§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)I believe the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said yesterday that he would make a statement to-day with regard to the vessels that have been interfered with by the Russian ships.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have very little to add to what I think is now common property. The House will remember that the "Malacca," a P. and O. steamship, was on 13th July seized by one of the Volunteer Fleet which had recently issued from the Black Sea. We took the strongest possible exception to that course, on the ground that no ship of war could issue from the Black Sea, and that in our judgment the members of the Volunteer Fleet, if they issued from 1480 the Black Sea, and then took belligerent action, either had no right to issue or no right to take that action. The Russian Government have met us in this matter, I will not say upon the general principle, but as regards the particular incident. The "Malacca" could not be stopped before she left Port Said; but she went to Algiers, and she has now been released. The Russian Government, at the same time, gave us assurances that if the Volunteer Fleet made further captures before intimation could reach them, pending the discussion of general principles, action should not be taken, and that those captures should be regarded as not having taken place. In accordance with that pledge the "Ardova" and "Formosa" were released yesterday. We have received assurances that the Volunteer ships are to be withdrawn from the Red Sea; and I have little doubt that there will be no further desire on the part of the Russian Government to employ them as cruisers. So far, therefore, as these ships go, the controversy has passed out of the acute stage. I will not say that the Governments of His Majesty and of Russia have come to an agreement upon the general principle; but I think we need not anticipate that any practical violation of the view which we very strongly hold is likely to take place. There are, I am sorry to say, other questions not connected with this incident at all which must cause some discussion between the Governments, which, like all discussions between Governments, may be legitimate cause of anxiety. We hold that it is not proper that, on the authority of a captain of a cruiser, goods alleged to be contraband of war should be taken from a merchant ship without trial. The proper course, according to international practice, is that any ship reasonably suspected of carrying contraband of war should be taken by the belligerent into one of its own ports, and that trial should there take place before a Prize Court, by which the case would be determined. Evidently if it is left to a captain of a cruiser to decide on his own initiative and authority as to whether the particular articles carried by the ship do or do not belong to the category of contraband of war, what is not merely the practice of nations, but what is a necessary foundation of 1481 equitable relations between belligerents and neutrals, would be cut down to the root.
An even more serious case has arisen, if, as our information leads us to fear a ship called the "Knight Commander" was sunk by cruisers of the Vladivostok squadron on the ground that she carried contraband of war, her crew having been, in the meanwhile removed. In our view that is entirely contrary to the accepted practice of civilised nations in the case of war; and we have earnestly pressed our view on the Russian Government. We are under the strong impression that when the case is brought, as it has been brought by us, before the Russian Government they will give such orders as will prevent the recurrence of unfortunate incidents of this character. I feel confident that that will be the case. I do not know that there is anything else I need say upon the international aspect of the question. But perhaps the House will allow me to say, upon a matter in which we are directly concerned, that I cannot help thinking there is some misapprehension—I will not say in this House, but outside this House—as to the duties incumbent on neutrals. I have so far merely stated what we believe to be the duties and obligations of belligerents. Those duties we mean to the best of our abilities to see carried into effect. The belligerent of to-day may be the neutral of to-morrow; and the neutral of to-day may be the belligerent of to-morrow; and there are duties incumbent upon neutrals which must be borne in mind by shipowners of this country. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of a captain of a neutral ship to stop, when summoned to stop by a cruiser of a belligerent; and for the captain to allow at once, and without difficulty, his papers to be examined. That is an obligation on neutrals which we have systemically, consistently, and sternly enforced when we have been in the position of a belligerent, and it would not become us to indulge in any attempt to minimise that obligation on neutrals.
§ MR. RUNCIMANThe right hon. Gentleman has stated, with regard to the captures of the "Formosa" and "Ardova," that the Russian Government had agreed 1482 to consider those captures as not having been made. Does that leave open the matter of compensation to be adjusted hereafter?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROh, yes. Undoubtedly damage has been done, and of course the claims of the owners of those ships for compensation remain untouched.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)In the event of any question arising between the two countries likely to lead to hostilities, will the right hon. Gentleman refer the matter to the Hague Tribunal?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think that is a hypothetical Question which the hon. Gentleman will hardly expect me to answer. He will not suspect His Majesty's Government of any desire to plunge recklessly into hostilities. I should be travelling beyond my function to say what cases are or are not of a character to be submitted to the Hague Tribunal until such cases actually arise.