HL Deb 22 July 1870 vol 203 cc729-33
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

rose to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that large purchases of horses are being made in Ireland by one at least of the Continental Governments now at war; and how far horses are or may properly be considered contraband of war? He regretted that the House should be so thin at that moment, because he thought his Question related to a matter which was at present a matter of the highest importance, and one to which, apparently, Her Majesty's Government had not given sufficient consideration. His Question assumed a fact of which he believed there was abundant evidence—namely, that agents of one, if not of both, the belligerent Powers were in this country, and more especially in Ireland, buying horses in large numbers. If this were so, it started at once two considerations of great gravity—namely, how far such proceedings affected our relations with those Powers and our neutrality towards each of them, and how far they affected our interests at home. He should be sorry to see a check given to a trade which he should be glad to see more prosperous in Ireland—the trade of breeding and selling horses. He was one of those who thought that some blame attached to the Imperial Government for not having extended more encouragement to that trade; but if agents of both or one of the belligerents were at present purchasing horses in the United Kingdom we had to consider how far it was consistent with our neutrality to permit such proceedings. We might either directly prohibit such aid being afforded to either of the belligerents, or we might allow it to be afforded to both, impartially, opening our ports equally to all comers; at the same time, it was impossible not to see that if such a trade in horses were carried on it must tend very much to the advantage of one of the belligerents and very little to the advantage of the other. It was not, however, our fault if the geographical position of France or the superiority of her navy gave her the advantage in that respect; and if this trade was permitted to go on it must be of immense use to France, should she be engaged in a protracted war, to have the United Kingdom to draw upon as a source of supply for remounting her cavalry. Yet the other belligerent Power would have no right to complain against us on that account, because, as far as we were concerned, she might come to our market as freely as her antagonist. Now he was quite certain that his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs would confirm his assertion that in permitting this trade we wished to lean to the side of neither party. He perceived that a Question had been put in the other House as to how far horses were contraband of war or not; and the Government had, very properly as he thought, refused to give any definition of what articles were or were not contraband of war. But let their Lordships consider this case. If after war was declared and had commenced—as he was afraid was the fact at the present moment—a British ship was overhauled in the Sound or the Baltic by a French man-of-war and found to be conveying a cargo of horses for Prussia—would not that cargo be seized as contraband of war, taken to a French Prize Court, and condemned? In Wharton's Law Lexicon, edition 1867, under the title "Contraband," was the following passage at page 233:— It is admitted on all hands, even by Mr. Hubner, the great advocate for the freedom of neutral commerce, that everything that may be made directly available for hostile purposes is contraband, as arms, ammunition, horses, timber for shipbuilding, and all sorts of naval stores. In the term contraband, horses and saddles may be included. Hautefeuille's Droits et Devoirs des Nations Neutres, vol. ii, p. 337; Marten's Précis, vol. ii, p. 316. Again, in the last edition of M'Culloch's Dictionary of Commerce, title "Neutrality," p. 219, the same passage from Hubner's work, De la Saisi des Batimens Neutres, vol. i., p. 193, was quoted. Ortolan and Hautefeuille seemed to think that coal never could be considered contraband of war. He apprehended, therefore, that horses exported for the purposes of either of the Governments now unfortunately belligerent could fairly be condemned as contraband of war. Now, the Prime Minister the other day said that the Government did not lay down, in the Proclamation of Neutrality, what merchant- dize was and what was not contraband of war; and, in doing so, be said he was only following the precedent set by Lord Malmesbury, quoting a letter, written in 1859, by direction of Lord Malmesbury when Foreign Secretary, in reply to an application from a private firm with respect to coal. In that letter Lord Malmesbury said that Her Majesty's Proclamation did not specify, and could not properly specify, what articles were or were not contraband of war, and that— The Prize Court of the captor is the competent tribunal to decide whether coal is or is not contraband of war, and that it is obviously impossible for the Government of Her Majesty, as a neutral Sovereign, to anticipate the result of such decision. It appears, however, to Her Majesty's Government that, having regard to the present state of naval armaments, coal may in many cases be rightly held to be contraband of war. This no doubt was perfectly sound; but what would be the effect if this trade in horses from the United Kingdom should continue, and a cargo should be condemned? It might place us in a very unpleasant position. He would not inquire into the condition of our own cavalry; but it was evident that when a great war raged on the Continent of Europe our interests were so complicated and extended over so wide a range that there must always be more or less possibility that this country would be drawn into the contest, however anxious we might be — as, he believed, was the case at present—to remain neutral and impartial. That possibility was liable to become a probability, especially when we had engagements and entanglements with respect to the Continent; and it was, therefore, most important to determine how far we ought to allow the exportation of so valuable and necessary a material of war as horses to proceed unchecked. He hoped this question would be well considered by the Government before any definitive step was taken; and it was better that it should be considered at once, while our neutrality remained unimpeached.

EARL GRANVILLE

With regard to the first part of my noble Friend's Question, I have no authentic information; but I have been told that both in Ireland and in this country purchases of horses have been made, and that at this time of the year there is almost invariably a very large exportation of horses from this country to the Continent. I am further told that this exportation has been considerably increased this year—that foreign agents have been buying young horses at fairs, and that a considerable number of what are vulgarly called "screws" have been bought at £20 a piece. As to the second part of the Question—namely, how far horses may be regarded as contraband of war, my noble Friend himself admits that the head of the Government was quite right in not answering that question—and I have heard it remarked that no question is indiscreet, but only the answer is so. I think, however, that the noble Marquess answered his own Question most admirably by quoting certain learned authorities, from which there is no doubt whatever that as to horses, coal, timber, sails, ropes, and various other articles, it depends entirely on the destination, and a thousand circumstances which cannot be defined beforehand, whether they are to be held as contraband of war— a matter which can only be properly decided in the Prize Court of the captors. It is perfectly impossible for Her Majesty's Government to lay down any definition on this point, and, certainly, it is not in the least degree necessary that they should do so; because, following the usual practice when our own interests are not concerned and we are not in immediate expectation of being engaged in war, we do not prohibit the exportation of such merchandize. The noble Marquess says that this export trade in horses if permitted to go on may embroil us with one or other of the belligerents, or otherwise prove injurious. As to its embroiling us with belligerents, I cannot conceive of its doing so as long as it is equally permitted to both parties. The noble Marquess observes that this trade in horses, if permitted, may be of very great advantage to one of the belligerents and of very little to the other. But if we were to consider such questions as whether France is more in want of horses than Prussia, or Prussia is more in want of coal or corn and other things than France, and if we were to try and make distinctions on that account, I fear we should find ourselves landed in endless difficulties. With regard to the injury to ourselves, I think, as far as it goes, and very much further, it is an unmixed benefit not to stop that exportation of horses which goes on at all times, and allows the breeders of horses to get the price which an increased demand may give. As to the exportation that is now being made being likely to lead to such a want of animals that in case of war—which Heaven forbid!—we should be unable to mount our own cavalry, the idea is almost preposterous. I believe I have answered the Question of the noble Marquess, which has not only been discussed now, but was very much considered when we were at war ourselves; and the general conclusion then was that, excepting for a few weeks' advantages, it was doubtful whether we did not do ourselves great damage by prohibiting the exportation of contraband of war, and while, except in making a delay of a few weeks, it is almost impossible to damage the enemy.