§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will say in what part of M. Renault's Report, and on what page of the Blue Book Cd. 4554, any reference is made to the correct translation of the French words in Article 49 of the Declaration of London—peut compromettre le succès des opérations—and whether the only reference in that Report to the correct translation of the French of Article 49 is in regard to the words—peut compromettre la sécurité du bâtiment de guerre?
§ Sir E. GREYThe only direct reference is as stated, but the hon. Member must be aware that the word "compromettre" occurs only once in the article, and that it refers both to the ship and to the operations. In so far as the Report of the Conference indicates the proper English translation of one of the phrases of which the word "compromettre" forms the essential part, it naturally affects the translation of both the phrases grammatically dependent from the same verb.
§ Mr. BUTCHERDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think the context of the word "compromettre" is different in the two cases?
§ Sir E. GREYI do not think it is. I think it is the same, and therefore it is properly translated by the same expression.
§ Mr. BUTCHERCan the right hon. Gentleman say what the American translations of these words are?
§ Sir E. GREYI think the American version is the same, but I am not certain. I ask the hon. Member to give notice. I think in these two instances it is the same.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the passage in M. Renault's Report, on page 49 of the Blue Book, Cd. 4554, which states that the true destination of conditional contraband will usually be more or less concealed, that the captor must prove it in order to justify their capture, that in the absence of the presumptions contained in Article 34 the destination is presumed to be innocent, and that this is the ordinary law, according to which the captor must prove the illicit character of the goods which he claims to capture; and whether, in view of this statement, reliance can be placed on the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the Baltic, on the 15th March, 1911, that the past practice has been to throw the burden of proof as to the destination of conditional contraband on the owners of the captured vessel or goods?
§ Sir E. GREYI must point out that to speak of "M. Renault's Report" is an incorrect and misleading description of the Report of the Conference. Hitherto the ordinary law as administered by Prize Courts has not placed the burden of proof upon the captor: that the been the case, for instance, in the Russian Prize Courts and in our own. The Declaration of London for the first time establishes the general rule that the burden of proof lies on the captor, and it is to this that the Report refers.
§ Mr. BUTCHERCan the right hon. Gentleman refer to any authority which tells us that in ordinary cases the burden of proof in such matters is not on the captor but upon the owner of the captured boat?
§ Sir E. GREYI am informed that has been the case in the Russian Courts, and even in our own Prize Courts.
§ Mr BUTCHERIs there any authoritative statement on the subject in any book?
§ Sir E. GREYOf course, the important thing in these matters is the practice of the Prize Courts. We find that the practice of the Russian Prize Courts and the British Prize Courts is what I have said, and that is a strong indication of what the rule is.