21617/92.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TILLLC.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
!
MY LORD,
No. 40A.
(Hong Kong.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
We are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Julian
Royal Courts of Justice, April 2, 1885. Pauncefote's letter of the 25th ultimo, stating that, with reference to our Report of the 18th February last, he was to transmit to us the papers* which related to the desire of the French Government that the export of arms and munitions of war from Hong Kong to China should be prohibited.
That Sir Julian Pauncefote was to state that part of our side of the harbour of Hong Kong was Chinese territory, and that war material could be passed into China from. Hong Kong through British Kowloon with complete immunity from interference by French cruizers.
That our opinion was requested as to the nature of the reply which should be made to M. Waddington's note of the 18th ultimo, taking into consideration the exceptional circumstances created by the geographical position of Hong Kong.
That Sir Julian Pauncefote inclosed a map of Hong Kong, showing its proximity to the mainland of China.
In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to
Report-
That we are of opinion that your Lordship should, in reply to M. Waddington's letter of the 18th ultimo, inform his Excellency that your Lordship regrets that yon feel it impossible to depart from the rules and practice of conduct resulting from well- established principles of international action.
It is fully recognised that the subjects of a neutral state, except so far as they are forbidden by legislation, may trade in all articles with the belligerents, whose only remedy is to stop such trading by seizure, in the manner recognised by international law.
Whilst it is true that the geographical position of Hong Kong gives great facility to English traders to carry on their trade with China under circumstances which render any seizure by the French almost impossible, yet such circumstances are not sufficient to cause the general rule we have above referred to to be departed from. Such facility of trade must be regarded as one of degree.
We presume that, during the French and German war, much trade existed between Belgium and France with which Germany had no power of interference, and such facility of trade would always exist in cases where the neutral and belligerent states were contiguous.
We think also that the claim of the French Government to seize and search neutral vessels bound for the English port of Hong Kong should be most strongly protested against.
No valid ground for such a claim exists. The geographical position of a neutral port cannot justify a belligerent Power in interfering with its trade.
For instance, if a war took place between England and Russia, the French would not, we assume, be prepared to permit the right of Russian vessels of war to seize and search French and other neutral vessels bound for Pondicherry, and yet the geo- graphical position of that port would afford great facility for supplying goods to those engaged in belligerent operations.
At the same time that these views are presented to M. Waddington, we think your Lordship may inform his Excellency that there is no desire on the part of the English Government to act in any other than the most friendly spirit towards the French
• To M. Waddington, March 6; M. Waddington, March 18, 1885. Confidential No. 5163, pp. 74 and 96.
70451,-35. 95.-11/99.
!
O