MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that Article 1 of the Declaration of Paris, 1856, declares that privateering, la course, is, and remains, abolished, and Article 2 that the neutral flag covers enemy's merchandise, except contraband of war; whether Lord Clarendon, in agreeing, on 8th April, 1856, to the Declaration, declared, on behalf of Great Britain, that he only agreed to Article 2 provided that privateering were equally abolished for ever; and whether, on 14th April, 1856, Count Orloff, on behalf of Russia, while announcing that he had received power to Sign the Declaration, added, nevertheless, that his Court could not engage itself to maintain the principle of the abolition of privateering; whether the ships of the Russian Volunteer Fleet, being private ships commissioned by the State, differ in any material respect from privateers; and whether, in view of the reservations made by Russia as to Article 1 of the Declaration at the time of its signature, of her subsequent recent action in commissioning vessels of the Volunteer Fleet, and of the consequent violation of the express condition under which Lord Clarendon accepted Article 2 of the Declaration, His Majesty's Government will now consider the propriety of announcing that it will no longer feel itself hound by the Declaration of Paris, and will reserve its right to capture, in war, enemy's property carried at sea under a neutral flag.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think the general statement of law contained in the first two paragraphs of the Question is seriously at variance, if at variance at all, with the treaties, though I must not be taken as giving an authoritative decision on that point. With regard to the third paragraph, and in part to the fourth paragraph, the whole question of the status of the Volunteer Fleet is under discussion between the Government of this country and the Government of Russia, and I think it would be undesirable for us to discuss it across the floor of the House by way of Question and Answer. If I understand my hon. friend's general principles aright, it is the last sentence of the Question to which he 1224 attaches the greatest importance. He has always strongly objected to the provisions of the Declaration of Paris which changed international practice, but I cannot hold out any hopes that we are going to make recent occurrences the occasion of any remonstrances to the other Powers upon that broader subject.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESMay I ask, in due course, whether we may expect some statement of the result of the negotiations going on with respect to the status of these vessels? I presume we shall have Papers laid on the Table.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am very reluctant to lay Papers on the Table. Of course, if questions of practical importance leading to grave national issues were at stake, the House of Commons would rightly insist on being made fully acquainted with all that occurred; but I do not think it would be desirable that I should promise at this moment to lay Papers on this subject before the House.