PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH NOT TO
"
2
of his despatch states that difference between himself and your Lordship is one of "policy"; if that be so, the matter would seem one solely for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. But he subsequently rests his case on striot right, on which he is entitled to insist by what he calls the rules of international law, and this right is to require a neutral to prevent the exportation of contraband of war. He observes "the present controversy simply centres in the question whether the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to prohibit the export of arms is not at variance with the still "unaltered general rules of international law regarding the duties of neutrals towards belligerents and with the laws of this country not yet repealed by the Legislature for "the better fulfilment of those duties." No such general rule is laid down by any writer of authority on international law; but the contrary is asserted by all those to whom reference is usually made; and so far from its being true that such a provision is to be found in the laws passed by the Parliament of this country for the better fulfilment of our duty as neutrals, Count Bernstorff must be well aware that during the progress of the Act of last session, passed with this object, such a provision was proposed in the House of Commons, and negatived by an overwhelming majority.
Your Lordship will have no difficulty in dealing with the Minute of Mr. Trevelyan in 1848, whereby an exceptional course was taken in consequence of treaties between ourselves and Denmark, nor with the memorandum-not the letter as Count Bern- storff calls it of the Duke of Wellington in 1825, which was not acted upon. We observe that Count Bernstorff makes no reference to the treaties between Prussia and America whereby the rule of international law insisted upon by Her Majesty's Government is recognised, to the provisions of which your Lordship may think it right pointedly to call his attention. The provisions to which we refer will be found in Article XIII. of the Treaty of 1785, and were renewed in 1799, and again in 1828.
We have suggested before that it may deserve consideration whether an agreement may hereafter be come to among the most powerful nations to extend the duty of neutrals to the prohibition of the export of arms; but we observe that Count Bernstorff expressly "abstains from entering upon that question," and prefers to rests his case solely on what he asserts to be the existing rule of international law.
It occurs to us further to observe that the clause in the Customs Consolidation Act to which he refers does not empower the Queen in Council to prohibit the export of contraband of war, at least eo nomine; but your Lordship will judge whether it is worth while to refer to this distinction. This clause in the statute was not, as Count Bernstorff assumes, passed for the purpose of enabling us to preserve our neutrality, but simply for our own protection in the case of being ourselves at war, or threatened with war, and it seems upon the whole to be the better opinion that if Her Majesty's Government desired to enforce the clause by Order in Council the prohibition must be general and not limited to belligerent countries only.
In our view the real purport of Count Bernstorff's despatch, stripped of all disguise, is an attempt to induce this country to adopt a new rule of conduct, because the rule prescribed by all writers of authority, and by the practice of nations, including that of Prussia herself, happens in the circumstances of this war to be more favourable to France than to Prussia. He requires us to neutralize as far as in us lies the advantages which France possesses by her superiority at sea. This would not be neutrality, but co-operation with Prussia.
The Right Hon. the Earl Granville, K.G.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c. (Signed)
R. P. COLLIER.
J. D. COLERIDGE. TRAVERS TWISS.
11124.
No. 667.
(MAURITIUS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Temple, October 17, 1870. MY LORD,
We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 11th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to request that we would take into our consideration the accompanying copy of a Despatch, with its enclosures, from the officer administering the Government of Mauritius respecting the "Extradition Act, 1870.”
That he was to request that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion on the point raised by Mr. Colin, the Procureur Général of the island, and whether we con- sidered any alteration of the Act to be necessary.
"
And that, if such should be our opinion, he was to inquire whether it would be sufficient to alter the word "crime into the word "offence" in the definition of extradition "orime," so that the clause should run, "The term extradition crime means an offence which," &c., &c.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the said Despatch into our consideration, and have the honour to
Report
That no alteration in the Act appears to us to be necessary. The word crime in the Imperial Act is not used in any technical sense, and is explained by the schedule which specifies the offences to which the Act applies. The Act will apply to any such offences committed in the Mauritius, whether they be called in the technical language of the local law “contraventions,” “misdemeanors," or "crimes."
We have, &c.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley.
O 16978.--568. 95,-5/86,
(Signed)
R. P. COLLIER.
J. D. COLERIDGE.
1