HL Deb 11 August 1904 vol 140 cc153-9
* THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

My Lords, seeing the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, I beg to ask him certain Questions, of which I have given him private notice. They are as follows: What exactly is the position of the case of the sinking of the "Knight Commander"; whether there are any negotiations going on between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government with regard to contraband of war, and whether His Majesty's Government adhere to the former practice of the Foreign Office on this question, and specially to the course which was pursued by Lord Granville during the Franco-German War; whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that an agreement has been come to between the Turkish Government and the Russian Government with respect to the passage of the Russian Volunteer Fleet through the Dardanelles, and what exactly is the meaning of the words in that agreement that the ships are to fly the commercial flag "throughout the voyage?"

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)

My Lords, I have to thank the noble Marquess for the extremely considerate manner in which he has addressed these Questions to me. I feel sure there could be no one who would be more unwilling to add to the difficulties of His Majesty's Government in dealing with this important subject than the noble Marquess himself. His Questions have reference to three separate points. He has referred, in the first place, to the passage of the Dardanelles by Russian ships belonging to what is known as the Volunteer Fleet. In the second place he referred to the manner in which the Russian Government has lately dealt with the question of contraband of war. In the third place, he has touched upon the manner in which certain neutral prizes, and particularly the "Knight Commander," have been dealt with by the Russian Government. In regard to the Volunteer Fleet and the passage of the Dardanelles, your Lordships are aware of the manner in which this question is regarded by His Majesty's Government. We have explained that in our opinion these vessels were not entitled to pass through the Straits as ships of war, and that having assed through the Straits as peaceful vessels they were not entitled to reappear immediately, or almost immediately afterwards in the guise of warlike vessels, and to interfere with neutral commerce. That is our general view. So far as the incidents which have arisen out of the passage of the "Petersburg" and "Smolensk" through the Dardanelles are concerned, I think we may say that the matter has passed out of the acute stage. As the noble Marquess is aware, those two ships have been withdrawn from the Red Sea, and as we now know that the instructions which have been sent to them to desist from similar seizures have reached their destination, we may assume that no further seizures will be made by them.

Then we come to the case of the passage of the Dardanelles by other ships of the Volunteer Fleet to which reference was made yesterday in the newspapers. I believe that the report in the newspapers is substantially correct, and that the account given of the conditions insisted upon by the Turkish Government is in accordance with the facts of the case. The Turkish Government appears to have obtained from the Russian Government an official statement that these vessels will fly during their whole voyage, as hitherto, the commercial flag, that they will not contain either munitions of war or armament, and that they will not be "changed into cruisers." The noble Marquess laid stress upon the passage which says that these vessels were to continue to fly the commercial flag during their whole voyage. The words he used were "throughout the voyage." The words in the official version are "during the whole voyage," which suggests something more than the shorter expression quoted by the noble Marquess. I may say at once that in our opinion the larger interpretation is obviously the correct one, for it would be almost grotesque if the voyage of these vessels were to be regarded as beginning and ending with their passage through the Straits.

Then I pass to the second and more serious question raised by the noble Marquess, I mean the question of the manner in which the Russian Government has treated the question of contraband of war. At the beginning of the war the Russian Government issued regulations dealing with this question; and it is certainly the case that these regulations had the effect of very greatly amplifying the definition of contraband of war which has hitherto been accepted by this and, I believe, by most other countries. The Russian definition included a number of articles which we have always regarded as prima facie innocent, unless it could be shown that they were destined for the enemy's use. This enlarged definition was coupled with an official intimation that the whole of the articles enumerated in Rule 6 of the Russian regulations were to be regarded not merely as contraband of war, but as unconditionally contraband of war. The list of articles enumerated in the sixth rule is a large one; but the particular articles in which we are more especially concerned are those enumerated in Subsections 8 and 10, which are as follows— Sub-section 8.—Every kind of fuel, such as coal, naphtha, alcohol, and other similar materials. Sub-section 10.—Generally everything intended for warfare by sea or land, as well as rice, provisions, horses, beasts of burden, and others which may be used for warlike purposes, if they are transported on account of or are destined for the enemy. Of course that rule by itself and without the distinct intimation that all these articles were to be treated as unconditionally contraband of war would not have been such a grave matter; but taking the rule as we found it, plus the official explanation, it seemed to us a matter of such importance that we deemed it our duty to call the attention of the Russian Government to the gravity of the question.

We took up in particular the inclusion amongst articles unconditionally contraband of war of provisions, in which I need not say this country is very largely interested. We pointed out that the inclusion of all provisions in this category was a very serious innovation; and we stated that we felt bound to reserve our rights by protesting at once against the doctrine that it is for the belligerent to decide that certain articles or classes of articles are, as a matter of course, and without reference to other considerations, to be dealt with as contraband of war, regardless of the well-established rights of neutrals. We went on to say that we could not consider ourselves bound to recognise as valid the decision of any Prize Court which violated those rights, or was otherwise not in conformity with the recognised principles of international law. I think it was with regard to that point that the noble Marquess asked me whether we adhered to the views expressed in 1870 by Lord Granville. I take it that what the noble Marquess refers to is the correspondence which passed in that year between Lord Granville and Count Bernsdorff, when the German Government demanded that the export of arms and ammunition and coal should be prevented by His Majesty's Government. To those demands we refused to accede, and our policy in that respect remains what it was at that time.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

Rice?

* THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Yes, I think rice was included, but I am not quite certain. I pass from that question to the question of the measures taken by the Russian Government for the purpose of preventing the arrival of contraband of war at the ports of the other belligerent. That, of course, raises the question of the "Knight Commander," to which the noble Marquess drew special attention. I need not point out to the House that the effect of severe rules dealing with this question of contraband is greatly intensified if the measures taken to enforce those rules are also of exceptional severity. We are now given to understand that in the view of the Russian Government it is within the right of a belligerent to destroy a neutral vessel captured by him if that neutral vessel has contraband of war on board her. My Lords, that is a view which the Government of this country have never accepted; it is a view which I believe has been repudiated, although perhaps not so distinctly, by other Powers; it has certainly not been accepted by the Government of the United States. Holding these opinions, His Majesty's Government thought it their duty, some time ago, to call the attention of the Russian Government to Article XXI. of the Russian regulations relating to the destruction the prizes, pointing out that their terms might be held to apply to the case of vessels belonging not only to the enemy, but also to neutral vessels carrying contraband of war. Sir Charles Hardinge was desired to say we assumed that the provisions of the Article were not meant to refer to neutral vessels, and to inform the Russian Government that we so interpreted their rules. In these circumstances, my Lords, we are altogether unable to admit that the sinking of the "Knight Commander" was justifiable according to any principles of international law by which this country has ever regarded itself as bound.

That brings me to the natural reply to the question of the noble Marquess, who asked me what is the position of the "Knight Commander" after her condemnation by the Prize Court at Vladivostok? The case of the "Knight Commander" awaits trial by the appellate Prize Court at St. Petersburg. I need not say that if the St. Petersburg Court should reverse the de- cision of the Vladivostok Court that would be a matter for congratulation. But, whether that be the case or not, we are in any case unable to admit that! the destruction of the vessel was justifiable or that the proceedings of these Prize Courts have any validity so far as this particular case is concerned.

I am tempted to say one word as to the cumulative effect of the different measures to which the Russian Government has thought it its duty to resort, for it is the cumulative effect of those measures which we have to consider. It is, in our opinion. extremely serious. You have in the first place an extension of the doctrine of contraband of war altogether novel and unprecedented; you have in the next place the claim to pursue such alleged contraband of war no matter where it may be found, no matter at what distance from the theatre of war, and particularly in those narrow waters through which all neutral commerce is virtually obliged to pass on its way to the Far East; and, finally, you have the additional claim to dispose, as we think arbitrarily, and without the previous authority of a Prize Court, of vessels taken with so-called contraband of war on board them by sinking or destruction. The operation of these measures cannon fail to have a most injurious effect on the commerce of this country.

Let your Lordships imagine, for example. what would be the result were some cruiser operating at a distance from her base to seize and sink on the spot a number of neutral vessels simply on the ground that those neutral vessels had not on board of them a sufficient amount of coal to carry them to the port from which the belligerent cruiser had started; or, again, we might find ourselves confronted with this result, that a cruiser, starting with a crew sufficient only for the purpose of navigating her, and consequently not having on board any men whom she could spare for the purpose of providing a prize crew, might sink every prize which she took, merely on the ground that there were no means of conveying that prize before a Prize Court. I am speaking, of course, of neutral prizes, because the case of enemy prizes is wholly different. I have mentioned these possible results because I desire that your Lordships should realise how serious is the problem with which we have to deal; but I do not for a moment suggest that the whole of these consequences are likely to follow. My impression is that, in spite of these untoward incidents, both Governments would really be glad to discover a reasonable means of settling these difficulties. We on our side certainly recognise that a belligerent has a right to prevent the supply of contraband of war to the other belligerent, and to take reasonable precautions for that purpose. But we have thought it our duty to point out very earnestly to the Russian Government that their conduct in this matter has gone far beyond what, in our view, is justifiable for this purpose.

Although this correspondence is still proceeding, and I am not able to announce anything which can be regarded as a definite settlement of the question, I am glad to be able to add that the language of the Russian Government justifies us in expecting that these acts of destruction of neutral prizes are not likely to be repeated, although they may maintain that in principle such a right belongs to them, and I am not without hopes that when we have more thoroughly discussed these questions in all their bearings we may find that upon the question of contraband also there may be room for a reasonable and amicable understanding. I can assure your Lordships that we deeply realise the gravity of the subject to. which the noble Marquess has called attention, and we shall deem it our duty to insist strongly upon the rights which this country possesses as a neutral Power, rights which owing to her predominant interest in the commerce of the Far East she is, more than any other Power, called upon to vindicate.