Mr. PEELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has his attention been called to the fact that Sir Edward Fry, G.C.B., Extraordinary 1737 Ambassador, Member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and Delegate Plenipotentiary for Great Britain to the second Peace Conference at The Hague, has published as his written opinion and conclusion regarding the effect of the Declaration of London on blockade, that it must be admitted that the rights of England as a belligerent suffer a limitation; and are His Majesty's Government prepared to postpone the ratification of the Declaration of London until they have further considered this question?
§ Sir E. GREYI have seen the statement referred to. There was no agreement about the right of blockade before the Declaration of London; and the agreement now made is not a limitation but an extension of rights, if by the term rights is meant rights recognised, as distinct from rights disputed.
Mr. PEELWill the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to communicate that opinion of Sir Edward Fry to the Admiralty, and get a report from them on the subject.
§ Sir E. GREYThe question has been thoroughly considered by the Admiralty. I do not think there is anything in the opinion of Sir Edward Fry, who is not an expert in these matters, which has not been brought before the Admiralty.
Mr. PEELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could he explain the apparent contradiction between Article 17 of the Declaration of London, which prescribes that neutral vessels may not be captured for breach of blockade except within the area of operations of the warships detailed to render the blockade effective, and Article 20, which prescribes that a vessel which has broken blockade outwards, or which has attempted to break blockade inwards is liable to capture so long as she is pursued by a ship of the blockading force; and does Article 20 in fact authorise the capture for breach of blockade of a neutral ship which has been pursued outside that area of operations to which article restricts such capture?
§ Sir E. GREYThere is no inconsistency between Articles 17 and 20. Pursuit by a warship, detailed to render a blockade effective, of a vessel which had attempted to break blockade at a place within the zone which such warship was to watch, extends the area of operations within which the capture of such vessel is legitimate.
Mr. PEELDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think Article 17 is very denfiite in its conclusion inasmuch as it states neutral vessels can only be captured within the area of operations of the warships and would it not be wise to alter the article so as to make that quite clear?
§ Sir E. GREYI have not the text of that article or of Article 20 before me, and I cannot supplement the answer I have given on the spur of the moment and without notice.