PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O. 885
Reference :-
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
2. We are of opinion that the Administrator had in no case the power to proclaim such a blockade, but we are not sufficiently informed to be able to say whether the Administrator had or had not the power to forbid the importation of arms, &c. into the Settlement; this power, however, if possessed, the Administrator should have exercised in some other way.
3. The term blockade is, in our opinion, a misnomer likely to mislead traders whether British or Foreign, and on this question we submit further that the blockade would be inoperative since vessels bringing supplies to the British forces would be allowed access, the Act would thus become partial and be in reality no blockade at all.
4. The blockade not existing naval officers will not have the power of visiting merchant vessels on the high seas, and the notice issued by Captain Freemantle is of no validity.
In accordance with this opinion we have not prepared a notification of blockade.
We have, &c.
The Right Hon. Earl Kimberley.
&c.
&c.
&c.
(Signed)
J. D. COLERIDGE. HENRY JAMES.
J. PARKER DEANE.
10924.
No. 865.
(GOLD COAST.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD,
Temple, October 20, 1873. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Herbert's letter of the 9th instant, stating that with reference to the case submitted to us on the 4th instant as to the validity of the blockade proclaimed and notified on the West Coast of Africa by Colonel Harley and Captain Fremantle, Mr. Herbert was directed by your Lordship to inform us that there appeared to be reason to believe that the whole of the coast from Cape Coast Castle to the river Assinee was not, as was assumed in that case, under British protection.
That information had been received from Messrs. Swanzy who were the principal traders on that coast, that the coast for about 14 miles east of the river Assinee and therefore within the terms of Captain Fremantle's notification of blockade, was under French protection, and though it was believed that the French had withdrawn all forces and officers from the territory it would appear from Messrs. Swanzy's statement that there was a French blockhouse with the French flag flying at a station about 7 miles
east of the river.
That from the accompanying letter from Messrs. Swanzy, it further appeared that a French house, Verdier et Cie., were still trading at a place about 7 or 8 miles east of the river Assinee, and that Messrs. Swanzy up to the year 1871 paid duties to the French Government for goods landed near the place where Verdier et Cie. trade, but that they had now got a concession of land. That from the terms of that concession it was clear that the French claimed that land as recently as 1870, and there was no reason to suppose that they had given up any of their territorial rights along that part of the
coast.
That that information was to a certain extent confirmed by the annexed extract taken from the Official Report presented to the Corps Legislatif on the 29th November 1869.
That as bearing on that point Mr. Herbert was to refer us to the annexed papers relating to a blockade which the French Commandant established along a part of the coast west of Assinee in 1872, from which it appeared that the French had given up occupation of their territory on the Gold Coast, reserving, however, their rights of Sovereignty.
That it could not be ascertained whether the blockade thus established by the French in 1872 extended to the east of Assinee River so as to include the part of the coast above referred to, but it had been thought desirable to call our attention to the fact as possibly the French Government might raise objections to the blockade recently proclaimed by the British authorities, so far as that blockade extended to the coast within 14 miles east of Assinee.
That Mr. Herbert was directed also to point out that the blockade instituted by the French Commandant resembled the blockade recently proclaimed by the British authorities in this respect, that it was a blockade of coast under the protection of the blockading power, and that Mr. Herbert was to add that no objection to it was raised by the Imperial Government.
That Mr. Herbert was to request that we would take those additional statements into our consideration.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report.
That a part of the coast described in the notice as blockaded is territory in some way more or less directly under the protection of a friendly power is, in our opinion, a further reason for holding the blockade to be invalid, so far at least as the notice goes, since the notice must be either good or bad in the whole, and cannot be of partial application.
We are inclined to think that there is a material difference between the French blockade mentioned and that now sought to be established.
The French purported to blockade the coast of a tribe in rebellion against their authority; as such the operation was an act of war.
0 10978.-867.
25.-5/86.