3113.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
SEPERTICO.
885
12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
MY LORD,
No. 245.
(TRINIDAD.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
We are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Julian
Temple, 29th January.1881. Pauncefote's letter, received the 28th ultimo, stating that with reference to our Report of the 27th April last upon the subject of the claim of Venezuela to the island of Patos, he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a letter from the Colonial Office pointing out which of the papers submitted to us contained the evidence relied upon as showing that the island in question had been held and treated as a dependency of Trinidad since the occupation of the Colony in 1797.
That the papers enclosed in the Foreign Office letter to us of the 4th February 1880, were sent therewith for convenience of reference, and that our Report of the 27th April was also inclosed.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report
That we think it may be taken on the evidence before us that the island of Patos was within the Government and jurisdiction of Trinidad prior to the cession of that island to Great Britain, and that Patos may properly be regarded as one of its dependencies.
This seems to be established by the grant made by the Governor and Captain- General of Trinidad to the Cabildo in 1791, whatever question there may be as to the extent of the rights thereby granted, or as to the necessity for its confirmation by the Crown of Spain. If, therefore, by the Treaty of Amiens, the island of Trinidad and its dependencies had been ceded to Great Britain, her right to the island of Patos could hardly have been called in question. In the Treaty, however, the "island of Trinidad" only in express terms ceded. There are, nevertheless, strong grounds for contending that such language would suffice to carry, and must prima facie be construed to carry, a cession of the dependencies of the island also, or at all events, of such of them as are in its immediate neighbourhood. Grave inconvenience would certainly result from a contrary construction. But the terms of the Treaty render such a construction difficult in the present case, for in another part (Article VII.) of the Treaty of Amiens when the case of Malta is dealt with expressly mentioned. And further, Patos appears to be considerably nearer the main- "its dependencies" are land than it is to Trinidad. If then the question had arisen immediately after the Treaty, and had rested only upon the construction of that instrument we think it doubtful whether the title of Great Britain to the island of Patos could be clearly established.
It becomes important therefore to inquire how the parties to that Treaty have acted, and how the island has been dealt with subsequently.
For nearly sixty years after the Treaty (viz., until 1850) no claim was made to the island either by Spain or by the Government of Venezuela, which, in 1845, succeeded to the Spanish dominions in that part of America. On the other hand, acts
of dominion were exercised over the island by the Government of Trinidad as far back as 1822, and such acts have been renewed at other periods subsequent to that date.
It is true that the leave given to Felix to occupy and cultivate the island in 1822 was not the exercise of a very definite act of sovereignty.
But it is clear, from the opinion of the Attorney-General, that it was regarded as an assertion of sovereignty, and it seems to have been intended as such by the Government of Trinidad. In addition to this there have, we gather, been undoubted acts of sovereignty exercised, without question down to the present time, over the islands of Mouos and Huelons, which, like Patos, are separate islands, and could only have passed to Great Britain as dependencies of Trinidad.
▲ 12916.-308. 25.-12/84.