§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement in the Report of the Naval Conference in London, commonly known as M. Renault's Report, that the captor of conditional contraband carried in a neutral vessel must prove the destination of the conditional contraband in order to justify its capture, was dissented from by the representatives of any of the Powers represented at the conference; what justification exists for the statement of the Under-Secretary 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 vessels or goods; and whether he can refer to any book or writer of authority on these subjects, in support of the above statement of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs?
§ Sir E. GREYThe Report of the Naval Conference is not properly known as M. Renault's Report, and it is misleading, as has already been pointed out, to describe it otherwise than as the Report of the Conference. The question whether, in proceedings before belligerent prize courts, the burden of proof lies on the neutral claimant or on the captor, can only be answered by reference to the decisions given by those courts in the various wars. It is proposed shortly to lay the reports of proceedings in the Russian and Japanese prize courts arising out of the seizures of British vessels in the war of 1904–5. The records of those cases show that in actual practice the burden has been placed on the claimant. I would again quote the following passage in the judgment given in the case of the British ship "Calchas" by the Supreme Prize Court at St. Petersburg in 1905. The passage deals with the contraband character of a cargo of flour found on board that vessel:—"In all such cases, according to the practice of the Prize Courts existing for many centuries, the onus of proof would undoubtedly lie with the individual seeking recognition of the irregular detention and release of the vessels and cargoes arrested on suspicion." This practice was unanimously acknowledged at the London Conference to be unfair, and the Declaration of London has accordingly set up the general rule (subject to the exceptions specified in Article 34) that the burden of proof should lie on the captor. If the Declaration is not ratified, 211 there will be nothing to prevent a belligerent from continuing the old practice. Books and writers are of little help in these questions as against the practice of prize courts, and there can be no security as to what the practice will be unless there is an international agreement signed and ratified.
§ Mr. BUTCHERWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question whether the statement in the Report was dissented from by the representatives of any of the Powers represented at the Conference?
§ Sir E. GREYThere was no dissent from the representatives of the Powers. The report declares the previous practice to be unfair.
§ Mr. BUTCHERMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the statement in Phillimore's "International Law" (Vol. 3, page 703), that "The burden of proving the neutrality of the property rests on the claimants, and when that is shown, the existence of the probable cause of capture is to be shown by the other side"?
§ Sir E. GREYI would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether he heard the latter part of my reply. Books and writers are of very little help in these matters.
§ Mr. BUTCHERDoes the right hon. Gentleman really think that books of an authoritative character, written by experts on international law, are of no value in determining the practice of prize courts?
§ Sir E. GREYEven if the hon. and learned Member were to write a book himself, it would give us no guarantee against the practice of foreign prize courts.