CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885 — Page 178

No. 1.

4305

REGT 18 MAR 85)

176

(No. 26. Treaty.) My Lord,

Earl Granville to Viscount Lyons.

Foreign Office, March 12, 1885. THE French Ambassador complained to-day of the action of the British authorities at Singapore in the case of an English vessel which supplied coal to one of the French vessels (the "Primauguet") on the high seas.

M. Waddington stated that on her return to Singapore the English vessel was fined, and his Excellency inquired whether this was warranted by law.

I am, &c.

(Signed)

GRANVILLE.

No. 2.

(Treaty.) (Telegraphic.)

Earl Granville to Sir H. Parkes.

Foreign Office, March 13, 1885, 6 P.M.

MY telegram of 3rd. French Government complain of public notification by you of our objection. It was not intended for publication, and it may create false impression on Chinese that we will forcibly oppose seizures of rice. Inform Chinese Government that the legality of the seizure must be decided by the Prize Court. Meanwhile, we cannot interfere.

No. 3.

Earl Granville to Viscount Lyons.

16.

(No. 28. Treaty.) My Lord,

Foreign Office, March N, 1885. WITH reference to my despatch No. 26, Treaty, of the 12th instant, I have to inform your Excellency that the French Ambassador called upon me again, and stated that the Colonial authorities of Hong Kong were inclined to stop the export of coal which the provider of the French squadron sends by merchant-vessels to his firm at Kelung in Formosa. At the same time, there had been no restriction placed on the exportation of war material to China.

His Excellency also complained that Her Majesty's Minister in China had issued a public notification, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government did not admit the right of the French Government to treat rice generally as contraband of war; and M. Waddington stated that this proceeding had given much dissatisfaction to his Government, as it was calculated to encourage the Chinese to resistance and to create a false impression as to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government on this question.

I had subsequently the honour of receiving a further visit from the Ambassador, when I informed his Excellency that no intelligence had reached Her Majesty's Govern- ment respecting the stoppage of shipments of coal from Singapore or Hong Kong; that it was not possible to form an opinion as to the legality of the action of the Colonial authorities without full knowledge of all the facts, but that instructions would be sent to them by telegram, while they carried out the provisions of the Foreign Enlist- ment Act as to equipment, not to interfere with any shipments of coal made in the way of trade and having the character of a commercial transaction.

I then informed M. Waddington that I had no knowledge of the notification by Sir H. Parkes of which his Government had complained, and that it had not been issued in pursuance of any instructions from Her Majesty's Government, that M. Waddington was aware that Sir H. Parkes was the reverse of anti-French, and that he was most desirous of seeing a termination of the war. He had doubtless issued this Proclamation in order to take the most effectual means of informing British

[138].

1