PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
TTC.O.8
.885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
8
even if these cases eventually came before the Supreme Admiralty Council the result would be equally unsatisfactory. It is possible that in the end all these cases may have to be referred to arbitration, as Count Lamsdorff has more than once hinted, but no question of this kind arises at present.
I am, therefore, to request that you will take these questions into your considera- tion, and that you will favour Lord Lansdowne with your opinion at your early convenience on the following points :-
1. The "Allanton": (a.) Whether the claim of the owners should be presented through the diplomatic channel, or whether the owners should be informed that they must initiate proceedings in a Prize Court;
(b.) If you consider that the claim should be presented diplomatically, whether you approve the draft note contained in, Sir C. Hardinge's No. 103, Treaty, of the 9th August, and what further or other arguments you consider might be employed with advantage;
(c) Whether the claim on behalf of the officers and crew comes within Article 88 of the Russian Prize Court Regulations;
(d.) Whether the claim on behalf of the officers and crew should be presented through the diplomatic channel, and if s on what ground?
2. The Calchas": Whether the claim of the (a) owners and (b) Mr. McKinnon should be presented diplomatically, or whether the parties should be informed that they must commence proceedings in a Prize Court?
3. "Cilurnum": Whether the owners of the jettisoned cargo of this vessel should be told to institute proceedings before the Prize Court at Libau, to which the papers have been forwarded, or whether the claim should be presented diplomatically?
4. "Hipsang": Whether the claim of the owners should for the third time be presented to the Russian Government, and, if so, what arguments you consider should be employed to meet the Russian contentions?
**
5. Whether the claims in connection with the "Oldhamia," "St. Kilda," and Ikhona" should be brought before the Prize. Court, or presented through the diplomatic channel?
6. Lord Lansdowne would also be glad to receive any observations of a general nature you may be good enough to offer on the subjects dealt with in this reference.
I have, &c.,
F. H. VILLIERS.
List of Papers.
(A.) Russian Naval Prize Regulations. (B.)." Allanton" Case.
Audgment of Vladivostock Prize Court.
Judgment of Supreme Admiralty Court of Appeal.
Sir C. Hardinge
To ditto
Sir C. Hardinge
Ditto
To ditto
Sir C. Hardinge
(No. 83. Treaty) July
13, 1905.
(No. 92. Trenty) July
31,
**
(No. 91. Treaty) July (No. 52. Treaty. Telegraphic) August 4, (No. Treaty. Telegraphic) August 9, (No. 103. Treaty) August 9,
22,
+
ས་
(C.) Claims of Crew, &c., of " Allanton."
Mr. Leonard Tubbs
To ditto
Ditto
Mr. Constantine
To ditto
House of Commons (Q. and A.), Mr. Robson
Mr. Tubbs
Merchant Service Guild
A pril April 19, April April
11. 1905.
11
21.
29,
Junc 27,
Mr. Nannetti
July
31.
August 3.
August 3.
Memorandum by Mr. Hurst
August 10,
(D.) "Calchas Case."
Memorandum by Mr. Maycock.
Messrs. Lowless and Co. To Sir C. Hardinge Sir C. Hardinge
Lloyd's
Mr. Elliott
To Sir C. Hardinge
Sir C. Hardinge
Mr. Elliott
Sir C. Hardinge
To Sir C. Hardinge
Sir C. Hardinge
Ditto
Sir C. Hardlinge
Ditto Ditto
Sir C. MacDonald
Sir C. Hardinge
Ditto
To Sir C. Hardinge
Ditto
...
9
Mr. Mackinnon's Claim.
(E.) "Cilurnum
June 1, 1905. (No. 79. Treaty) July (No. 107. Treaty) August 21,
Case.
1
21
21
(F.) "Hipsang" Case.
(G.)
"Oldhamia
...
June 7, 1905.
June
་་
9,
(Telegraphic) June (Telegraphic) June
22. June 22,
(No. 5) July 15,
(Telegraphic) July (No. 87) July
(No. 100) August
20,
+1
21, "
11
(No. 86. Treaty July 16, 1905, (Telegraphic) August 10, (No. 104. Treaty) August 10,
Case.
"}
(No. 33. Treaty) June 10, 1905. (No. 92. Treaty) July 25, (Telegraphic) August 8,
..(No. 96) August 8, .(No. 97) August 8,
Sir C. Hardinge to Mr. Maycock (with letter from Solicitor-General
and Minutes)
Sir C. Hardinge
་་
!}
"
(No. 106)
August 8, August 12,
*
22
(H.) "St. Kilda" and "Ikhona" Cases.
(No. 81. Treaty) July (No. 90. Treaty) July
10, 1905. 922,
11
2 Nos. of Hansard's Debates.
To Sir C. Hardinge Sir C. Hardinge
...
(I.) Printed Correspondence respecting the Case of the " Knight Commander."
Report.
1. (a.) We think that the claim of the owners of the "Allanton" should be presented through the diplomatic channel.
·
Any proceedings in the Prize Court in respect of this claim would, in our opinion, be futile, in view of the finding of the Supreme Court that the seizure was justifiable. The detention consequent upon the erroneous decision of the Prize Court at Vladivostock does not afford a basis for any legal claim which could be enforced by any further proceedings.
(b.) We do not think that this claim can be put forward diplomatically as a matter of right, but as it is clear that there was a miscarriage in the Vladivostock Prize Court, we think that there is a strong claim for equitable consideration. Beyond this we are unable to suggest any arguments in addition to those used in the draft note contained in Sir C. Hardinge's despatch No. 103, Treaty, of the 10th August.
(c.) We do not think that the claim on behalf of the officers and crew comes within Article 88 of the Russian Prize Court Regulations.
(d.) This claim does not appear to be a strong one, as some hardship must in cases of this kind be almost always occasioned to the officers and crew concerned. We think, however, that the circumstances may fairly be brought to the notice of the Russian Government, through the diplomatic channel, in connection with the claim
23111
B
Judgment of Vladivostock Prize Court. Judgment of Supreme Admiralty Court of Appeal.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.