HC Deb 03 August 1855 vol 139 cc1745-8

On the Question that the Order of the Day be now read,

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said: Sir, I rise to put a question either to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, or to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as to the mode in which the Government are carrying on the war in the Baltic. I have seen it stated in the public papers that Admiral Dundas, about the latter end of May or the beginning of June, issued a proclamation containing what purported to be instructions from the Government to the effect that it would be his duty to capture merchant vessels carrying on trade in the Gulf of Finland, being the property of Russian subjects, and that in cases where such vessels appeared to be of small value and not worth sending home for condemnation in a prize court, the instructions were to destroy such small and comparatively valueless vessels. Now I want to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty whether such instructions have really been issued, and if so, whether it is competent for the Executive Government to empower an Admiral to decide upon the property in the captured ship, or whether such decision ought not in all cases to be left to a court of competent jurisdiction—whether in short the question whether the ship is to be destroyed should not be decided by a court, just as if it were dealt with as a prize, it is necessary that it should be decided by a court whether it is to be condemned or not? I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether such instructions as I have alluded to have been issued?—And also, whether the Government have carried out the intention they have publicly proclaimed of respecting private property while in the harbours of the enemy, and of vessels not engaged in trade with the enemy, or laden with cargo? That is one question. A second question I am anxious to put, either to the right hon. Gentleman or to the noble Lord, is, whether any communication has been made by the Government of the United States to the British Government in reference to the rights of neutral ships? I hold in my hand the last Message of the President of the United States to Congress, in which he says that— A proposition embracing not only the rule that free ships make free goods, except in the case of articles contraband of war, but that neutral property other than contraband on board enemy's ships should be exempt from confiscation, has been submitted by this Government to the Governments of Europe. I want to ask whether any treaty or convention to that effect is under the consideration of the Government? The President also goes on to say— that should the leading Powers of Europe concur in the proposition, as a rule of international law, to exempt private property from seizure by public armed cruisers as well as by privateers, the United States will readily meet them upon that broad ground. Now I desire to know whether the Government have taken into consideration the propriety of entering into a convention with foreign countries, for the purpose of adopting such regulations as a part of international law?

SIR CHARLES WOOD

With regard to the last question which the right hon. Gentleman has put, I do not feel myself competent to give him an answer. I may add, that I am not aware that any such proposition has been made—at all events, no such proposition has been brought under the general consideration of the Government. As to the first question, the order issued to our cruisers acting against the enemy in the Baltic, as elsewhere, is in the ordinary terms to take, burn, and destroy; and in executing those orders a due discretion must always be exercised by the officers in command, as to the most effectual mode of carrying out the object with which they are charged, namely—to put an end to the trade of the enemy. With regard to the further question, I have to state that the order is not confined simply to vessels under sail, or actually navigating, but extends to those which might be used at a short notice for that purpose. It would be absurd to suppose that because a vessel was lying in harbour, or at anchor, under such circumstances she was not liable to be taken and destroyed just as much as though she was under sail. All coasting vessels belonging to the enemy are liable to be taken and dealt with as prizes, or destroyed, as best suits the convenience of the cruiser by which they are captured. Thus in the recent operations in the Sea of Azoff, the officers in command of our cruisers sacrificed large sums of money, which they would have been entitled to as prize money, by destroying vessels rather than capturing them and sending them home for condemnation, because they believed that by taking that course they were best performing the service required of them. But with regard to small vessels that were not likely to be used in conveying merchandise to foreign places, or supplies and stores to the enemy—and the greater part of the vessels taken and destroyed in the Baltic have been vessels actually employed in conveying stores to the works at Cronstadt—with regard to the smaller vessels not so employed, or likely to be employed for that purpose, they have been permitted to pass. I have already laid upon the table papers relative to the proceedings at Hango, and to the vessels which have been captured and destroyed, and if the House will allow me I will read two paragraphs from those papers, which will show how the coasting vessels are generally dealt with:— Sixth October—Captured a small schooner, partly laden with salt. Destroyed the schooner, and took the salt on board. Ninth—Captured another vessel—a small sloop; but finding that she was not engaged in trade, and that she belonged to a very poor person, let her go. Now I apprehend the discretion necessarily rested in the officers commanding our cruisers was properly exercised in both these instances, in accordance with the intent of the Government instructions.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

Am I to understand that the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty is superseded, and that it is for the Admiral in future to decide whether the vessels captured are Russian property or not? Are such vessels not to be carried home to be judged by the proper tribunal whether they are lawful prizes or not—or is the Admiral to decide both as to the ship and the property in her?

SIR CHARLES WOOD

I am not sure that I correctly understand my right hon. Friend's question. No officer is justified in destroying a neutral vessel, but he is justified in destroying an enemy's vessel if he thinks it necessary to do so. He must exercise his judgment as to whether he will destroy or not. It is nonsense to say that he must send home every captured vessel for adjudication in a prize court.