§ 3.5 p.m.
§ LORD SNELLMy Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any statement to make to-day about foreign affairs. I should also like to ask whether they have any official information to give the House about the sinking of the "Athenia."
§ 3.6 p.m.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL STANHOPE)My Lords, His Majesty's Government have no statement to make to-day in regard to foreign affairs, and so far as I know my noble friend (Viscount Halifax) does not propose to make one to-morrow, but of course he may do so. As regards the "Athenia," I am afraid I have no official information. I do not know whether any has arrived at the Admiralty during the past few hours, but so far it has not reached me. I am afraid I cannot give the House any more information than they already know.
§ 3.7 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, may I ask whether His Majesty's Government have it in mind to denounce this sinking of the "Athenia," if the facts are as stated in the telegrams, as a particularly gross violation of old-established law at sea? Apart from that, will they let the world know, which I do not think is altogether realised, that the German Government not only adhered to the 1935 Convention and the rules in regard to sinking by submarines, under which it is specifically laid down that the sinking of a ship shall not take place unless the passengers and the crew are allowed an opportunity of getting out of the ship, but they also, when the Anglo-German Treaty was denounced in April this year, went out of their way to say that they adhered to those rules. Furthermore, quite apart from any Conventions, I 984 hope His Majesty's Government will make representations in the necessary quarters that, apart from any precedents of the last war, the sinking of a merchant ship at sea with passengers and merchant seamen on board, all non-combatants, is against the laws of the sea upheld by civilised nations for many centuries past. That is quite apart from any Conventions or Treaties. Therefore this is a particularly violent crime against the laws of the sea and the laws of humanity.
My noble friend has also asked me if I will seek an assurance from the Government—I do not know that it is necessary but perhaps it may be desirable in these times—that will reassure the public. We quite understand, in the case of this ship, which sailed before war was declared, that tile ordinary precautions could not be taken. We understand—indeed it has been announced publicly and I am sure we are giving away no secret—that a very complete convoy system is now in being, and the noble Earl who leads the House can take credit, if I may be allowed to say so, for the arrangements made to that end, but that this particular case is isolated owing to the peculiar circumstances. It might be desirable in the public interest to reinforce what has already been said about the use of the convoy system from the very beginning of hostilities.
§ 3.10 p.m.
§ LORD MAUGHAMMy Lords, I hope it will not be thought amiss if I deal with one question as a private member of your Lordships' House. It is a question of law and one on which I feel very deeply. There is no doubt at all, according to the universal opinion of respectable jurists all over the world, that the sinking of a merchant ship without in the first place duly summoning her to stop and putting her passengers, her crew, and the ship's papers in a place of safety, is and always has been an act of piracy. I would not like the matter to go before the public, who will hear what your Lordships are doing in this House, without their knowing the view of the legal profession in reference to this important matter.
§ 3.11 p.m.
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord opposite has thought fit to bring this matter before your Lordships' House. I am quite certain that the War Cabinet will deal with 985 it with the utmost promptitude and will no doubt make a statement satisfactory to your Lordships and the country on the subject. I am glad also that the noble Lord referred to the Anglo-German Naval Treaty which, as he reminded your Lordships, Germany abrogated unilaterally quite recently, but quite definitely left that part of the Treaty which referred to submarines untouched and did not rescind her obligations under that part of the Treaty. Therefore, if it turns out that this has been done by a submarine and by a torpedo, it means that once again Germany has broken a pledge she has made and one made by the present Leader of the German nation under no duress and with no possible excuse for his saying now that he is justified in breaking it.
LORD STRABOLGIMy Lords, might I, with your Lordships' permission, ask this question which I think may be of great importance? Am I not right in supposing that it was impossible for this ship to have been armed in the circumstances and impossible for her to be carrying munitions to America?
§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, it is extremely unlikely, I think, that anything in the form of munitions is being exported to the United States, which is a long way off the present scene of action, and is not at present engaged. I can also say that the ship was unarmed, and therefore had no possible means of defending herself. But even if she were armed that gives no reason or cause whatever for an attack in such circumstances by a submarine contrary to the rules of International Law, as my noble and learned friend has just said.
LORD STRABOLGIThe reason I asked the question is that in the case of the "Lusitania" the excuse was falsely made that she was carrying rifle ammunition in her holds and therefore was a fit 986 subject for torpedo attack. In any case that was erroneous law and the statement also was wrong. Not even that excuse can be put forward on this occasion.