§ Bill considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Clause 1.
* SIR C. RUSSELLIn ordinary circumstances I should not have troubled the House at all with any statement after the discussion which took place at some length upon the occasion of the Second Reading, but since then certain questions have been put by hon. Members in the House, and certain statements—not of an official kind—have appeared in the public Press this morning, which render it necessary that I should make, with the permission of the House, a very brief statement. The questions addressed to me have been, amongst others, whether the two Bills—namely, that introduced in Congress, and that introduced in this House, exactly correspond. The statement has been previously made that they substantially agree although they do not exactly correspond. I will mention what strikes me as the main differences. Under Section 8 of the United States Bill there is a provision, in the event of an offence against the Act, of absolute forfeiture of the ship and the contents of the ship. In the English Bill the ship and its contents are made liable to forfeiture,, but the Court has an alternative of imposing a fine for the offence not exceeding £500. Again, in Section 10 of the American Bill there is a provision-putting the onus of proof upon the 1677 accused party in certain cases with which I need not trouble the Committee. That is a matter of form more than of substance, and it is a form of clause not very usual in our legislation. It is merely a question of satisfying the Court, and the only object of the clause is to put the onus on the accused party. We have not any such clause in our Bill. There is a clause in our Bill giving the commander of an English cruiser seizing an offending ship the power of endorsing the certificate and directing the ship to be sent to a port for trial. That has been done in order that the cruisers shall be available for the real purpose for which they are there—namely, of preventing offences against the Act, and if a cruiser was obliged, having seized an offending ship, to accompany that ship into port, it would detract from the effectiveness of the cruiser to see that the Act was carried out. The only other difference is the clause which is referred to in the paragraphs that have appeared in the papers this morning. I have to begin by stating that the clause—which is Clause 7—has been entirely misunderstood by those who have commented upon it in the American Press——
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESOn a point of Order, Sir, may I ask is the hon. and learned Gentleman in Order in referring to Clause 7 when we are only on Clause 1?
THE CHAIRMANThis is a Ministerial statement, which is being made by the indulgence of the Committee.
* SIR. C. RUSSELLSub-section 2 of Clause 7 provides that—
Where, on any proceeding against a person or ship in respect of any offence under this Act, it is proved that the ship sailed from its port of departure before the scheduled provisions were published there, and that such person or the master of the ship did not after such sailing, and before the alleged offence, receive notice of such provisions, such person shall be acquitted, and the ship shall be released, and not forfeited.That clause was designed to meet the cases of notoriety which the Award and the discussion of the proposed legislation has obtained, and the clause is one which would have an exceedingly limited operation, if any operation at all. The effect would be to prevent the forfeiture of the ship where that ship had bonâ fide sailed without any notice of the Award, and if it 1678 satisfies the Court it, has bonâ fide sailed without any intention of violating the Act. In the; comments in the American Press several serious mistakes have been committed in mentioning the effect of that provision. It has been thought, for instance, that it gives impunity to ships that have sailed before the Act came into force. It does nothing of the kind. The only effect it could have would be that if a ship had sailed without notice, and had committed what would otherwise be an offence against the Act, bonâ, fide in ignorance of the provision of the Award, then as regards what it had done it could not be punished. But from that moment it has full and absolute notice of the Act, and it is debarred from any further offences against the Act under penalty of seizure. It has been also thought by some of these commentators that the commanders of cruisers would be the judges of whether or not the ship had had notice of the provisions of the Award. That is not so at all. Those who are at all skilled in reading these things will see that no option is given to the commander of the cruising ship at all. It is a mutter that has to be proved to the satisfaction of the Court, which Court will deal with the matter, and if it is proved to their satisfaction that what has been done has been done in bonâ fide ignorance, the persons will be acquitted and the ship released and not forfeited. Therefore, in a case in which a seizure is effected, the matter will have to be dealt with by a competent Court, and the section will have no operation whatever unless it shall be affirmatively proved that there was that state of bonâ fide ignorance to which I have adverted. I have some reason to believe that the explanation I have now given will be satisfactory even to those who have made the objections to which I have referred, and I do not know that I am justified in saying more than this: that the explanation has been given, and that we have every reason to believe that that explanation will be satisfactory. The clause was inserted in response to the demands of the Canadian Government, who thought it a reasonable clause to insert, and the Government here, thinking it reasonable, inserted it accordingly. I have only one other word to say. It is for the Imperial Parliament 1679 to discharge this, which is its Imperial obligation. We desire loyally and fully to give effect to the Award, and to secure by this legislation adequate sanctions for enforcing the provisions of the Award. But we are not bound to follow verbatim at literatim the legislation of the United States, nor is the United States bound to follow verbatim is literatim our legislation. As a matter of fact, I have never yet seen the complete Bill of the United States, although I have seen the original draft, which was introduced by a Senator or Member of the Congress. I have, as I have said, never seen the Bill in its completed form. There have been undoubtedly some discussions between the Representatives of the two countries, and something like approximation to general agreement upon the main principles of the legislation has been arrived at. One final word I will say. It has been stated by one of the Senators, Senator Morgan, a gentleman who was one of the Arbitrators, and who did not agree with the rest of the body, that this clause was introduced in had faith and was not to be found in the draft of the Bill submitted originally to the Secretary of State at Washington. I am informed that is a misapprehension on the part of that Senator, and that this clause was in the draft as it was originally submitted to the Government at Washington. I hope the House will, therefore, see that the clause does not bear the erroneous interpretation put upon it on the other side of the Atlantic, and that there has been no want of good faith, and, as no Amendment is down, I hope the House will see fit to pass this Bill without amendment and give us a Third Reading to-night.
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL (Liverpool, Kirkdale)desired to point out that the Members of the Senate of the United States saw some very serious objections to this clause, and he must confess he could not quite understand the explanation given by the Attorney General. The hon. and learned Gentleman told them that the words, "before the scheduled provisions wore published," did not mean the scheduled provisions of this Bill, but the scheduled provisions of the Award. Now, the scheduled provisions of the Award were published to the world last August, and it seemed to him, therefore, an entire work of supererogation 1680 to introduce a clause in this Bill which would deal with ships or persons sailing on sealing expeditious since last August. There were no sealing ships that left anywhere near that period. In August they knew of the provisions of the Award, and what was the use of putting a clause now into the Bill to deal with vessels which would not leave until the following January or February at least? It seemed to him that the explanation was of a very curious kind, and there was no doubt the words "scheduled provisions" would be read as presumably belonging to the Bill. He hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would amend the Bill so as to make it clear that the words related to the Award and not to the Bill, because if not it was clear that schooners which left the ports after last August would have no cause to complain——
* MR. GIBSON BOWLES, on a point of Order, desired to know if they could discuss Clause 7 on a Motion which related to Clause 1? Such a course was highly inconvenient, as there were other matters to be raised before reaching Clause 7.
THE CHAIRMANOn the point of Order, I have to say that we can only discuss Amendments to Clause 1 on Clause 1.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished, on the first clause, to ask a question which had been asked twice before. The Canadian Government were, of course, highly interested in this matter, and they had a right to know—had the Canadian Government agreed unreservedly to this Bill? When the consent of the Canadian Government was asked to the modus vivendi Act of 1891 they specially annexed the condition of compensation. Had they annexed any such condition to their consent to this Bill?
* SIR C. RUSSELLI have heard of no such condition being annexed, and I think, if I may express an opinion, that it would be an impossible condition. I beg to remind the Committee, as I said a few minutes ago, that though Canada has been most keenly interested in the whole question, yet this is a matter of Imperial obligation, and even if Canada were not a consenting party—as I believe it is—to this Bill, it still would be the duty of the House to see that it honestly 1681 and loyally discharged its obligations. I do beg the indulgence of the House, and ask them on a question of this kind not to protract the discussion. I may take this opportunity of pointing out, in answer to my hon. Friend opposite, that if he will look at Clause I, third line, he will see that the provisions of the Behring Sen, Arbitration Award are thereby described, and this Act is referred to as "The scheduled provisions." If, however, there is any doubt upon the point it is a matter which may be set right.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Clause 3.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, there was an important principle involved in this clause. There was a provision that Orders under this clause were to be laid before Parliament, but it did not enact what was the usual corollary to that, provision—namely, that, the Order should lay upon the Table of both Houses during the Session for 40 days before coming into effect. It did seem to him, if the Orders were to be placed before Parliament, that the minimum opportunity of 40 days should be given in which to call attention to the matter.
* SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the question was quite a reasonable one. There were, however, precedents for inserting the provision in the form in which it appeared in this Bill. For instance, a similar provision, he was informed, appeared in the Fishery Convention Bill. Circumstances might arise which would involve a necessary modification of this Bill, and it had been thought best to have this power as it appeared in this form without the 40 days.
ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)thought that under Sub-section 3 of Clause 3 considerable friction might arise unless the instructions to the officers of cruisers were carefully drawn. There should be an interchange of views between the Naval Authorities or the Governments of both countries to prevent any possible friction. If the powers given to the officers of cruisers of the United States were reciprocal powers exercised by both, it seemed to him that the officers of one Power should not capture a vessel of 1682 another Power if there were a ship of that Power in sight at the time.
SIR C. RUSSELLThe hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned that point to me before, and I have taken care that attention shall bo drawn to it in the proper quarter.
MR. CHANCE (Kilkenny, S.)suggested that this clause ought to provide for the publishing of the scheduled provisions. He did not find in the Bill any method specified by which the provisions were to be published.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clauses 4, 5, and 6 agreed to.
§ Clause 7.
SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)said, his attention had been called to the second sub-sect ion of this clause, and he thought it would be necessary for the Attorney General to consider whether in another place that sub-section should not receive some slight alteration. It provided that—
Where on any proceeding against a person or ship accused of any offence under this Act it is proved that the ship sailed from its port of departure before the scheduled provisions were published there," &c.It seemed to him that considerable doubt might be raised as to what "published there" meant. There might not be publication in the port itself: and while he quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that it meant notoriety, he thought the Court, might think it meant some form of publication, and this view was rather strengthened by the succeeding words of the sub-section—Such person or master of a ship did not after such sailing… receive notice of these provisions.He would suggest that the sub-section should be made a little clearer, so as to provide for non-conviction in the absence of notice as distinguished from form of publication.
SIR C. RUSSELLThere is a possible ambiguity, but not, I think, a serious 1683 one. I will see that both points are considered.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Clause 8.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that by a section of this clause the Act would remain in force so long as the scheduled provisions remained in force and no longer. It seemed to him that was an inconvenient way of defining the duration of an Act of Parliament, and in accordance with precedent he would suggest that the Act should only last as long as the necessities of the Government required it. The stipulation was made that these Regulations were to be revised and possibly renewed and changed entirely every five years; therefore he should move to omit all the words after the word "force," and to insert "until 1st May, 1900." This would give them six years, and during this time they could consider whether the Regulations should be renewed.
SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, it was provided that the Award should be a final settlement of all questions of difference between this country and the United States, and the Award fixed these as the permanent Rules until the parties by agreement should alter them. Besides that, it suggested—but this was not a mandatory part of the Award—that after the experience of five years then the two Powers should examine and consider these Regulations in the light of such experience.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLEScould not agree that this was not mandatory. What was the phrase,
The said concurrent Regulations shall be submitted every five years to a new examination?That was part of the Award. That was not a suggestion, but it was mandatory. These Regulations had to be examined every five years; consequently, he submitted that six years was eutirely adequate for the necessities of the Government, whilst the Attorney General had made no case for giving these powers to a Government in perpetuity over the high seas. He therefore moved that the Act should only last until the 1st of May, 1900.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 4, to leave out the words "so long as the scheduled provisions remain in force and no longer," in order to insert the words "until 1st May, 1900."—(Mr. Gibson Bowies.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into Committee on the Bill."—(The Attorney General.)
MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)said, he thought the Motion of the Attorney General was a strong measure. It meant that the House could proceed with a Bill in spite of the Standing Order. It was not fair to those hon. Members who were not present.
SIR W. HARCOURTThis is a course which has on more than one occasion been taken, and on far less important Bills. This is a Bill on which I think the reputation of the country is at stake. It is a question of dealing fairly with this Award, and that Award is of immense importance not only in itself, but in the example which it sets. Therefore, it would be a pity that there should be any carping upon the Award when the United States are dealing straightforwardly with it. That we should talk it out might set a had example. This course has been taken before, and I hope that the Motion being in the power of the House the House will assent to it.
MR. A. J. BALFOURI am quite sure that no gentleman on this side of the House ever desired to carp at the Award or to interpose for a single moment unnecessarily in the passage of a Bill with respect to which we all feel the honour, not only of the House, but of the country,, to be concerned. With regard to the proposal of the right hon. Member for Bodmin, we all feel, no doubt, that the Twelve o'Clock Rule is an important 1685 bulwark of our liberties and is not lightly to be dispensed with, but I think that if ever the straining of the Rule were justified—aud I do not suggest that it is here—it would be justified on this occasion, and I hope that no objection will be made to the Motion.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill again considered in Committee.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Preamble stand part of the Bill."
SIR G. BADEN-POWELL (Liverpool, Kirkdale)said, that he deprecated the language of the Leader of the House in accusing any one of Party spirit in dealing with this Bill. All wore equally anxious to see the Award carried out, and carried out effectively; but he regretted that the Government had been unable to place in the hands of Members before they brought in the Bill information sufficient to dispel the doubts suggested in the newspapers as to the objections of the United States Senate and the disagreement of Canada. He was sure, however, that Canada, equally with England, would loyally carry out the Award of the Arbitration Court. He could only wish that the Bill had been drafted with greater care, and that the Government had given more time for its consideration.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he could not permit the suggestion to pass unchallenged that anyone had been carping at the Award, or had endeavoured to oppose the passing of the Bill. The Government had given them only a short quarter of an hour for dealing with the matter at this stage, though the question was of the utmost importance, If the Bill had to be hurried through it was because the Government had chosen to keep the Award back for eight months, instead of laying it before the House and having it properly and leisurely discussed and passed in good time. Whatever difficulty had arisen was entirely due to the Government. They had kept the Award in their pockets for eight months, and then flung it on the Table, and asked the House to approve of it without due consideration.
SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he thought it was unfortunate that the Leader of the House should have suggested that hon. Members were carping at the Award. Feeling as he did the immense importance of the Bill, he should like it to be understood that the Regulations only had been criticised, and rightly criticised, because they were matters of great importance, and it was not to be expected that a body of men who had not got as much as they hoped to get, and who thought their interests would be interfered with, should refrain from pointing-out, through their Representatives, where the Regulations were unsatisfactory. No one had carped at the Award as an Award. Having allowed the Bill to go through without opposition, because they felt that the honour of the country was involved, and that the country must show its willingness to carry out the arbitration, they were entitled to express their opinion with regard to the Regulations which were matters of discretion. He would only add that the working of the Regulations must be carefully watched, and it would be the duty of any Government dealing with the subject in the future to see that the Regulations had effected their purpose, and had not unduly interfered with British interests.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Bill reported, without Amendment: read the third time, and passed.