CO885-(10-11) — Page 563

11916.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

mutinummC.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH——NOT TO

MY LORD,

No. 443. (ANTIGUA.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Lincoln's Inn, December 13, 1866. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 5th instant, stating that he was directed to transmit to us a Despatch and its enclosures from Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Caracas, reporting the circum- stances under which the English crew of the steamer "Bolivar," which they had navigated from England to be employed in the service of the Government of Venezuela, had seized the vessel, and sailed away as was supposed for Trinidad, and Mr. Hammond was to request that we would take these papers into consideration and report to your Lordship our opinion whether Her Majesty's Government can take any steps in regard tothese proceedings. Mr. Hammond was also pleased to add that as Her Majesty's sub- jects have many outstanding claims against the Government of Venezuela (of) which that Government, notwithstanding its repeated promises, continues to delay payment, your Lordship would be glad to be informed whether the vessel might not be attached by Her Majesty's Government in a British port with a view to its value being made available for the satisfaction, as far as it might go, of British claims.

A previous Despatch reporting the arrival of the "Bolivar" at La Guaira was also enclosed.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have taken this case into considera- tion, and have the honour to

Report

That three questions appear to be raised by the papers laid before us upon which our opinion is desired.

The first relates to the ship;

The second to the crew; and

The third to the right of the British Government to detain the ship as part payment of a debt owing from the Venezuelan Government to certain subjects of Her Majesty.

With respect to the first question it appears from the papers before us that the Venezuelan Government have purchased and paid for the "Bolivar," and that she is now the property of that Government, but that she has been sailing as an armed vessel without the consent of that Government and without lawful commission or lawful flag, and was supposed to have entered the port or harbour of Trinidad. Assuming these facts to be accurately stated. we should, if the vessel had been and remained at Trinidad, have been of opinion that instruction should be given to the proper authorities here to detain her, and by force if necessary, and that the Vene- zuelan Government should have been immediately apprised that she was so detained, and that no objection would be offered by Her Majesty's Government to the Vene- zuelan Government taking possession of her by any legal means, and we were about to report to this effect, but we have seen in the newspapers of yesterday a statement which leads to the belief that this vessel had arrived in the Medway, and is in the custody of the authorities there. If so, we think that the vessel should remain in that custody, and that a communication to the purport and effect of that above suggested should now be made to the Venezuelan Government.

We understand from the papers before us that 2ndly. With respect to the crew? they were enlisted in the service of a foreign state, and have since, without the authority of that state, possessed themselves of the ship, and taken her first to Trinidad, and afterwards brought her to this country of their own authority; under these circumstances we are of opinion that Her Majesty's Government ought not to interfere in any way on their behalf with the Venezuelan Government

With regard to the third question we are of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances in which this vessel came within Her Majesty's dominions, it would not be right or expedient that Her Majesty's Government should seize the engel as an instalment of a debt due from the Venezuelan Government to Her Majesty's subjects. Such an Act would be one of reprisals, removed only one step from the declaration of actual war, and such a proceeding ought not, we think, in any case to be taken without due preliminary notice to the state which is to be affected by it. We have, &c. (Signed)

The Lord Stanley.

J. ROLT.

JOHN KARSLAKE. ROBERT PHILLIMORE.

0 1627*.-931. 25.-5/86.