HC Deb 19 June 1893 vol 13 cc1410-20

Order for Second Reading read.

* THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,) Northumberland, Berwick

In moving the Second Reading of this Bill it will be unnecessary, I think, for me to detain the House more than a few minutes. Some Papers have already been published which explain the reason why it was necessary to make this agreement, which is a provisional measure intended to endure for one year. The Bill has arisen out of exceptional circumstances that are as simple as they are exceptional, and no one who has read the Papers will be in doubt as to the merits of the ques- tion or why it is necessary to bring the Bill before the House without delay. The circumstances which have led to it are these: Last autumn certain Canadian vessels were seized by Russian cruisers on the ground that they had been transgressing International Law by capturing seals on the islands on the western side of the Behring Sea in the North Pacific which were within Russian territories. The circumstances of those seizures as reported created some indignation and some bewilderment as to what the intention of the Russian Government really was. I am glad to say that these circumstances have formed the subject of investigation in no unfriendly spirit between the British and the Russian Governments, and that, whatever may have been our first impression as to the seizure of those British vessels in the Behring Sea, it is now clear that the discussion between the two Governments will proceed solely upon matters of fact, and will not raise wide questions as to jurisdiction or International rights. It was very natural that the Canadian Government should, at the beginning of this year, request Her Majesty's Government to inform them what the procedure of Canadian vessels in that portion of the Behring Sea was to be during the ensuing season, and what measure of protection would be afforded to Canadian vessels. The British Government replied that British cruisers would support the action of Canadian sealing vessels in the North Pacific, except where they transgressed the three miles limit of the Russian territorial waters. The Russian Government demurred to that on the ground that the seals which visited these extra-territorial waters were bred on islands inside their territorial waters, and that, owing to the severe strain that had been put upon them, the seal rookeries on the islands in question were in danger of being altogether depopulated, and that the seals on them would be entirely destroyed. That, I think, was a fair ground for demurrer on the part of Russia supposing it could be supported by good reasons. Russia supported it by good reasons, pointing out that it was owing to exceptional circumstances—that is to say, the closing of one part of the Behring Sea to all sealing, that the sealing vessels concentrated their operations upon the Russian side of the sea. It was in these exceptional circumstances that Her Majesty's Government thought that there was fair ground upon which they could meet the proposals of the Russian Government, and that measures might be adopted which were beyond those usually sanctioned by International rights for the purpose of protecting these seal fisheries, as there was a danger of the extinction of seal life in that part of the world. I think the House will admit that there was a reasonable ground on which we could agree to discuss the adoption of special measures with the Russian Government. But something else followed. We submitted that if we were to submit to restrictions for the preservation of seal life then the Russian seal hunters should submit to other restrictions to help in that preservation. The Russian Government, on their own part, undertook to submit to restraint, and not to permit more than 30,000 seals to be taken annually from the rookeries, in place of 50,000 previously taken, and, on the other hand, Her Majesty's Government, in their turn, agreed that no sealing operations should take place within 10 miles of the Russian territory, or within 30 miles of the rookeries. That proposal was not accepted at once, but the Canadian Government were first sounded on the point. They admitted that it did appear reasonable, and said it was a proposal which would be acceptable to them. In these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government saw no reason why the proposal of the Russian Government should not be accepted, provided the details could be satisfactorily arranged. There was only one cause of dissension between the two Governments. The Russian Government claimed the right to seize vessels engaged in sealing outside the territorial waters, but within the two prohibited zones of 10 and 30 miles. It was agreed that British vessels ought not to be subjected to Russian jurisdiction, and a demand was therefore made to the Russian Government that if they seized any English vessels they should be handed over to the English authorities. The Russian Government complained at first that they could not effectively police their own waters and also take charge of any English vessels found engaged in sealing in the prohibited waters in order to hand them over to the British authorities. The answer was that to British authorities only would British sealers be made amenable, and Russia showed that she came to the discussion of these matters in no unfriendly spirit by agreeing to an arrangement whereby, if they could not retain the vessels, they should be content with seizing their papers, and then sending the vessel to some port with the papers following to be dealt with. That was an evidence that the Russian Government, in asking for an agreement of this kind, was not raising difficulties in a captious or vexatious spirit, but was prompted by the necessities and difficulties of the case. In regard to the preservation of seal life in that part of the world, Her Majesty's Government found that the agreement was acceptable to the Canadian Government; that it was reasonable; would serve the purpose for a time at least, and would prevent further friction and dispute in the regions concerned, such as had occurred in the previous year. Now, by entering into this agreement Her Majesty's Government have undertaken the responsibility of prosecuting British vessels which transgress it, and they are bound in honour to pass an Act of Parliament to enable them to discharge the obligation. If the House approves of the agreement, as I believe it will, it will be bound in honour to pass a Bill in order to enable the Government to keep faith with the Russian Government. I have, therefore, only to submit the present Bill to the House, with the confidence that being submitted as a Bill for a provisional arrangement, it will be accepted as an arrangement absolutely necessary to meet the exceptional circumstances of the case, and as being fair and honourable to all parties. It has the approval of Lord Salisbury in another place, and, therefore, I commend it to the consideration of the House as the best arrangement which can be arrived at for the moment, which will obviate future dangers and causes of friction, and will prove of advantage to both countries. I move that the Bill be read a second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir E. Grey.)

SIR G. BADEN-POWELL (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

said, that as perhaps he was one of the few Members who had been personally to the Islands dealt with in the Bill, he desired to say a word or two. With the exception of two objections he heartily approved the Bill, and hoped it would soon become law. His first objection was that the Bill had not been presented to the House at an earlier period of the Session. He knew the men engaged in these sealing operations, and he had the greatest respect for them. They were some of the first sailor men in the British Empire, and he regretted that the Bill had not been brought in earlier, for, in justice to the men, a decision on the matter ought to have been come to before, so that they might have been made acquainted with the arrangement before they left the ports of British Columbia. He rejoiced that we bad a Second Chamber in which useful legislation of this character could be initiated, and in which Bills of a highly-important character could be brought forward early in the Session. His second objection was that we had conceded too much to Russia, for he did not believe that the destruction of seal life had been so great as was pretended. Nevertheless, he considered that the Bill was a good and necessary one. He should like to know whether in Committee Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to accept verbal Amendments, as there were one or two points in regard to which slight amendments would strengthen and improve it?

* MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)

I do not think I need trouble the House above a moment or two in saying that I congratulate the Government on having arrived at the agreement with Russia embodied in the Papers recently laid before the House. I think I may say that, so far as this side of the House is concerned, there will be no objection to rapid progress being made with the measure. It was obviously desirable, after the events which took place last year in the matter of the seizures of British vessels, that an un- derstanding should as soon as possible be come to with Russia on that question, and all matters germane to it, after that Government had made themselves fully acquainted with the circumstances under which the seizures took place. On the general principle of the Bill no criticisms need be passed; but I should like to ask whether the Under Secretary means that the Bill is to last only for one year, seeing that the arrangement can be renewed from year to year? I may have misunderstood him, but I thought he said the Bill is only to last for one year. I think it would be very undesirable to pass the Bill for only one year, so as to necessitate the passing of a second measure next year. The Bill should be made permanent, and should be carried out by Orders in Council. I cannot really blame the Government for any delays that have taken place in bringing the Bill before Parliament. Of course, as will be seen from the Papers which have been presented, negotiations have been somewhat prolonged, and on comparing the dates of the various Despatches I do not think any charge of delay can fairly be brought against either the Russian Government or Her Majesty's Government. I certainly would do nothing to delay the passage of the Bill, and I conclude by saying that, so far as this Bench—and I think this side of the House—is concerned, the Bill will receive our hearty support.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he rose with diffidence to move that the Bill be read a second time on that day three months. He should be able to show that the Bill raised a serious question with regard to British subjects and the powers of British Ministers. Attention had been called to the statement that the measure was to be passed for one year only, but no such limitation was in the Bill.

* SIR E. GREY

When I said that I did not mean to imply that the Bill would only last for a year, but that in passing it the House sanctioned an agreement which was only for one year.

Mr. GIBSON BOWLES

Then the Bill is to be perpetual?

SIR E. GREY

In the Behring Sea.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said that, to put it in a few words, the effect of the Bill was to give power to Her Majesty's Ministers to protect sealskin cloaks at the expense of the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects on the high seas. What interest had we in the seal? Our interest lay exclusively in the use of it in the shape of clothes. No question of humanity could be urged, for there was as much inhumanity in driving the seals ashore and clubbing them as in shooting them on the high seas. He would call attention to the difference that existed between the question that had arisen as between the American Government and the British Government with regard to seals, and the question that had arisen between the Russian Government and the British Government. The American Government, no doubt, in 1886 seized, in a very high-handed way, a number of British sealing vessels. They took them into port, however, and tried the crews. They subjected the sailors to due process of law, and when they found they had no case they gave up the vessels, or a great number of them. But last year, encouraged apparently by the conduct of the Americans, but still more, he thought, by the results of the General Election of last July, the Russians entered upon a course of seizure of British vessels, under circumstances set forth in the statements made to Admiral Hotham, and which appeared in The Times dated September 8th. It appeared that they took the vessels into Russian ports, and, without placing the crews on their trial, treated them with the greatest inhumanity. Again and again he had asked Her Majesty's Government to give information as to these violent, outrageous, and lawless seizures by Russia, and not one word had been vouchsafed in reply. No Papers had been presented.

SIR E. GREY

They have been laid to-day.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, that here was a Bill sent down from the House of Lords to be read a second time, and they were told that the Papers relating to it had only been laid on the Table to-day. These outrages were committed last July, and certainly no reparation had been made in January last, when the Foreign Secretary was invited to come to an agreement with Russia. His first complaint of the agreement and of the Bill that professed to carry it out was that, without having obtained any reparation for these acts, Her Majesty's Government showed themselves ready to enter into an agreement with the Power that had committed them, giving that Power special rights over the high seas. The making of an agreement of indulgence with the Power that committed the affront showed that Her Majesty's Ministers were scarcely conscious of the high trust that had been committed to them. The Foreign Secretary (Lord Rosebory), in his first Despatch to the Russian Government, said that Her Majesty's Government gathered from the language used in 1891, and from previous public utterances of the Russian Government, that Russia made no claim to prohibit sealing in the waters adjacent to her territories except within the ordinary and recognised three-miles limit. Of course, no one had any right to complain of the action of Russia in this respect within the three-miles limit. His whole objection to the agreement was that it permitted Russian seizures outside the territorial limits, or, in other words, on the high seas. The Foreign Secretary was soon undeceived, for the Russian Government replied that they had themselves decided that no vessel should be allowed to fish for seals within 10 miles of the Russian coast or within 30 miles of the Commander Islands. After a certain amount of negotiation, an agreement was made. Lord Rosebery, unmindful of the interests of British subjects, forgetful of the wrongs inflicted upon them, and regardless of his duty to get reparation for those wrongs, entered gaily and easily into this agreement. Here he must complain of the English translation of the Russian documents. Those documents had been absolutely watered down in the translation. To give only one instance, the English translation made the Russian Government say they "desire" to preserve complete liberty of action as to choosing in future between the two systems of issuing their own orders or of making agreements with England. In the original the word was not "desire" but "intend," so that in the translation the meaning was entirely watered down. It was true that Lord Rosebery said that the British Government did not admit the Russian claims to jurisdiction over the high seas; but, as a matter of fact, he had agreed to Russia prohibiting sealing on the high seas within 30 miles of the Russian territories. The House was told that the consent of the Dominion Government bad been obtained to the agreement; but they were without a single Paper on the subject. What sort of consent had the Dominion Government given? Was it an unconditional consent, or the sort of consent they gave in 1891 to the modus vivendi with America—namely, a consent that was conditional on compensation being given to the sealers who were interfered with? Was the House to be called upon to provide in the Estimates for the compensation of the sealers? In 1891 Lord Salisbury declared that he would do nothing with regard to the modus vivendi until the consent of Parliament had been obtained. Her Majesty's Government now, without waiting for the consent of Parliament, had agreed with Russia to desist from the protection of British subjects, to which such subjects had a right. He said that this was a most monstrous usurpation of the power of a Minister, exercised under the pretext of the Prerogative of the Crown. The Bill gave very serious powers. It gave the power to prohibit, during the period specified in an Order in Council, all sealing by British ships in such parts of the seas as were specified in the Order. The Act had been drawn in a most careless and slipshod way. The Act was to apply to the seas within That part of the Pacific Ocean known as Behring's Sea, and such other parts of the Pacific Ocean as are North of the 42nd degree of latitude. But whether North or South latitude was meant was not stated. If what was meant was South latitude it would close the Pacific Ocean from New Zealand to the North Pole. The Bill gave power to any commissioned officer to seize a vessel if he was of opinion that she was preparing to seal, and also provided that if a vessel had any shooting or fishing implements on board—which might be construed to mean a fish-hook or a gun for signalling—the onus should be laid upon her to prove that she was not engaged in the seal fishery. All those points were to be decided by Her Majesty the Queen in Council. As a matter of fact, Orders in Council were drawn up by clerks in the office, and "Her Majesty in Council" was really only a cover for a permanent official. The effect of the Bill, therefore, would be to put under some permanent official every subject of Her Majesty sailing on the high seas between certain degrees of latitude. It would also—and this was the worst part of it—place Her Majesty's subjects at the mercy of every Russian cruiser who sailed those seas and enable the officers on board to seize British ships, capture their papers, and hand them over to some one of Her Majesty's cruisers. He said that even to ask for such powers as this was unconstitutional; and he was sure that if the House, instead of being called upon to decide in 50 minutes upon a matter of this magnitude, had due time to consider the Bill, it would refuse to place the life, the liberty and the property of Her Majesty's subjects at the mercy of permanent officials.

* MR. SPEAKER

Does anyone second the Amendment?

No hon. Member rose to second, and the Speaker therefore again proposed the Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

said, he thought his hon. Friend who had just sat down had done quite right in reminding the hon. Baronet (Sir E. Grey) of the circumstances attending the seizure of British sailors last year, and he thought that the hon. Baronet in introducing the Bill ought to have told the House something about the high-handed proceedings of the Russian Government. He (Commander Bethell), however, was quite at one with the Bill, as it was quite essential that some step should be taken to prevent the destruction of seal life which was now going on, and which would end before long, if it were not stopped, in the extinction of seals. He had merely risen to accentuate the remarks of his hon. Friend in regard to the most arbitrary proceedings of the Russian Government in capturing British sailors last year, and he thought the hon. Baronet ought to have given some explanation and perhaps have made some apology for it on behalf of the Russian Government.

* MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

inquired whether the Government expected to be called upon to give an indemnity to the crews of any of the ships seized last year?

* SIR E. GREY

By the leave of the House I will just say a word on the point which the hon. Member has raised. In the speech I have already made I explained that the discussion with regard to these seizures by the Russian Government would turn on questions of fact and not of questions of International Law or abstract right. In the Papers that have been laid on the Table to-day it will be seen that the Russian Government dispute the statements of fact which have been referred to by the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) and state that the sailors who, according to the point of view put before us, were seized at a considerable distance from the land, were in some instances, according to their investigations, sailing within prohibited limits and were caught in hot pursuit. In two instances, however, at least, the Russian Government admit that they cannot prove that, and have offered an indemnity. That is the position of affairs at present, and if the matter is pursued the discussion will proceed on questions of fact.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill road a second time, and committed for Thursday next.