MR. HEADLAMsaid, he wished to ask whether upon a Russian vessel being sold to avoid a capture and purchased bonâ fide by a neutral having notice of the cause of the sale, the sale would be recognised by the British fleet, in the event of the vessel continuing to be navigated by a Russian crew, or in the event of the vessel after the sale being navigated by a fresh crew of neutrals?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLI observe, Sir, that notices of several questions to be 63 put to me upon this subject stand upon the paper for to-day. I stated, on a former occasion, in reply to a similar question, that a declaration or a proclamation in some form would be issued by the advice of the Ministers of the Crown when a declaration of war was made. That promise has been fulfilled, and such a declaration has been issued. The questions that may be asked on this subject appear to me to be either questions relating to points of law upon which opinions can be given, or questions relating to points of law which are very doubtful. With respect to the former class of these questions, the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, when they are in the House, will be happy to give any information calculated to be useful to the public; but, with regard to the other class of questions, it is obvious that it would be very improper for any Members of the Government to give answers to questions which might afterwards become the subject of controversy in the courts of law, where their opinions might be overruled. If my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General thinks it consistent with his duty to do so, I have no doubt he will answer the questions which have been put by the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-on-Tyne.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALIn answer to the first question, I beg to say, Sir, that the view I take is this—that the sale of a Russian ship to a neutral for the purpose of avoiding capture, if it were a bonâ fide transaction, would undoubtedly be protected by law. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Headlam) asks the question generally, and also with reference to the circumstance, that if a vessel thus sold might continue to be navigated by a Russian crew. If the transaction were really bonâ fide, I think that would not make any difference, although it might raise a suspicion as to the bona fides.
§ MR. MITCHELLsaid, he could not quite catch the answer of the noble Lord the Member for London to the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. Headlam), but at any rate he felt it his duty to put the questions of which he had given notice, because they were of the utmost importance to the traders of the country, and because it was only fair that they should not be in the dark as to the real condition of matters. It was necessary, however, before putting his questions, that he should make some explanatory remarks—[Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] 64 It would be otherwise absolutely impossible for him to make his questions understood. A deputation of Russian traders having waited upon the Foreign Secretary ten days ago, in consequence of that interview they received a letter, dated the 25th of March, from the Foreign Office. In that letter it was distinctly intimated that the rights of the service would be claimed with regard to neutral vessels. Now, in the declaration issued on the 28th, that was three days later, the rights of the service with regard to neutrals were waived. He considered, therefore, that it was only right to ask whether the letter from the Foreign Office, or the declaration, was to be acted on by persons in trade. But leaving that point, what he wished, in the first place, to know was, whether an enemy's property on board neutral vessels was liable to seizure, unless it were contraband of war; whether the same privileges were to be extended to Russian produce the property of British subjects; and whether the same privileges of bringing over that produce of the enemy from a neutral port was to be extended to British vessels, or whether they were to be placed in a different position? Secondly, he wished to ask whether it would, on its arrival in this country, be liable to seizure? And thirdly, what articles would come under the head of "contraband of war?" for, he begged to observe, that the greatest doubt prevailed in the public mind as to what articles could be considered such.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, as his hon. Friend was not content with the answer which he had already given, he would endeavour to give him a better one. He thought that the hon. Gentleman in some degree misapprehended the effect of the recent declaration. It had never been intended to give up altogether the right of search in regard of neutral vessels. It was quite impossible to surrender the right of seizing neutral vessels which might be carrying either the enemy's despatches or articles contraband of war. That was a right conceded by the law of nations to every belligerent power. What the declaration did give up was, the right to seize in neutral vessels enemy's goods, which, by the common law of nations, we had a right to seize. With regard to the question what was contraband of war, that, certainly, was a question he could not take upon himself to answer. It was one of the most difficult and complicated questions that rose under the law of nations. He 65 might be allowed, however, to state, for the information of his hon. Friend, that a recent most able treatise on international law, which occupied thirty-four closely-printed pages, substantially classified contraband of war under two heads—first, such things as from their very nature were applicable to the purposes of war, such as arms and ammunition; and, secondly, such things as were capable of being applied to other purposes besides those of war, but which might be intended for the furtherance of war, such as provisions. With regard to the question whether Russian produce was to be considered liable to seizure on board neutral vessels, the answer was this:—It was clear, by the law of nations and the law of the land, that the subjects of a belligerent Power had no right to claim an immunity. If Russian property should be purchased and become bonâ fide the property of British subjects prior to the commencement of war, or if at the commencement of the war it should be purchased bonâ fide from neutrals, it would be protected and not liable to seizure. But if it should be, directly or indirectly, by colourable pretexts, purchased from subjects of the enemy with whom British subjects were prohibited from dealing, it would not be protected, and was liable to be captured.
MR. PRICEsaid, he begged to ask the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) whether Russian produce, being bonâ fide British property, will be exempt from seizure in neutral as foreign property will be in neutral, or neutral property in foreign vessels? And whether any arrangement will be made by which letters of licence will be granted to neutral or British vessels to bring away Russian produce, being now bonâ fide British property, notwithstanding any blockade of the harbours in which such property may be lying?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLI make no doubt, Sir, that British produce on board neutral vessels would not be liable to seizure. As to the latter part of the question, regarding letters of licence to neutral or British vessels to bring away Russian produce, I should say that with regard to British subjects who might be in the Russian territories or ports. arrangements are in contemplation whereby, on those persons coming away in neutral vessels, they will be enabled to pass, notwithstanding any blockade. But as regards Russian produce, no such arrangements are in contemplation.