CO885-(13-15) — Page 398

2

1. Whether the time has come for the issue by the Queen of a Proclaination of Neutrality in the war between France and Madagascar.

2. Whether the Foreign Enlistment Act applies in any of the contingencies indicated in the questions to be asked by Mr. Henniker Heaton, M.P., and Sir Henry Howorth, M.P., and if so, in which of those contingencies, and to what extent.

3. Whether the Foreign Enlistment Act applies in the matter of the contract made by the French Government with an English firm for the conveyance to Madagascar of war materials which appear to include gun-boats in sections to be put together on arrival at Majunga.

Lord Kimberley would also be glad to be favoured with any general observations which you may have to offer upon the legal points involved.

I have, &é..

FRANCIS BERTIE.

List of Papers.

(A.) Mr. Henniker Heaton, question in House of Commons. (B.) Sir Henry Howorth, question in House of Commons. (C.) Acting Consul Sauzier (No. 77), December 21, 1894. (D.) Acting Consul Sauzier (No. 3), January 4, 1895. (E.) Mr. Berkeley (Telegraphic), February 3, 1895. (F.) Anglo-French Declaration, August 5, 1890.. (G.) Lord Dufferin (No. 36. Africa), August 3, 1890. (H.) Law Officers' Report, October 14, 1870.

(I.) Law Officers' Report, December 7, 1877.

(J.) Mr. Wyndham (Telegraphic), December 4, 1893.

(With Minutes by Sir E. Hertalet and Sir T. Sanderson.) (K.) To Mr. Wyndham (Telegraphic), December 6, 1893. (L.) Mr. Wyndham (Telegraphic), January 18, 1894. (M.) "The Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870,"

3

that Statute, lead us to this conclusion. Nevertheless, we consider that such pro- ceedings, though punishable by municipal law under the Act of 1870, if done without the licence of Her Majesty, are not an infraction of international law. Enlistment Act is no measure of the international obligations of Great Britain. It goes far beyond them, and its extreme stringency is presumably designed to arm Her The Foreign Majesty's Government with power to interpose in possible contingencies which it would be difficult to anticipate, or even from considerations of policy, which might make exceptional restraints upon neutral commerce desirable in a particular case. never been authoritatively admitted, not even in the three rules of the Washington Treaty (which of themselves have not become of international authority), that a It has neutral Government is bound to prevent neutral ships from sitaply acting as trans- ports or store ships for a belligerent, subject always to the risk of capture and condemnation. And we think it would be an extension of the duties of neutral Governments if any such obligation were admitted.

3. As already stated, we consider that the Foreign Enlistment Act applies in such case, subject to the observations already made.

4. We do not think there is any further observation we can make with advantage on the legal points involved.

Royal Courts of Justice,

February 12, 1895.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Kimberley, &c.

&c.

&c.

R. T. REID. FRANK LOCKWOOD.

Report.

In our opinion there exists a state of hostilities between France and Madagascar which may involve the exercise of belligerent rights towards British trade, and there- fore if Her Majesty's Government think fit, they would be at liberty to issue a Procla- mation of Neutrality.

Such a Proclamation, however, besides its primary use as a notification to British traders that their commerce is affected by the risks incidental to a foreign war, would also be a recognition of Madagascar as a belligerent. Recognition by a neutral of belligerency between a protected State and a protecting State, especially where the former is semi-civilized, might be interpreted as an unfriendly act towards the latter, unless clearly required by the legitimate interests of neutral commerce.

If France proposes to exercise the rights of a belligerent (for example in regard to contraband), she could not justly object to a Proclamation of Neutrality, for the very exercise of these rights is unjustifiable, except in case of war. claims an intention to exercise these rights (which is very improbable), such a Procla- If France dis- mation would appear gratuitous and premature. interests of British commerce afford the test by which the propriety of a Proclamation We consider that the legitimate of Neutrality should in law bo judged. Beyond that, of course, lie considerations of policy into which we do not enter.

a

2. In our opinion "The Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870," does not affect the mere carrying of munitions of war or other contraband.

The Foreign Enlistment Act does, in proceeding as dispatching, or allowing to be dispatchel, a vessel from British

our opinion, make punishable such dominions with intent, either that it should be used as a store ship, to carry munitions of war, or that it should be used as a transport to convey French troops to the seat of war. In such cases the vessel is exclusively appropriated to the service of a belligerent. Section 8, subsection 4, coupled with the interpretation clause s. 30 of

गय

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

TIT

C.O.885

Reference :--

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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