CO885-(11-13) — Page 382

9820.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

1

MY LORD,

No. 146.

(MALTA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

""

"

Temple, 13th August 1877. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Herbert's letter of the 27th July ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to forward for our consideration copies of the proceedings of the Criminal Court of Judicial Police for the Island of Malta in two cases arising out of the visit of the British steamer "Sandringham to that island, together with a copy of a report by the Crown Advocate dated the 7th July ultimo, and a copy of Her Majesty's Procla- mation of Neutrality in the present war between Russia and Turkey.

2. That the “Sandringham was chartered on the 26th June 1877 by a commercial firm at Constantinople to load horses, mules, and other animals at Tunis, and to proceed to Syra, the Piræus, or elsewhere, in accordance with orders to be received by, telegraph. She was then fitted to receive horses and mules, and supplied with water and provisions under the direction and superintendence of the Turkish naval and military authorities, and sailed for Malta, where she arrived at the end of June, having on board a Turkish officer of rank, who was the bearer of despatches. From those and other circumstances it might be taken for the purpose of that case that the steamer was employed to procure horses for the Turkish Government. Upon their arrival at Malta the crew refused to proceed, alleging that the steamer was going to Tunis to convey horses and males to Constantinople for the Turkish Government, in contra- vention of Her Majesty's Proclamation of Neutrality; and the master having taken the men before the police court, apparently under section 243 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, the magistrate liberated them on the ground that they had shown reason- able cause not to proceed with the ship. That decision was apparently based in part upon the language of the Proclamation and the presence of the officer with despatches, in part upon the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, sections 8 (4) and 30, and the nature of the voyage, and the fittings of the ship.

3. That the master of the steamer was thereupon charged with an offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, against the Queen's Proclamation of the 30th April 1877, and other laws applicable to the case.

4. That the actual offence was not stated with precision, but the Court appeared to have considered that the question for its decision rested on the 8th section of the Act (4), and eventually held that whether the facts proved would or would not, if committed within Her Majesty's dominions, amount to an offence, the passage through Malta of the steamer for coaling did not mean that the pretended expedition was to be understood as having partly taken place within Her Majesty's dominions, and there- forc liberated the master, who proceeded on his voyage with his original crew.

5. That upon that statement of facts Mr. Herbert was desired to request us to be good enough to consider the enclosed copies of proceedings and report by the Crown Advocate, and to favour your Lordship with our opinion upon the following points :—

1. Was that steamer, under the circumstances, employed in the naval service of the Ottoman Government, as defined in section 30 of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 ?

(a.) In respect of her fittings and engagement to carry horses for that

Government;

(b.) In respect of the presence of an officer with despatches (assuming the

master to have been cognizant of them).

2. Was her employment an infringement of Her Majesty's Proclamation of

April 30th, 1877 ?

(a.) In respect of her fittings and engagement to carry horses for the

Ottoman Government;

(b.) Of the presence of an Ottoman officer with despatches (assuming the

master to have been cognizant of them).

A 12916.-143. 23.-1981.