CO885-(13-15) — Page 416

2

clearance for the north of the island (of Ruatan) is borne out by that of the Acting Commandant, and it is clear that the orders given were to refuse all clearances from Ruatan for whatever destination.

As regards the arrest, the evidence communicated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs shows that it was made to prevent the master's departure without a clearance.

The Acting Commandant, Reyes, and Rivera all state this in so many words. Yates alone suggests that it was due to Bodden's use of offensive language about the Honduranean flag.

It is presumed that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was making allusion to this in his reply when he said that the nature of the evidence forbade his analysing it, and thereby adopted the theory advanced by Yates.

Inquiries were therefore made through the Colonial Office as to whether Bodden really had used the language attributed to him, and Bodden formally denied having done so (Paper B), adding that no mention was made of this matter at the time of the arrest, which he was given to understand was due to a wish to prevent his leaving for Truxillo.

The character of Yates, on whose evidence alone the charge was made, does not bear scrutiny (Paper D).

The Honduranean reply not being considered satisfactory, Mr. Gosling was instructed to make a further emphatic representation on the subject, and to ask for some adequate compensation (Paper E).

A further reply was received on the 14th January last, reiterating the refusal to entertain the claim, on the same grounds, namely, that the authorities acted rightly in refusing the clearance, as the Republic was at the time in a state of siege, and the ports for which clearance was asked were in the hands of the enemy (Paper F).

The Honduranean Government, therefore, claim the right to refuse clearances for whatever destination from their ports when the Republic is in a state of siege.

I am to request that you will take the papers transmitted herewith into your consideration, and favour Lord Kimberley with your opinion as to whether the existence of a state of siege entitled the Government of Honduras to instruct their authorities at Ruatan to refuse a clearance for the "Lottie May" to proceed-

1. To the northern portions of the Island of Ruatan, which were not in the hands of the rebels.

2. To Truxillo, or any other port in the possession or under the control of the Honduranean rebels.

3. To Grand Cayman, a British possession, or to any other non-HonduraneaD port.

4. Also as to whether the Honduranean Government were justified in arresting Mr. Bodden in order to prevent him or the vessel of which he was master from leaving Ruatan; and

5. Generally on the case.

3

general,be interrupted except when an effective blockade is in force, or the vessel Retained has violated the laws of neutrality. But there may be exceptional_instances in which a fair case of military necessity would excuse a belligerout Power for detaining an innocent neutral ship even though there be no blockade. had the British Commander at Alexandria thought it necessary to detain, and detained, For exampe, all the vessels at that port for a short time in order to prevent his intended descent upon the Suez Canal from being divulged to the enemy, foreign nations could not have complained. But, in that event, we think compensation would have been payable, and certainly the utmost care would have been imperative to make the detention as short and as little onerous as possible. Other necessities of a like kind may readily be imagined.

1, 2, 3. To apply this view of the law to the present facts, we are of opinion that the Government at Honduras, if they had a fair case of military necessity, would have been justified in refusing clearance for any port. We can suppose that such a case existed in regard to ports in the occupation of insurgents, though the reasons do not appear in the papers before us, but, so far as we can see, there was no such case as regards ports in the north of the island, and still less as regards British ports. And in any case we think compensation was payable for the detention.

+. That the Government of Honduras was not justified in arresting Mr. Bodden in order to prevent him, or the vessel, from leaving Ruatan. If they were entitled to stop the ship (a point already dealt with) they were bound to exercise a right of so exceptional a character in the most considerate way, and it might have been done more effectually without the arrest of the master.

5. That the arrest of Mr. Bodden was not in fact, as we collect from the docu- ments, based upon any contumelious language which he may have used. We think it is not established that he did use such language, and, even if he did, he ought not to have been punished by summary arrest without trial, especially as it appears from the evidence of Mr. Yates (who alone speaks to this point) that the language was not used in the presence of the Commandant who inflicted the punishment, nor established by any legal proceedings. The character of the imprisonment and the disregard of requests for medical aid are aggravating circumstances.

We desire to add that the claims made both by the owners and Mr. Bodden appear to us to be extravagant, and even preposterous, in amount.

Royal Courts of Justice,

July 1, 1895.

R. T. REID. FRANK LOCKWOOD.

I am, &c.

FRANCIS BERTIE.

List of Papers.

(A.) Colonial Office

September 26, 1892.

(B.)

Ditto

February 12, 1894.

(C.) Mr. Gosling

(No. 118)

September 6, 1893,

(D.) Ditto

(No. 119)

(E.) To Mr. Gosling

(No. 14)

(F.) Mr. Gosling

(No. 246)

September 9, March December 18,

13, 1894.

""

Report.

We think it will be more convenient to state our opinion upon the law before applying it to the points put to us in the first question.

We consider that the existence of a state of war, or of a state of siege, does not as a rule warrant any Power in detaining the ships of a friendly nation. No higher rights can be claimed by a de jure Government in conflict with insurgents than belong to one Power at war with another, and in such a situation neutral commerce cannot in

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

PILTIC.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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