HL Deb 23 February 1885 vol 294 cc1007-12
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said, that their Lordships might naturally have Been in the public newspapers accounts of the conduct of affairs by Prance in Chinese waters, and also of the action taken by the British Government. In The Ttmes of the 21st instant a Correspondent at Hong Kong writes thus— The so-called 'blockade' is only effective against European merchants. In Tamsui we are now without 10 mails from Europe, and we cannot get away. Several French war vessels run along the coast, and sink every boat which they meet, taking the crews to Kelung, where they are treated barbarously. The proceedings of the French are unparalleled in the history of modern civilized warfare. … The latest French action on the Formosan coast has excited the greatest indignation. The French vessels are to receive 10 days' provisions and five days' coal; Saigon is considered their nearest port; but the Triomphante received more—why, no one knows. Letters from every quarter in China and Japan tell me that England is condemned for allowing the French to use Hong Kong as a base. Now, it was not necessary for him to say that he did not for a moment suppose that Prance had been carrying on her operations there in the manner described by the Correspondent of The Times. He had no doubt her Commanders were operating in a manner consistent with civilized warfare and the action of civilized nations; but he did not feel quite so clear that what the Correspondent said about the action, or want of action, on the part of Her Majesty's Government was not accurate, because he must say that no reasonable man, after the experience of last year, could, be suspected to believe, or, at all events, to feel sure, that Her Majesty's Government had any distinct comprehension of its duties, or distinct determination to carry them out. As far as he understood the matter, there was no distinct declaration of war between Prance and China; but, at the same time, France claimed the right which was conceded only to a belligerent, that of searching neutral vessels, and she was also conducting the blockade of ports. The inconvenience and uncertainty in this matter was exceedingly great. He did not know whether we considered Prance was at war or not. The practice of conducting military operations and bombarding operations, and not going to war, was spreading all over the world, and was causing very great inconvenience. It would be obvious to their Lordships that vessels carrying goods which we re contraband of war to Japan would be liable to be seized on the way and detained, and, possibly, the goods confiscated. He was aware that in one case in which a vessel was going out to China the insurance was raised from 1 per cent to 4 per cent. He was aware that several British ships going to Shanghai had to discharge their cargo at the intermediate port of Singapore, on account of the exercise of the right of search. That was causing great disturbance and great derangement of the whole trade with China, and it was right that such a matter should be inquired into. If France and China were at war, we must submit to the inconveniences of the right of search; but, at the same time, if war was declared, we, as neutrals, had certain duties which we were bound to perform, and he was not at all clear that we were performing them. If we were not performing them, it was abundantly clear that we might cause ourselves infinite trouble in the future. If, for example, an American or Italian vessel was stopped and seized, and her cargo confiscated by a French cruiser that had obtained coals or provisions in our ports more than she was entitled to if the French were treated as belligerents, serious difficulty might arise. At present there appeared to be a great deal of uncertainty in the matter, and that uncertainty ought to be cleared up. He therefore begged to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether there has been a declaration of war between Prance and China; whether the "right of search" is exercised or claimed by either of those Powers; and whether the rules regulating the conduct of neutrals towards belligerents are applied to French and Chinese vessels in British Ports?

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, no formal declaration of war has been issued by France and China. Up to a recent period the French Government maintained that they were not at war with China, but that their hostilities there were only in the nature of reprisals. They consequently repudiated the intention of exercising the belligerent right of search over neutral vessels, and insisted that the blockade which they had notified of the ports of Formosa was a "pacific blockade" and not a "belligerent blockade;" but that any neutral vessel attempting to break it would be captured. Her Majesty's Government were unable to accept those views, and at the same time they were averse to taking any step which would aggravate the situation unnecessarily as regards our own rights as neutrals and beyond the wishes of the belligerents. They therefore announced to the French Government that, in their opinion, a state of war did exist in China which compelled them to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act; that the blockade of Formosa was recognized by them, but only as a belligerent blockade; and that so long as the hostilities were confined to certain localities, and neutral vessels were not interfered with on the high seas, Her Majesty's Government would not deem it necessary to take any further measure for the observance of their neutrality than the enforcement of the Foreign Enlistment Act. This took place in the month of November last, and the decision of Her Majesty's Government was communicated to the Governors of the British Possessions in the East. In consequence of recent complaints from the Chinese Minister in this country that the Foreign Enlistment Act was not being strictly enforced in Hong Kong as regards the repairing and equipping of French vessels of war, it was deemed necessary to issue special instructions to the Governors of the Eastern Colonies for their guidance in carrying out the decision of Her Majesty's Government. Those instructions did not in any way modify the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, or their decision arrived at in October last, and announced at the time to the French Government. The French Government, however, have now found it necessary to exercise the right of search on the high seas in order to intercept contraband of war destined for Chinese ports, and as the prohibition of the export of munitions of war from neutral ports is not an obligation imposed by the Law of Nations, it is not unnatural that the French Government should resort to the remedy which that law affords to the belligerent. They have at the same time assured Her Majesty's Government that the right of search will be exercised by them with all the consideration and forbearance towards neutrals which the circumstances permit. Her Majesty's Government do not think it necessary at present, therefore, to modify their decision of November last, which insures a just and equal measure of neutrality towards both belligerents and the scrupulous observance of British law.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

After the very moderate speech of my noble Friend, the noble Earl opposite has, I think, shown considerable reluctance to make a plain statement of the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this point. It is a point of extreme importance in the view of International Law, and also in regard to our countrymen trading in the Eastern Seas. I understand the noble Earl to say that France has claimed the right of search at sea in order to stop the import of munitions of war, and that this has not been objected to by Her Majesty's Government. Does that mean that France, which is only blockading one or two ports in Formosa, claims the right of search with respect to all vessels going to any of the ports of China in order to find out whether they have munitions of war? I apprehend that if any claim is made on the part of the French Government it is practically setting up that which the Declaration of Paris destroyed—namely, the system of paper blockades. France assented to the provision of the Declaration of Paris of 1856, that blockades, if they are to be carried out, must be genuine blockades; and the claim to search vessels on the high seas, no matter what port they are going to, merely because one or two ports are blockaded, appears to me to be one which has placed that doctrine in great peril, and which Her Majesty's Government should not have admitted so easily as the have done. Another point alluded to by my noble Friend was not touched by the noble Earl, and that is the question of permitting French vessels to make English ports a base for operations against China. I remember that during the Confederate War—a war which raised these questions of belligerency and blockade in a very acute form, and caused them to be examined and discussed with great minuteness—the rule was adopted that England would allow neither of the contending parties to send its ships into English ports for a longer space than 24 hours. They were not allowed to ship more either of coal or provisions than would be necessary to take them to the nearest port belonging to their own nation. This can hardly arise in the present case; but if there were two ships belonging to opposite belligerents in port at the same time, and if one of them left, the other was not allowed to leave without a delay of 24 hours. Now, I have heard—I do not know whether it is true—that France is carrying out her blockade against those ports by watching ships within British ports; that a French gunboat or man-of-war lies alongside the particular trader whom she has reason to suspect, and watches her and follows her out. If anything of that kind has taken place it is a gross breach of the international practice in this respect. I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell me that the public reports to that effect are erroneous; but, at all events, it appears to me that, both as to the extent to which the right of search is permitted and the extent to which hostility is given to belligerent vessels, the answer of the noble Earl is very imperfect, and I hope he will supplement it by laying Papers on the Table, and give us, at the same time, the text of the instructions which have been issued to the Colonial authorities.

EARL GRANVILLE

I have no objection to lay Papers on the Table; but do I understand that the noble Marquess thinks it wrong to allow France to search any vessels on the high seas?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

General right of search with reference to whether the vessels are going to blockaded or unblockaded ports.

EARL GRANVILLE

France said they were not at war, while we said they were; and, having done so, they, of course, claimed the right of belligerents.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The right of search applies not only to blockades, but also to contraband of -war for the use of belligerents.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

Has France the right of searching vessels going to all parts?

EARL GRANVILLE

I must refer the noble Earl to the Foreign Enlistment Act.