R
5
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
། ག ཟ། ། ། །
C.O.
Reference :-
885
15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
Upon the construction of this Rule it is difficult, if not impossible, to say that under it coal is to be supplied only for the purpose of reaching the nearest home port, or some neutral port on the way to the nearest home port. In its natural meaning the Rule applies to the case of a neutral port wherever situate so long as it is nearer to the port of supply than is the nearest home port. It has, we believe, always been so construed in practice, and the propriety of such a construction from a praerical point of view is strongly insisted on by the Admiralty in their letter to the Foreign Office of the 30th December, 1903.
We cannot, however, help thinking that the framers of the Rule must have had primarily in view the case of a neutral port between the port of supply and the nearest home port of the vessel. The distance of the nearest home port might be such that enough coal could not be taken on board for the whole voyage, and the words as to another nearer port might well have been introduced for the purpose of enabling the vessel on her way home to achieve the first stage of that voyage, and then coal afresh at a nearer neutral port. It is difficult to see why, unless this was the object of the Rule, these words as to neutral ports were confined to nearer neutral ports.
It appears to us to be clear that any coal which the vessel has already on board must be deducted in estimating, uler this Rule 3, the quantity to be supplied for the purpose of taking her to her nearest home or nearer neutral port, and we think that in the case of a belligerent vessel accompanied by a store-ship containing coal the right to he supplied at a British port would not arise if such coal could be obtained from such store-ship, as it is obvious that in any such case there would be no necessity for the supply, and that it was being obtained only for the purpose of saving up the coal in the store-ship for use on a subsequent stage of the voyage or in hostile operations.
In the instructions issued by the United States, with reference to the Franco- German War ("State Papers, 1870–71,” vol. 61, pp. 670-671), these words as to other neutral ports do not occur at all.
It may be a matter for consideration whether the Rules of His Majesty's Govern- ment should, at the next suitable opportunity, be amended by leaving these words out. Without them the Rule would enable the vessel to take on board coal enough to reach any neutral port on the way home, in case the capacity of the vessel were insufficient to take coal for the whole voyage home. Such an amendment would follow the United States' precedent, but if for any reason it is thought desirable that some such words should be retained, it may deserve consideration whether words should be inserted to make it clear that the nearer neutral port must be on the way home. If an amendinent is made, it may possibly be well to add words to remove all doubts that the coal supplied is to be used only for the purpose of reaching the port in question. Whether any such amendment should be made is a question of policy of great importance.
We do not think it would be practicable to frame instructions suitable for general use to the effect that coal is not to be supplied directly for the purpose of any hostile operations. Perpetual friction would arise in the working of such a rule as those who would have to administer it at British ports all through the world might not have the materials for rightly determining the purpose for which the coal was asked, and very different views might be taken at different ports on the subject. We may refer, by way of illustration of the difficulties attending the attempt to frame a rule upon any such lines, to the observations made by the Law Officers in their Report of the 28th January, 1883,* upon the instructions which had been sent by the Colonial Office to Hong Kong and to the Straits Settlements.
The ease, however, which is suggested in Mr. Campbell's letter as likely to arise is of a very special nature, and seems to us to be outside the scope of the Rules as to coaling already issued by His Majesty's Government.
It is suggested that the Russian Fleet in the Baltic may desire to proceed east- ward to Japanese waters for the purpose of taking part in the war, and that, with a view to facilitate this expedition, arrangements are being made by the Russian Govern. ment for a supply of coal to be ready at Portland to be put on board the ships of the Baltic Fleet which arrive there on their way eastward. In substance this would be converting a neutral port into a depôt for the coaling purposes of a warlike expedition.
We think that, in such a case, special instructions might properly be issued directing that Russian vessels taking part in such an expedition are not to be permitted to use any British ports for the purpose of conling.
No. 36 in Vol. IV.
It is probably better to deal with the case in this way than, at the present moment, to make an amendment in the general rule.
Of course, no such prohibition would affect the right of British merchants to supply coal to dealers at the ports of other neutral countries, even though such coal may be intended for the Russian Fleet, if allowed to coal in such ports by the Government of the
country.
This country has never taken upon itself to prohibit the export of coal, even if intended for use by belligerent vessels. Such export was not interfered with during the Franco-German war (Hansard (1870), 3rd series, vol. 203, columns 1094 and 1278), and we cannot advise any new departure in this respect.
As we have above said, we think that His Majesty's Government may properly prohibit the supply of coal, under the suggested circumstances, in any British port. If, after such prohibition, British colliers left any British port for the purpose of supplying coal to the Russian Fleet ontside the limits of the territorial waters, this might bring them within the terms of the Foreign Enlistment Act on the principle enunciated in 1870 by the then Attorney-General and by Mr. Gladstone, in answer to questions with regard to the supply of coal to the French Fleet (Hansard, ubi supra). Every such case would, of course, have to be dealt with upon the facts which could be proved, but we think that it might be held to fall within section 4 of the Act.*
Coal
We think it right to add that, as a mere matter of law, the question of the supply of coal is not affected by the Russian declaration that coal is unconditionally contraband, nor would it be affected by any acquiescence by Great Britain in this new departure. supplied to a belligerent man-of-war has always been, in the view of this country, contra- band, but this has not affected the limited hospitality in the matter of coaling afforded to belligerent vessels coming into British ports. The attitude, however, lately assumed by the Russian Government in this matter may, no doubt, be usefully employed if a diplomatic correspondence should arise as to the treatment to be extended in the matter of coaling to Russian vessels.
any
We think that the observations which we have made above deal with most of the points which are raised in the letter of reference, but we think it better to add answers to the specific questions in their order :-
12 cannot be 1. We think that the words "some nearer-named neutral destination confined to ports situate between the British coaling port and the nearest port of the vessel's own country.
2. This is a question of policy, and we refer to what we have stated above on the subject.
3. No distinction can be drawn between the case in which vessels of the Fleet present themselves at the port at the same time, and the case in which they arrive successively, so long as they are acting in concert for the purposes of an expedition,
4. The fact that the destination is the seat of war is a most material circumstance. We should, however, point out that vessels may also take part in a war by proceeding to a destination which would enable them to intercept neutral vessels carrying contraband
of war.
5. The vessels of the belligerent fleet having in attendance tenders laden with coal could not, under the circumstances stated, be regarded as entitled to coal within the meaning of the Rule.
6. We think not-for the reasons stated above.
7. We think that such supply of coal would constitute an offence under the Foreign Enlistment Act. On this point we agree with the opinion of the Law Officers expressed in their Report of the 28th January, 1885.†
8. We have nothing further to add.
We have, &c.
R. B. FINLAŸ.
EDWARD CARSON.
* Le., Accepting service with a belligerent-W. M.
No. 36 in Vol. IV,
B
18618