CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885 — Page 87

2212

85

18

hame Arsenal or Station.

haval

it might be regarded

Contraband.

It does not seem

مه

likely,

having regard to the view on

this

subject.

which has

hitherto been insisted

upon by France, that she

will take

an Extre

upon the subject.

we have ete.

(Signed) Henry

View

James

Farrer Hershell

& Parker teave

No. 164.

The Law Officers of the Crown to Earl Granville.-(Received December 17.) My Lord,

Temple, December 17, 1870. WE are honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 15th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to inclose to us an accompany- ing letter from the Colonial Office, inclosing copies of two despatches from the Governor of New South Wales, on the subject of the supply of coals and contraband of war to belligerent vessels, and to request that we would take those papers into our consideration, and favour your Lordship at our earliest convenience with our opinion as to the instruc- tions which should be addressed to the Governor of New South Wales both on the ques- tion of the supply of coal, and generally in regard to contraband of war.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the papers into our con- sideration and have the honour to report→→

That we are not aware of any better instructions that can be given to the Colonial Governors, as to the manner in which belligerent ships of war should be dealt with, than those contained in your Lordship's Circular letter of the 19th July last, supplemented by Lord Kimberley's Circular of the 7th October.

We may observe that an erroneous idea seems to have become current at Sydney, possibly in consequence of the assertion of the Consul of the North German Confederation in his letter of the 6th September, 1870, that coal is under all circumstances contraband of

war,

We think it advisable that Lord Belmore should be informed that coal is to be regarded as an article ancipitis usus, which may become contraband of war where it is destined to be used for purposes directly belligerent.

This question, however, is immaterial, if the opinion which we have often expressed be correct, that according to international law there is no duty on a neutral State to pre- vent the exportation by merchant-vessels of contraband of war to belligerents. The prevention of this trade lies with the belligerent injured by it, whose Courts adjudicate on captures, and determine what articles are, and what are not, under given circumstances, contraband of war, a question which cannot be determined beforehand by the neutral country from which they are exported. It follows that we think the view taken by the Colonial Attorney-General erroneous, and that we regard the introduction of the Colonia Bill (which we do not understand to have yet passed) as somewhat untoward.

We have, &c. (Signed)

R. P. COLLIER,

J. D. COLERIDGE. TRAVERS TWISS.