§ Mr. BUTCHERasked whether he is aware that the question of the proper English translation of the words in Article 49 of the Declaration of London—compromettre le succès des opérations dans lesquelles le bâtiment de guerre est actuellement engagé—is not in any way referred to in M. Renault's Report; and whether, in view of these facts, he will reconsider the question whether those words are accurately translated in the English version issued by the Foreign Office by the words—involve danger to the success of the operations in which the warship is engaged at the time?
§ Sir E. GREYThe translation accurately renders the meaning of the French, and makes use of the term specifically indicated in the Report of the Conference.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONDoes the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the phrase "prejudice the success" is a much more accurate translation and involves an entirely different meaning than "danger to the success"?
§ Sir E. GREYI do not think it is. I think the phrase "involve danger" or "endangering" is the most accurate rendering of the meaning of the French.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the scope of Article 34 of the Declaration of London, read in conjunction with Article 33, is correctly stated in the letter of the 13th October, 1910, from the Foreign Office to the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce (Cd. 5418, page 6), to be to relieve the captor of the obligation of proving in eases specified in Article 34 that the destination of foodstuffs, and other articles of conditional contraband, was the military or naval forces of the enemy, and to shift the onus of proof in these cases from the captor on to the owners of the captured goods; whether in those specified cases the practice apart from the Declaration of London, has been to throw the onus of proof on the captor; whether his attention had been called to a speech delivered by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the Baltic, on the 15th March, 1911, in which, referring to Articles 33 and 34, the Under-Secretary stated that the past practice had been to throw the burden of proof as to the destination of conditional contraband on the owners of the captured vessel or goods; and whether, in view of the previous statements on the subject by the Foreign 1974 Office, this statement of the Under-Secretary can be regarded as accurate?
§ Sir E. GREYThe statement in the Foreign Office letter referred to means relief from the obligation imposed by the Declaration of London, which is the opposite of the existing practice. Both it and the extract quoted from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State are accurate. In actual practice under the existing law, the neutral owners have always found that the burden of proof in proceedings before a prize court is laid upon them. This will be fundamentally changed by the Declaration of London, which, for the first time, establishes the general rule that the burden of proof shall lie on the captor. Only in certain exceptional cases, namely, those covered by the presumptions set up under Article 34, will the burden of proof, contrary to the new general rule, rest on the neutral owners and not on the captors. In these cases, but in these cases only, the present practice will be retained.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONMay I have a copy of the answer?
§ Sir E. GREYCertainly.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked whether the right hon. Gentleman now has any information to show that the Government of the United States of America have declined to accept as authoritative the Foreign Office official translation of the Declaration of London, as published in Blue Book 4554 and have had a fresh translation made; and, if so, could he state what is the translation of the word commerçant, which appears in Article 34?
§ Sir E. GREYThe United States Government have agreed to discuss with His Majesty's Government the question of the English translation of the Declaration, with a view to the adoption of the common version to be officially adopted for the use of the Navies of both countries. Pending the result of such discussions, I am unable to make any statement on points of detail.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the expressed determination of other Powers to reserve to themselves the right to convert merchant liners into warships without notification, His Majesty's Government propose to take steps with a view to securing that British merchant liners shall be equipped with adequate means for meeting such contingencies in case of war?
§ FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna)The Admiralty are prepared to meet the contingencies anticipated in the hon. Member's question, and to take all necessary steps for the protection of British trade.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONasked the Prime Minister whether the Declaration of London will be submitted to the approval of Parliament or of the House of Commons only?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)A promise has been given that there will be a full opportunity for discussion of the Declaration of London in the House of Commons before ratification. That promise holds good, and I am not prepared to go beyond it.
§ Mr. JAMES MASONWill the right hon. Gentleman say on what grounds he bases his application of Single-Chamber Government to this question?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe House of Lords has spent three nights already upon it.