, and no Court of law has any power to interpret or enforce those terms. Cook v. Sprigg* is the latest of a long [1899] A. C. 572.