2
Lordship desires it to be distinctly understood that by complying with the request to nominate a Commissioner you do not thereby recognise any right in a Colonial Government to confer by a Royal Commission powers to be exercised outside of the Colony, and that the inquiry therefore can only be effective so far as any person, whose evidence or participation in it may be desired, consents to appear before the Commissioners.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley,
&c.
&c.
&c.
We have, &c.,
(Signed)
HENRY JAMES. FARRER HERSCHELL.
18,535/1885.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Imm
Reference :--
CO. 885
12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
MY LORD,
No. 249A.
(TRINIDAD.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
We were honoured with your Lordship's commande, signified in Sir Julian
Temple, March 30, 1881. Pauncefote's letter of the 22nd instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a letter from the Treasury upon the subject of the Chilean vessel lately detained in the Tyne under the Foreign Enlistment Act.
That we would see from that letter and its enclosures that Messrs. Armstrong and Co. had executed a bond for 10,000l. as security that the vessel in question should not, without the licence of Her Majesty, be delivered to the Government of Chile, nor be permitted to leave the Tyne until the termination of the war between Chile and Peru, without prejudice to any measures which Her Majesty's Government might think proper to take to prevent the vessel being so delivered or dispatched. That Messrs. Armstrong and Co. had also given a written assurance that during the con- tinuance of that war notice should be given to Her Majesty's Government of the intended departure from the Tyne, or transference from their control, of any war-vessel under construction by them.
That there seemed to be, therefore, no reason now to fear an infraction of the Foreign Enlistment Act in regard to the vessel in question, but that we would observe that in the Treasury letter the question was raised, with reference to future action, how far the Foreign Enlistment Act imposed an obligation upon Her Majesty's Government to originate surveillance over vessels of war building in this country, without waiting to be set in motion by the Representatives of the Powers against whom such vessels might be intended to act.
That your Lordship apprehended that such an obligation, apart from the prescrip- tions of the Act, devolved upon Her Majesty's Government by international law, and that if we should concur your Lordship proposed to reply to the Treasury to that effect, and to recommend that the proper officers be instructed to exercise due diligence in watching all vessels of war under construction in private building-yards in this country, and to report at once every case in which they had reasonable cause to believe that any vessel was being built, equipped, or about to be dispatched in violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, adding, that on receiving such intelligence the Secretary of State would at once request an explanation from the Representative of the belligerent State for whose service it was believed the vessel was being built or equipped, or intended to be dispatched.
That with regard to the fear implied in the concluding passage of the Treasury letter, that the consequence of unnecessarily interfering with an important branch of private trade might be to drive that trade to other countries, Sir Julian was to enclose a copy of the report of the Neutrality Laws Commissioners, from which we would perceive that the apprehensions expressed in the Treasury letter were fully discussed by Sir William Vernon Harcourt in the observations appended by him to the report of the Commission, in which he deprecated any interference by law with the mere building of ships of war as distinguished from their being armed or dispatched for the service of a belligerent State. That, nevertheless, the resolutions contained in the report of the Commission on that point were adopted by Legislature.
That Sir Julian Pauncefote was to request that we would take the matter into our consideration, and inform your Lordship whether we concur in the answer which your Lordship proposed to return to the Treasury, and, if so, that we would favour your Lordship with any suggestions that might occur to us as to any further precautions that might properly be taken to prevent infraction of sections 8 and 10 of the Foreign Enlistment Act without undue interference with legitimate trade.
Treasury, March 2, 1881.
A 18927-31. 25.-11/85.