§ Mr. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that our representative, Sir A. Cockburn, laid it down at the Court of Arbitration at Geneva in 1872 that a base of operations was a port or waters from which a ship of war could watch for any enemy, he can say whether there is any port in the United Kingdom where foodstuffs are landed from which one of our warships could not watch for any enemy?
§ Sir E. GREYThe hon. Member has omitted the greater part of Sir A. Cockburn's observation on this point, and the deduction that he apparently draws is erroneous. The presumption of Article 34 of the Declaration of London does not, moreover, arise with regard to a port which may, but with regard to a port that actually does, at the time, serve as a base of operations. Apart from the question of what authority may be said to attach to Sir A. Cockburn's observations, they could not have contemplated the situation as it would be affected by the Declaration of London, and have therefore no bearing upon what ports would be open under it for unrestricted importation of food supplies in neutral vessels.
§ Mr. HUNTasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could say whether there is anything in the Declaration of London to prevent an enemy in case of war from deciding that base means any port in the United Kingdom in railway connection with any British military forces or in railway connection with any contractor who supplies or has supplied goods to the military or naval forces of the United Kingdom; and, if not, whether an enemy's warships and merchant ships converted into commerce destroyers could capture or destroy any British or neutral ships carrying any foodstuffs except nuts to any port in the United Kingdom?
§ Sir E. GREYThere are at present no treaty stipulations preventing an enemy from taking the course suggested. Under the Declaration of London, however, such a course is inadmissible. Foodstuffs may, under Article 24, be treated as conditional contraband, and will as such be liable to seizure only if destined for the armed forces or a Government Department of the enemy, in contradistinction to absolute contraband, which is so liable if destined for any part of enemy territory. If the interpretation suggested by the hon. Member were correct, then foodstuffs would be subject to the treatment, not of conditional, but of absolute contraband, which is directly contrary to the provisions of Article 33.
§ Mr. HUNTWhat would be the use of an International Prize Court a year or two after we were starved into surrender?
§ Sir E. GREYThat point was dealt with in the Debate on the Prize Court Bill. I cannot see that it arises. There is nothing about a Prize Court in the question.
§ Mr. HUNTasked whether, in view of the fact that the Court of Arbitration at Geneva in 1872 decided that our Colonial port at Melbourne, Australia, was a base of operations for the United Kingdom, the Government will refuse to ratify the Declaration of London until an undertaking has been obtained from foreign countries that at least one port in the United Kingdom shall not be held to be a base for supplying food for the military forces in the United Kingdom.
§ Sir E. GREYThe hon. Member's question does not accurately convey the decision of the Tribunal. The award decided, among other things, by a majority of one, that Great Britain had failed to fulfil the duties prescribed by the second of the Rules of the Treaty of Washington, in the case of the Confederate cruiser "Shenandoah." The vessel had been allowed to take in 300 tons of coal at Melbourne, and it was considered by the bare majority of the arbitrators that this was equivalent to permitting her to use the port as a base for her operations. The particular interpretation thus given to the Rule was formally repudiated by Her Majesty's Government, although, of course, they acknowledged the binding force of the award in the actual case. There is, however, no real connection between the question of allowing a belligerent cruiser to use a 1006 neutral port as a base of operations—a proceeding which has always been held by all nations to be contrary to international law—and the question of food supplies in neutral bottoms consigned to a port of a belligerent country.
§ Mr. HUNTCan the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question. Is there a single port in the United Kingdom that he can guarantee will not be held to be a base of supply?
§ Sir E. GREYThe question on the Paper is what I can say on that point in view of the decision of the Court of Arbitration at Geneva. My answer points out that the decision of the Court of Arbitration at Geneva has no bearing on the question as to what ports would be open.
§ Mr. HUNTIs not the question on the Paper this: Is there one single port in the United Kingdom that the right hon. Gentleman can say is safe for our food supply to come in?
§ Sir E. GREYAll commercial ports which are not used as a base of operations would, if the provisions of the Declaration of London, are observed, be open for food supplies. The hon. Member, in his question, has mixed up two things which have nothing to do with each other. If he will separate them, and put the questions separately, I will answer them.