THE EARL OF JERSEYMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government whether, on the occasion of the visit of the British Fleets to Russian ports, British sailors will be asked to fraternise with Russian sailors implicated in the North Sea outrage in 1904. There can be no doubt that the projected visit of our Fleet to Russian ports has created an unpleasant surprise. Under ordinary circumstances no comment would have been made, but we cannot deaden our feelings with regard to what took place 1361 in the North Sea and also to the horrors which are being perpetrated in Russia. The organised slaughter of so many Jews and the massacres of men, women, and children in Russia are surely reasons why we should stand aloof from any action which might be looked upon as implying either satisfaction with or indifference to what has taken place and is taking place.
The British Fleet is the sign of British power. Its presence is at times a token of British friendship, and no doubt the Government of the Tsar will welcome the presence of the British Fleet as a sign of moral support. We know, of course, that that is not the object of our Fleet's going to Russian ports; but at the same time it is impossible to believe that the presence of our Fleet will not be looked upon both in Russia and outside as a sign of the sympathy and goodwill of this country. We ought not to take any step which might cause our sympathies to be misunderstood in any part of the world. Our officers and men will be called upon to toast and cheer the Tsar and his Government at festivities, and, I suppose, to forget what happened in the North Sea less than two years ago. They will thus be placed in an uncomfortable and undesirable position.
What occurred in the North Sea two years ago was of a very wanton character. We are now asked to forget the incident or to treat it as being of no consequence. It cannot be right that our sailors should be called on to swallow the insult of having to fraternise with men who could act as the Russian Admiral and officers did on that occasion. There are events in history which are not quickly forgotten; and the outrage in the North Sea is one of them. I ask His Majesty's Government at least to say that those who were implicated in this outrage shall not be amongst the hosts by whom our sailors are to be received.
§ LORD HENEAGEMy Lords, I rise with considerable hesitation, because on this question I think the least said the soonest mended. But I cannot help saying—and I speak on behalf of the people of Hull, as well as on behalf of the Fishing industry generally—that we deeply regret that the question of the outrage two years ago has been revived by the noble Earl. If my noble friend had confined his 1362 Question to general remarks with regard to the fêting of the Fleet, and the fraternisation generally of one fleet with the other, I should not have thought right to interfere; but I cannot sit silent when I find that the whole of the Question is based upon the outrage which was committed in the North Sea in 1904. The Question solely, explicitly, and entirely refers to that outrage. Our fishermen have desired, as far as possible, to forget and forgive what happened in the North Sea, and at the present moment they desire, more strongly than perhaps anybody else, to carry on their operations in friendly intercourse with the fishermen of other nations, and they wish to be friends with the Russians now that the whole thing has blown over.
That the outrage was grave there can be no doubt, but we may recall to mind with admiration the self-restraint which was exercised by all those engaged in the fishing industry during those trying days, which I am sure my noble friend, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, will well remember. Those engaged in the fishing industry were perhaps cooler than almost any other class in this country, and I think they earned the admiration of the whole civilised world for the moderation and truthfulness with which they gave their evidence before the Conference at Paris, which was in direct opposition, as may be seen by the Report, to the evidence of Captain Klado, and those who tried to bring allegations against this country.
Two years have passed over. We have been fishing in the North Sea, and have been on friendly terms with the Russian Government. It is most desirable that we should as far as possible remain on friendly relations with all the signatories of the North Sea Convention, and I cannot help thinking that it is an unwise step at the present moment to revive in any way the lamentable occurrence which we deplored at the time and which we have tried to forget. I would remind my noble friend of another point. The Tsar spontaneously and most liberally did all he could to compensate those who had suffered by the loss of relatives or property, or who had themselves been injured. That compensation was given, and there is not the slightest doubt that everyone was fully satisfied in that respect.
This Question on the Paper to-day will go forth to the foreign Press as a revival 1363 of dislike, on the part of English fishermen, that our seamen should associate with Russian sailors on the occasion of the visit of the British Fleet to Russian ports. The Question will go forth as it stands upon the Paper, whilst the speech of the noble Earl will either be mutilated or not properly reported. We have had some experience during the last year of what I would venture to call the gutter Press of Germany in relation to our seafishing industry; and it is not nine months ago that I read a travesty of the action of English fishing boats in the North Sea. It was said that English fishermen behaved so badly that the Danish Government were compelled to capture them and take them before their courts, whilst Germans wore treated in an entirely different manner, being, on account of their extremely good conduct, given a hint directly they got within the three-mile territorial waters. There was not one word of truth in that statement, and we have since received a contradiction of it from the Danish Government. But, after this Question everything will be done to stir up differences between this country and Russia. I regret therefore that the question has been brought forward, and f hope His Majesty's Government will give such an answer that we may at any rate continue in those friendly relations which happily obtain at present.
LORD MUSKERRYMy Lords, I was not aware before that Russian fishermen were in the habit of fishing in the North sea. But I would like to point out that the Question which my noble friend has put has nothing whatever to do with fishing. It relates to a serious outrage committed by an armed Meet of the Russians on our fishermen. Whether that outrage was committed for some political cause, and to try and save their name, or whether all on board were blind drunk and incapable, we have never yet heard; but it is an utter impossibility that any sailor could have mistaken trawlers for torpedo boats. I fully agree that it was not the unfortunate seamen who fired the guns or the officers, but the person in command of that fleet who was to blame for the committing of that outrage. When our Fleet goes to Russian ports it will be with the high officers of those ports that they will be in communication. It is between them that the civilities will take place. My noble friend 1364 is, therefore, fully entitled to put the Question, and I hope His Majesty's Government will return a favourable answer.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHMy Lords, I do not know whether His Majesty's Government have sufficiently considered the extremely difficult position in which our officers and men will be placed if, during their visit to Russian ports, riotous or political demonstrations take place. They may have strict orders not to utter a single political opinion; but no one can prophesy when or where an outrage or riot will take place in Russia at this moment, and it would be extremely inconvenient if, when our sailors were on their way to any entertainment, they were met by a riotous procession. In that event some very disagreeable diplomatic complications might arise.
§ LORD NUNBURNHOLMEMy Lords, I rise to say a few words on this question because it is intimately connected with the city of Hull, which I represented in the other House for thirty-two years. Also at the time of the outrage I happened to be the chairman of a similar fishing company to the one attacked—a fishing company with some sixty steam trawlers and carriers occupied exactly in the same way as the fleet that suffered this outrage. It was only just by chance that our fleet did not suffer in the same way. I cannot help thinking that this Question is inopportune and unfortunate. It is two years since, and the feeling at that time in the city of Hull was very extreme, but it has, I believe, died out. A circumstance at the present time rather proves that. I am asked in a short time to unveil some memorial of the Russian outrage. I made inquiries, and found that the fishermen generally have not joined in this desire to perpetuate the memory of that event. It was, no doubt, a very terrible outrage, but I quite agree with the noble Lord opposite that the matter should now be allowed to rest. The fishing trade in the North Sea is a very big one, and it has a great many supporters who can take care of it. If there were any question of any feeling existing at the present moment it might have been desirable to raise the Question which my noble friend has placed upon the Paper. I know a great deal about the Russian trade. It is a very large one, and, in spite of all the difficulties and 1365 the misfortunes of the Czar and his country, in which we cannot help sympathising, an enormous trade is going on between England and both the Baltic and the Black Sea. I therefore feel sure that the Government will give no encouragement to the raising difficulties which I cannot help thinking would be very unfortunate in the present position of affairs.
LORD FITZMAURICEMy Lords, it used to be a favourite observation of the late Lord Derby when he was Foreign Minister that it was a good thing, wherever possible, to limit the area of European disturbance. Lord Derby was speaking of limiting disturbance in regard to place. I venture to think that your Lordships will believe it to be equally important to limit the area of disturbance in regard to time. The events to which the noble Lord has called attention by his Question happened some time ago. They represent an incident which is closed. Unfortunate as they were, they were undoubtedly owing to misapprehensions; and they have been, as regards the great interests more immediately affected, I will not say forgotten, but certainly forgiven. I might perhaps point out to the noble Lord that his Question almost carries with it its own answer. The noble Lord does not mean to suggest either that the sailors or the captains of ships, the Foreign Office, or the Admiralty have been asked, or are likely to be asked, to fraternise, for before anything could happen in the direction suggested by the noble Lord a request for fraternisation would have to arrive. I can assure the noble Lord that we have not received any request bearing on the Question, neither has the Admiralty, as far as I understand. But putting aside any technical advantage I might take of the form of the Question, I think that the great majority of your Lordships and the country at large will feel it is best in this matter to let bygones be bygones.
THE EARL OF JERSEYDo I understand the noble Lord to say that there will be no festivities on the occasion of the visit of the British Fleet to the Russian ports?
THE EARL OF JERSEYIf there are festivities there must assuredly be fraternisation. In this affair I was not referring to the fishing interests. I was referring to our Fleet going to Russia at this time when events of a most deplorable kind are taking place, thereby giving a kind of moral support to the Government of the Tsar.
§ House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.