CO885-(10-11) — Page 693

2

four, within the meaning of the 109th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and of the 163rd and 328th sections of the Customs Consolidation Act, or either of them ?

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken these matters into our consideration, and have the honour to

Report

4

That the Attorney-General inclines to the opinion that the Dominion of Canada is to be taken as one British possession within the meaning of the sections referred to : the Solicitor-General inclines to the contrary opinion; we agree, however, that there is much difficulty in applying the language of one statute to another which was never thought of when the first was passed; and suggest that a declaratory Act would be desirable. We venture, however, to add, what will probably occur to your Lordship, that it may be prudent to consider whether under such an Act the present rights of foreign powers in respect to the trade of the various colonies now included within one dominion should be in any way interfered with.

We have, &c.

The Right Hon. Earl Granville.

(Signed)

R. P. COLLIER.

J. D. COLERIDGE.

751.

SIB,

No. 550.

(Hong Kong)

FOREIGN OFFICE _to_COLONIAL OFFICE.

Foreign Office, January 22, 1869. On the receipt of your letter of 7th ultimo, the Law Officers were requested to report on the claim put forward by the French Consul at Hong Hong for exclusive jurisdiction over persons implicated in a riot on board the French Messagéries steamer *Tigre," and I am now directed by the Earl of Clarendon to acquaint you, for the information of Earl Granville, that they have reported that they consider that the pretensions of the Consul were unfounded.

Since the receipt of your letter a note has been addressed to Lord Clarendon by the French Ambassador at this Court stating that his Government considered the arrest of the sailors of the "Tigre" to be contrary to the provisions of the Anglo- French Postal Convention of September 24th, 1856, under which steamers employed in conveying correspondence are entitled to the same treatment as vessels of war in the ports of either State. His Excellency at the same time stated that his Govern- ment did not support the claim put forward by their Consul at Hong Kong for exclusive jurisdiction over all French merchant vessels in the port.

A second reference was thereupon made to the Law Officers who reported that a vessel, in order to be entitled under the Convention of September 1856 to the privileges of a vessel of war, must fall within the terms not only of Article 5 but of Articles 1 and 2, which are strictly confined to the object of conveying corre- Tigre" was not such a vessel but was spondence, whereas it appeared that the

employed in the carriage of merchandize, and did not therefore come within the fair

scope of the Convention.

The Under Secretary of State, Colonial Office.

I am, &c. (Signed) F. HAMMOND.

16978-681.

16.-5/06,

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

PETC.O. 885

سياسية

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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