§ 80. Mr. PETOasked the Prime Minister whether the steamer "Brussels" was unarmed on the occasion of the alleged attempted ramming of a German submarine; in view of the German reply in the case of Captain Blaikie, of the steamship "Caledonia," implying that had the steamship "Brussels" been armed they would have taken a different view of the action of her commander, whether this accords with the addendum to the German Naval Prize Law on the subject of the arming of merchantmen and the status of their crews published in June, 1914; whether he will at once see that steps are taken to overcome the objections raised by any neutral country to the arming of merchant ships for defence and will at once arrange to give British merchant 1627 vessels adequate protective armament and regularise the status of their officers and crews?
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir - Edward Carson)My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. His Majesty's Government cannot admit any distinction between the rights of unarmed merchant ships and those armed for defensive purposes. It is no doubt the aim of the German Government to confuse defensive and offensive action with the object of inducing neutrals to treat defensively-armed vessels as if they were men-of-war. Our position is perfectly clear—that a merchant seaman enjoys the immemorial right of defending his vessel against attack or visit or search by the enemy by any means in his power, but that he must not seek out an enemy in order to attack him—that being a function reserved to commissioned men-of-war. So far as I am aware, all neutral Powers, without exception, take the same view, which is clearly indicated in the Prize Regulations of the Germans themselves. I have confined myself to stating the general position; but my hon. Friend may rest assured that the Departments concerned are devoting continuous attention to all questions connected with the theory and practice of defensive armament.