Hongkong May 5. 1856?
339
In reply to your inquiries under date the 29th ult., I regret to say that after devoting much time to the subject, I am unable to advise that E. Here- upon him any power is vested by law to prevent the exportation from this Colony of vessels intended for piratical purposes in the neighbourhood of the Islands of Hainan. Upon proof of their destination, he may undoubtedly in any particular case lay an embargo upon the exportation, or take effectual measures; and the facts will afford a justification, in the event of his being made responsible for the measure. But the difficulty of proof is immense, as the proceedings of the exporters are not carried on openly, but are nearly always conducted through third parties. The difficulty is of course so much the greater in those cases. The celebrated case of The Arrow (briefly reported in 1 Carr. & Kirwan 215) is an apt illustration of the case with which the owner of a ship or the shipper of goods for a voyage of piratical character may escape conviction in a criminal Court after the offence is consummated. I need not say that...
W. Woodgate Esqr