THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNrose to call attention to the sinking of the British ships "St. Kilda" and "Ikhona" by the Russian converted cruisers "Dnieper" and "Terek" on the 4th and 5th June respectively; to ask whether representations have been made to the Russian Government with regard to the disobedience of their naval officers to the orders issued to them on this subject; whether the Russian Government have agreed fully to compensate the owners and crews of the two vessels; also, whether these converted cruisers are admitted by His Majesty's Government to be ships of war.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I venture to think that Parliament ought to take under serious notice the violation of international law by vessels belonging, or purporting to belong, to the Russian navy, which I regret to say has become almost habitual. I would remind your Lordships of the facts in the two most recent cases which have occurred. On June 4th last the "St. Kilda," a Liverpool-owned ship, left Hong-Kong for Yokohama carrying a mixed cargo of goods, which were consigned, not to the Japanese Government, but to private persons. When she was about sixty miles from Hong-Kong she was met by the Russian cruiser "Dnieper," which had previously gone by the name of the "Peterburg." She was boarded and on the next day was sunk without any confirmation having been obtained of her having any contraband goods on board. Her crew were detained on board the "Dnieper," and were brought home on their way to a Russian port. When they reached Port Said, on urgent representations received from the Government they were liberated.
On the day after the seizure of the "St. Kilda," the "Ikhona," a ship belonging to the British Indian Steam 888 Navigation Company, which also had a cargo of mixed goods, and, I believe, some mails on board, was stopped about 140 miles from Hong-Kong on her way to Yokohama. She was detained by the Russian cruiser "Terek" and sunk on the next day. That these two cases were a clear violation of international law I think there can be no doubt. I cannot state it in clearer words than the noble Marquess used in this House on July 28th last year in the case of the "Knight Commander." The noble Marquess said—
Upon no hypothesis of international law can we conceive that a neutral ship, even if it be that her cargo included contraband of war, could be destroyed upon the mere fiat of the commanding officer of the capturing squadron and without reference to a properly constituted Prize Court.In the cases that I have quoted the captains deny that they had any contraband of war on board, and at all events there was no proof brought that they had any. Not only were these violations of international law, but they were in contravention of distinct assurances which had been given to the British Government; and, curiously enough, with regard to one of these ships especially the noble Marquess on August 11th last year said—As for the "Peterburg"—that vessel is now called the "Dnieper."—and the "Smolensk," we know that the instructions that have been sent to them to desist from further seizures have reached their I destination—the instructions, as we know, were delivered by British cruisers.And we may assume that no further seizures will be made by them.That assumption has proved to be entirely unfounded, and the fact is that the captains of these two vessels allege that they were obeying orders received from Admiral Rozhdestvensky, which, of course, were in distinct opposition to the orders which had been delivered to them from the Russian Government by British cruisers last year.What does the Russian Government say to this? Unfortunately, generals, admirals, and apparently some captains, as soon as they leave the shores of Russia are a law to themselves, and act 889 according to what they think right and without any reference to international law, or, unfortunately, to any instructions received from their Government. But the Government, nevertheless, cannot possibly repudiate responsibility for their action. The noble Marquess, I am sine, will admit that he has been completely misled and that what has happened shows that the assurances which were given to him were really not worth the paper on which they were written. I have seen it alleged that the Russian Government contends that there is some justification for sinking ships which you cannot take into port so that they may be adjudicated upon by a Prize Court. I want to know whether the Russian Government have in any way changed their, position in regard to that matter, and whether His Majesty's Government in any way admit that that position can be defended.
Then with regard to the question of compensation. Hitherto the payment of compensation by the Russian Government has admittedly been very slow. I want to know whether in these two cases the right of compensation has been admitted, and whether the Russian Government are prepared fully and immediately to compensate the owners and crews for the detention, the harm, and the damage they have sustained. Lastly, what is the status of the cruisers which were at one time volunteer cruisers? A year ago their status was under discussion between His Majesty's Government and the Russian Government, and on July 26th Mr. Balfour in the other House of Parliament said—
The whole question of the status of the volunteer fleet is under discussion between this Government and the Russian Government.I suppose that that discussion has had some issue, and, if so, I should like to know what it is. I see that the noble Marquess on July 28th, when speaking with reference to the seizure of the "Knight Commander" by the "Peterburg," said—Volunteer ships have been withdrawn from the Red Sea to some other destination, and we understand that it is not intended that they shall in future be employed upon a similar service.The status of the "Peterburg" may in some way have been altered for aught I 890 know. It has been suggested to me that she went into a Russian port and received a commission. Possibly that may have been the case when her name was changed to that of the "Dnieper," but, at all events, the result remains the same, she continues her former practice, and while there is no Russian Navy there are several of these vessels detaining merchant ships belonging to various nations, and which, of course, detain more ships belonging to this than to any other nation because of the great size of our mercantile marine.I am sure that neither I nor anyone in this House, nor, indeed, anyone in the country, would desire to act in any way ungenerously towards the Russian Government under present circumstances; but, at the same time, surely Russia cannot be permitted to continue as a practice to disregard international law and to allow her cruisers to sink, in violation of all international law, the mercantile ships belonging to other nations. In these circumstances I do not think that we can be surprised if British shipowners are a little impatient and feel indignant when their ships are taken under the guns of British vessels, as was the case the other day at the Isthmus of Suez. I hope that some stop will be put to this very objectionable practice. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)My Lords, my noble friend, I think, correctly stated the circumstances under which these two vessels were sunk by Russian cruisers, and it is therefore not necessary that I should recapitulate them. The sinkings took place on June 5th, and, as soon as possible after the news reached us, we instructed our Ambassador at St Petersburg to address urgent representations to the Russian Government on the subject. Sir Charles Hardinge dwelt on the great irritation created in this country by the news of these incidents, and pointed out more particularly that the conduct of these cruisers was in direct contravention of the statements which had been made to us by Count Lamsdorff in August, 1904—the statements which, no doubt, my noble friend has in mind.
891 We asked for a disavowal of the action of the "Dnieper;" we said that compensation would be claimed; and we called for some security against the repetition of such occurrences. We also asked that the officers of the "St. Kilda" should be transferred from the Russian cruiser at Port Said, and that an assurance should be obtained from the captain of the "Dnieper" that, during the remainder of his voyage, British ships should not experience a recurrence of such treatment; and, in order that there might be no delay in conveying the necessary instructions to these cruisers, we offered to place at the disposal of the Russian Government a British cruiser to which would be entrusted the task of conveying the instructions. We addressed similar representations a few days afterwards, when the news of the sinking of the "Ikhona" had reached us.
On June 28th, Sir Charles Hardinge reported the result of his conversation with Count Lamsdorff, who attributed the sinking of these vessels to instructions issued independently by the Russian Admiral owing to the state of disorganisation in which the Russian navy had fallen in consequence of the recent disasters that had overtaken it. He promised to send orders to these vessels to come home at once, and to abstain from similar action, and he accepted the offer of His Majesty's Government to convey the necessary instructions by a British cruiser. There were four Russian cruisers altogether; my noble friend mentioned only two. The necessary instructions were, in fact, delivered to three of the cruisers at Jibuti, and to the fourth at Batavia, where she was, and is now, interned. The whole of these four cruisers may therefore be considered as no longer in a position in which they are likely to interfere with our commerce. The "Dnieper" has already arrived at Kronstadt, the "Rion" has passed Gibraltar, the "Kuban" has passed Port Said, and the Russian Consul has informed our Consul that she will not interfere with any more British ships. The "Terek," the fourth vessel, was interned on July 1st at Batavia.
My noble friend asked me whether claims for compensation are to be pre 892 sented. They will be presented as soon as they have been formulated by the owners and shippers of the vessels, and we have intimated that these claims will be pressed irrespective of the decision of the Russian Prize Court. The claim on account of the "St. Kilda" is in a forward state of preparation, and the owners' claim will be sent in at once. The claim of the shippers is not complete, and the claim on account of the "Ikhona" has not yet come in. My noble friend asked me a Question as to the view of the Russian Government as to the right of these cruisers to sink neutral prizes. I gather that the Russian Government consider that, in an extreme case, a belligerent ship is justified in sinking a neutral prize. We have, as my noble friend knows, taken a different view.
The last Question my noble friend asked me had reference to the status of these ships. In our view, such vessels, whether they belong to the Russian Volunteer Squadron, as did the "Dnieper," or whether they are merchant vessels acqui ed and properly commissioned in a Russian port, as the "Terek" was, are ships of war, and are entitled to be so regarded. The question of the status of these vessels is, of course, distinct from the general question of the right of a belligerent ship to sink a neutral prize. My noble friend referred to the discussions which took place in 1904, discussions in which the case of the "Peterburg," as she then was, the "Dnieper," as she is now, played a conspicuous part. But I daresay my noble friend will recollect that, at that time, we were discussing more particularly whether vessels of this class which were in the Black Sea had a right to emerge from the Black Sea in the guise of peaceful vessels and then suddenly to transform themselves into ships of war and behave as ships of war. We protested strongly against that view—but that is a circumstance which, of course, is not present in the matter we are now discussing.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNThe noble Marquess has said that these claims for compensation will be pressed irrespective of the decision of the Russian Prize Court. I should like to 893 ask the noble Marquess how the Russian Prize Court can give any decision, because the vessels h question are at the bottom of the sea, their goods are there also, and their crews have been released. I do Dot see, therefore, how the Russian Prize Court can have anything to adjudicate upon.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI imagine it would be possible for the owners to product evidence as to the circumstances in which the ships were sunk, the nature of their cargo, and their destination.