COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 8 August 1870)

LORD HOUGHTON
asked Her Majesty's Government, Whether they believe they have power under the Customs Consolidation Act to prohibit the export of munitions of war, and whether they are prepared to exercise that power in the interest of the neutrality of this country between the contending Powers on the Continent? This question had been considered by the Neutrality Commission, of which he was a member, and though the majority of the Commissioners made no distinct recommendation upon it, such a prohibition was advocated by some of the most distinguished and experienced members. He believed that a power of prohibiting the exportation of munitions of war to belligerent Powers was already vested in the Government; but there would be an advantage in making such export absolutely illegal—so as to relieve the Government from the responsibility of stopping that export when the emergency actually arose. Public opinion seriously demanded this step. While conscious how inconvenient it would be to certain branches of trade, how difficult to enforce it in a country where such interferences were rare, and how possible it would be for some munitions of war to escape the vigilance of the public officers, public opinion believed that the measure would be a just and politic one. He trusted to hear that the Government intended to take this course. He regretted that the Report of the Neutrality Commissioners should have been on the Table two years, and should only have been acted upon in this hurried manner, without the possibility of explanation and due consideration. He 1677 would further ask whether Her Majesty's Government were justified in the present condition of foreign affairs in proroguing Parliament at all? A short adjournment would answer all the purposes of a Prorogation, and he believed would be more consonant with the feelings of the people. There was a Bill before their Lordships' House which would enable Parliament to be summoned more quickly than heretofore; but the summoning of Parliament at an unusual season always agitated the country and unsettled commerce. He must say he thought it unworthy of the subject and hardly respectful to the Commissioners, to pass the second reading of this Bill without a word of explanation or discussion.

§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX
thought it best simply to answer his noble Friend's Question, without entering into the expediency of proroguing Parliament or into other general questions of policy. There was no doubt the Government had the power of prohibiting the export of munitions of war, or of any articles tending to increase the naval or military force of any other country; but it could only be exercised by a complete and out ire prohibition, affecting all other countries indiscriminately—and this had never that he was aware of been exercised, nor did the Goverment think it expedient that the export of munitions of war to belligerents should be absolutely prohibited.

§ LORD CAIRNS
said, the noble Viscount's answer would tend to dispel a good deal of confusion which prevailed in the public mind on this subject. It could not be too clearly understood that although the Crown could by Order in Council prohibit the export of munitions of war and warlike stores, that power was only intended to be exercised, and could only be exercised, for the purpose of keeping such munitions and stores in this country for the benefit of this country. Moreover it was not a power to prevent exportation to particular places and to particular belligerents. If exercised at all, it must apply to all countries and places whatever — the prohibition must be entire and complete. The consequence was it could not be applied to the present emergency to prevent the supply of munitions to the belligerent Powers. Whether it was expedient now to give the Crown power to prohibit the export of munitions of war to either of 1678 the belligerents was a different question, on both sides of which much might be said; but it could hardly be discussed at this period of the Session. It would be easy to empower the Government to prohibit the export of munitions of war which by universal consent were contraband of war; but difficulties arose with respect to coal, and articles which, according to jurists, might or might not be ancipitis usûs; in which case the question whether they were contraband of war could only be determined by the Prize Court of the capturing Power. Nothing would be more at variance with International Law than for a neutral Power to take upon itself to decide whether in particular cases articles which were ancipitis usûs were or were not contraband of war. On the whole, the Government had acted wisely in not inserting in this Bill such a power.

§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX
said, he had refrained from entering into any explanation of the object and provisions of the Bill on occasion of the second reading, on account of the small attendance which could be expected at a Saturday Sitting; but he would now do so very shortly. The Bill repealed the existing law, re-enacting it with such improvements as experience had shown to be desirable. It prohibited subjects of Her Majesty, without licence from the Crown, from taking any part in hostilities between two countries with which Her Majesty was on friendly terms. He need not adduce arguments to show how unjustifiable and monstrous it would be for British subjects to take part in hostilities, when the avowed policy of the Government was that of perfect neutrality; but it was a question not of International but of Municipal Law—not between this country and foreign countries, but between the Crown and the subjects of the Crown. A similar law existed in the United States; while on the Continent Governments were able to prevent their subjects from violating neutrality. The principal objects of the Bill were to prohibit any subject from enlisting or inducing others to enlist in the service of a belligerent Power, and from fitting out, equipping, or arming any vessel for such service. During the American War the powers of the Government in this matter were found to be insufficient. In 1679 the case of the Alabama, that vessel left this country before the order of the Government, issued as soon as they had sufficient evidence before them, reached the port, she left our port as an unarmed ship, and only received her armament at sea, beyond our jurisdiction; so that no blame could attach to the Government; and in the case of the Alexandra and of the rams, proceedings before legal tribunals resulted in a proof that the Government had not sufficient power in the matter. They were, therefore, glad to buy the rams in order to avoid any difficulty. This defect would be removed by the present Bill, which was based on the Report of a Commission presided over by the late Lord Cranworth, and composed of other distinguished men. It was no disrespect to them that the Report had not been sooner carried out, for matters of great importance had occupied the attention of Parliament during the past two years; but the pressure of circumstances had now necessitated the passing of a Bill with unusual rapidity. The measure gave power to the Secretary of State to detain a suspected ship; as also to local officers at the ports, who would report to the Secretary of State, so as to cast on him full responsibility. It embodied all the recommendations of the Report, with the exception of that relating to the reception of vessels into British ports, and this object could be accomplished by Orders in Council.

LORD HOUGHTON
asked for a more categorical answer to his Question.

§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX
said, he could only repeat his statement that the Government did possess the power to prohibit the exportation of munitions of war; but the prohibition must be universal.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
remarked that there was no doubt on the point, and that the object of the power in question was to retain in this country all matériel of war. The export could not be forbidden merely to belligerent Powers.

§ VISCOUNT HALIFAX
then moved that Standing Orders, Nos. 37 & 38, be considered, in order to being dispensed with.

LORD HOUGHTON
said, he felt it to be useless to oppose the Motion, though it precluded the consideration of additional powers which might advanta- 1680 geously be included in this Bill. He rejoiced that the King of the Belgians, in spite of the large interests of his subjects in the manufacture of arms, had prohibited their exportation to the belligerents; thus setting an example which it believed this country to follow.

§ LORD REDESDALE
thought the late introduction of this Bill was excusable, as the exigency which called for it had only just arisen. He was not at all disposed, moreover, to blame the Government for getting Parliament to separate as soon as possible