§ MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the French Yellow Book, containing the correspondence upon the subject of rice being contraband of war, can be placed in the Library; whether it is a fact that the French Government have claimed the right of treating as contraband the food of a people irrespective of the fact whether or not it is immediately intended for the support of a warlike force; and, when Papers upon this subject will be presented?
§ MR. MAGNIACIt will be convenient if I ask now the Question of which I have given my noble Friend private Notice—namely, Whether the French Government have declared war with China, and if they have not, having regard to this announcement by the French of an extensive blockade, and especially to their claims of a right to search British vessels, and to treat ordinary merchandize as contraband of war, whether the Government cannot make some general announcement for the guidance of merchants and shipowners in the anomalous and, it is believed, unprece- 1102 dented state of affairs in that quarter of the world?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEIn reply to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, as well as to that of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford has given me private Notice, I may state that no notification has been received by Her Majesty's Government from the French Government that France has declared war with China. In regard to the latter portion of my hon. Friend's Question, I have to state that I have in substance nothing to add to the explanation given in "another place" by Lord Granville on the 23rd of February, when he stated that the blockade of Formosa could not be recognized as a pacific blockade, but only as a belligerent blockade, and that Her Majesty's Government had also recognized the belligerent right of France to search neutral vessels on the high sea for contraband of war. I stated on March 16, in reply! to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Mr. Sutherland), that Her Majesty's Government had protested against rice being treated generally as contraband of war, irrespective of its ultimate destination; but the legality of seizures by belligerents of articles alleged to be contraband of war, is a question to be decided, in the first instance, by the competent Prize Court. A copy of the French Yellow Book will be placed in the Library. The Papers will, I hope, be out on Thursday week.
§ COLONEL NOLANasked whether it was not out of Order to answer Questions, as the noble Lord had done, by quotations from speeches made in the House of Lords?
§ MR. SPEAKERThere is no point of Order to be raised. I did not understand the noble Lord to quote from any speech made in the House of Lords, but to refer to a speech in general terms.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFThen' was a quotation.
§ MR. MAGNIACI do not think the noble Lord has replied to the last part of the Question.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI think the point was answered in the first part of my reply. I said that Her Majesty's Government had stated through the mouth of the Secretary of State, on the 22nd February, that these blockades would be recognized as belligerent blockades, and that all the consequences of a regular blockade would 1103 arise from them. I may point out, with regard to the subject raised by the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Nolan), that I only referred to the statement made by Lord Granville in "another place," and I communicated to the House—as I have done on previous occasions—the substance of it. I only referred to it to fix the date. I cannot understand that there can be any objection to that.
§ MR. BOURKEsaid, he should draw attention to this subject on the Motion for the adjournment of the House.
§ BARON HENRY DE WORMSArising out of this subject, I wish to ask whether the noble Lord is aware that Her Majesty's mails have not been landed at Formosa owing to the French blockade; whether the French ships are allowed to coal at Hong Kong in order to be allowed to chase English vessels and steamers; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to remedy this gross violation of the rights of neutrals and make suitable representations to the French Government? If the noble Lord cannot answer me now, I will put the Question again on the re-assembling of the House.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI wish to ask a Question with regard to the answer of the noble Lord as to contraband of war. I understand that my noble Friend stated that the doctrine of provisions being contraband of war as being required, not for victualling a fortress or a fleet, but merely for supplying the food of a nation, has been protested against by the Foreign Secretary. I am very glad to hear that announcement, and also to read the protest in the French Yellow Book. I understand my noble Friend also stated that the question whether there was a right to seize vessels containing rice was to be settled at the French Prize Court. I wish to ask if I am right in supposing that the question that would be decided by the French Prize Court is whether rice was really exported for some other purpose than that of food for the nation, and that we have not admitted the principle that the French Prize Court has to decide in the affirmative a new principle of International Law—the consequences of which might be serious—that provisions merely for the supply of the nation should be considered contraband of war?
§ MR. CHAPLINSupplementary to this Question, am I correct in saying that war has not been declared between France and China? And I should like to know whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, anything can be legitimately declared contraband of war until war has been declared?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEIn reply to the Question put to me by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), I may say that I do not take any exception to his statement of the case; but what I desire to point out to him and to the House is this—that the decision of any particular case that may occur lies in the first instance with the French Prize Courts, and it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to assume beforehand that the French Courts will give a wrong decision. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), my answer is certainly in the affirmative.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERWhat I desire to know is, whether the principle as to provisions supplied, not for a fortress or a fleet, but as food for a nation, being or not being a contraband of war, is to be left to be decided by the French Prize Court?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICENo; I did not say that. I said it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to assume that the French Courts would give a decision contrary to established principles of International Law in relation to this matter. Naturally, if the French Courts gave a decision to to which Her Majesty's Government thought it their duty to object, such a step would be a matter of diplomatic action.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI am sorry to appear so persistent; but I would point out that the French Government put their claim to declare rice a contraband of war on the very principle that provisions, even though intended for a nation's food, are contraband.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEThat is a principle against which Her Majesty's Government have already entered their protest, and I must remind the right hon. Gentleman, with regard to the French Prize Courts, that, like all judicial tribunals, they are independent of the Government. They give judicial decisions, and are not bound by the opinions expressed 1105 beforehand by the Executive Governments of the country which they represent.
§ MR. O'KELLYinquired whether in the great war with France provisions were not treated by this country as contraband of war?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI would prefer not to be drawn into a discussion on minute points of International Law, because I can assure the hon. Member that the branch of International Law bearing on this question of contraband of war is a very large one.
§ SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFIn considering this question, has the Government found any precedents for articles being found contraband of war before a declaration of war has been made?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI do not think it would be advisable for me to give really what amount to opinions upon points of International Law, even if I considered myself competent to answer the Question. I think in any case the hon. Member will see that it will be a better course for him to put his Question on the Paper.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORI should like to ask the noble Lord a Question arising out of his previous answer. What does he understand by the term "a pacific blockade?"
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI cannot enter into these questions of International Law. I stated that the claim was a claim put forward by the French Government; it was not a claim put forward by the English Government. It was put forward by the French Government, and is not admitted.
§ MR. CHAPLINI wish to give Notice that in consequence of the reply of the noble Lord that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government articles may be declared as contraband of war without previous declaration of war, and the serious consequences which it seems to me that declaration may give rise to in future, I will put further Questions to him of which due Notice will be given.