CO885-(10-11) — Page 761

11497.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

No. 608. (BAHAMAS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

MY LORD,

Temple, October 13, 1869. We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 7th day of October instant, stating that with reference to his letter of the 28th ultimo, relative to the decree of the Bahamas Vice-Admiralty Court in the case of the "Salvador," he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us copy of a letter from the Foreign Office, enclosing copy of a letter from the Admiralty requesting special attention to that part of the judgment which declares that a military expedition may be set on foot in a British Colony for the purpose of attacking the dominions of a friendly foreign Power.

*

เ

That the paragraph referred to is apparently that in which the judge said,

"I consider this case of the Salvador as a military expedition set on foot at "Nassau for the purpose of attacking the dominions of a friendly Power, but "not as coming under the 7th section of the 59 Geo. 3. c. 69. The American Act

44

16

has a remedy for this which is not in our Act, and therefore as the proof fails on

this piont I must decree the restitution of the vessel."

Sir Frederic Rogers was also pleased to say that he was desired to request that we

would give our particular attention to that sentence.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

Report

on

That we do not consider the judgment of the Vice-Admiralty Court of the Bahamas should be interpreted as implying the legality of the expedition of the "Salvador the assumption that it was an expedition for the purpose of attacking the dominions of a friendly Power, but simply as ruling that the expedition of "Salvador" was not proved to come within the 7th section of the 59 Geo. 3. c. 69.

If the Vice-Admiralty Judge meant to say that such an expedition would be legal

on general grounds, apart from the particular statute, we are unable to agree with

him.

We consider that such an expedition as is suggested by the Deputy Judge, if it were carried out under a flag which did not purport to be the flag of some self-styled Government, to be piratical, and that the parties engaged in it would be justifiably The provisions of the proceeded against under the Law of Nations as pirates. American Act to which the Deputy Judge alludes do not for the first time declare such an expedition to be a high misdemeanor, but enacta penalties for such an expedi- tion which could be enforced under that Act, even if the expedition was not carried out. So far the American Act provides a remedy which is not found in the English Foreign Enlistment Act, but which has not escaped the attention of the Neutrality Laws Commissioners, who have recommended the amendment of the English Act by adding to its provisions a prohibition against the preparing or fitting out in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions of any naval or military expedition to proceed from thence against the territory or dominions of any foreign State with whom Her Majesty shall then not be at war.'

CIJ

56

41

"

The Right Hon. Earl Granville, K.G.

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c. (Signed)

R. P. COLLIER.

J. D. COLERIDGE.

TRAVERS TWISS.

0

16978.-25. 95.--5,36.