PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
40
taken locally; and I would at the same time observe that, in the absence of evidence that any vessels are acting under the orders of the Russian Government or Naval authorities, it is not possible to refuse "bunker" coal to such vessels, provided their papers are in order, even although certain doubt may be felt as to their movements.
4. It is extremely improbable that any vessel would seek permission to take in a cargo of coal at Colombo, and, in such a case, permission would only be granted on the most ample evidence that the cargo was required for a legitimate purpose.
5. I may also add that it is a common practice for colliers destined to receive at some future port final instructions as to the disposal of their cargo to call at Colombo. In such cases every effort will be made to satisfy me that such cargoes of coal are for legitimate traffic before bunker coal is allowed to be placed on board..
I have, &c.
HENRY A. BLAKE,
Governor.
3259.
41
No. 74.
NATAL.
GOVERNOR SIR H. E. McCALLUM TO MR. LYTTELTON. (Received 5:50 P.M., January 30, 1905.)
(Paraphrase.)
(January 30. No. 1.)
TELEGRAM.
WITH reference to my telegrams of the 22nd and 25th January,* master of the "Tapton" describes, in a series of newspaper articles, how the Russian squadron was coaled by him at Gaboon, Great Fish Bay, and Angra Pequena. The articles are not yet completed. He includes, in mentioning names of auxiliaries attached to squadron, the steamer" Espérance," as having a contract to supply frozen meat en route, vide my telegrams No. 1 of the 22nd December, and No 1 of the 24th December.†
Referring to my telegram No. 1 of the 16th January, the colliers mentioned therein, which had cleared for Batavia, are still lying, evidently waiting for instructions from the Russian Admiral, in Durban Roads.
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
9 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
Enclosure in No. 73.
MEMORANDUM.
Coaling in the Port of Colombo generally.
COLOMBO is a port to which steamers come for bunker coal. With the exception of the Royal Mail steamers and men-of-war, nearly all coal taken for bunkers is now Indian. Never, probably, in the history of the port has a steamer called here and purchased a cargo of coal.
Coaling in connection with the Russian Baltic Fleet.
With the Baltic Fleet still thousands of miles away no steamer calling here can yet be said to be accompanying it. All vessels carrying coal have, however, for the last month been carefully examined before being allowed to take on bunker coal. In every case so far the ship's papers have been found in order, and the cargoes consigned to Hong Kong or Singapore for orders, with option of taking it on to Shanghai or Kiauchou. Freight varying from 12s. 6d. to 14s. a ton.
Vessels suspected by the Egyptian Authorities of being engaged to Coal the Baltic Fleet.
The following suspected vessels have, so far, visited this port :-
The "Wentbridge."--This vessel had a cargo of 3,000 tons Welsh coal consigned to the P. and O. Company at this port, which she duly discharged and proceeded in ballast to Calcutta.
04
The "Lethington," Powderham," and "Freja" also suspected called here for bunker coals. They were found to be carrying cargoes of coal to Hong Kong for orders. Their papers were all in order, and precisely similar in character to those of other vessels employed in the coaling trade. They therefore were permitted to replenish their bunkers, and left for the further East.
papers
Every collier that has so far called at this port has been found to have all her in order. It is significant that these vessels all originally started from some English port, and it is to be presumed that the Home Authorities would not have permitted them to start had they not been satisfied with their papers.
W. H. JACKSON,
His Majesty's Customs, Colombo,
January 3, 1905.
Principal Collector.
2448.
SIR,
No. 75.
COLONIAL OFFICE TO FOREIGN OFFICE.
[Answered by No. 79.].
Downing Street, January 30, 1905. I AM directed by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th instant,§ on the subject of the supply of bunker coal at Durban to certain British steam-ships professing to be proceeding to Falmouth, and to transmit, for the information of the Marquess of Lansdowne, a paraphrase of a further telegram|| on this subject, which has been received from the Governor of Natal, together with a paraphrase of the telegraphic reply which Mr. Lyttelton has addressed to Sir H. McCallum.
Mr. Lyttelton agrees that it should be explained to Sir H. McCallum that his assumption that coal is absolute contraband of war and equipment of war is incorrect, and that he should be informed that His Majesty's Government protested against the Russian rule making coal absolute contraband of war. It does not appear, however, that though the Russian order approving the Rules, which was received in your letter of the 10th March last** was at once communicated to all Colonies without remark as you were informed on the 17th of that month, this protest has been communicated to Colonial Governments, so that Sir H. McCallum's mistake was not, under the circumstances, unnatural.
With regard to his apparent further conclusion that it is a breach of neutrality on the part of private individuals to supply a belligerent with absolute contraband, I am to request you to draw the attention of the Marquess of Lansdowne to the fact that in the circular telegram of the 9th August†† it was laid down that the Russian Baltic Fleet was not to be permitted to make use in any way of a British port for the purpose of coaling either directly from the shore or from colliers accompanying the fleet, and also to the closing part of the second paragraph of your letter of the 25th November last, prohibiting the supply of coal to colliers in attendance upon the Russian fleet, which was communicated to Sir H. McCallum as to all other Governors of Colonies on the line of route at the beginning of December. It is possible that Sir H. McCallum considers that he has sufficient evidence to show that the ships now in question have gone beyond the ordinary limits of contraband trade, and have acted, or contemplate acting, in such a manner as to amount to their employment in the Russian Nav Service within the meaning of Section 8 (4) of the Foreign Enlistment Act. As it
Nos, 64 and 67.
No. 67.
1 No. 70.
† Nos. 47 and 50.
Not printed
‡ No. 58.
§ No. 68.
†† No. 10.
[1185]
‡‡ No. 23 A.
G