§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been given to the statements in the Blue Books [Cd. 4554, pp. 103 and 71, and Cd. 4555, p. 253] relating to the proceedings of the Naval Conference of London at which the Declaration of London was signed; is he aware that the effect of those statements is that, whereas in cases of naval prize an appeal is to lie from the Supreme British Prize Court to the International Prize Court at the Hague, yet no such appeal is to lie from the United States Supreme Court; and can he undertake that in this respect, Great Britain will be put in as advantageous a position as the United States before ratifying the Declaration of London or the convention relative to the establishment of an international prize court?
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood)The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the arrangement foreshadowed in the statements to which he has called attention has been embodied in the Additional Protocol of 19th September, 1910, which has now been signed by all the Powers Signatories of the Prize Court Convention, and which has been laid before Parliament in the Blue Book Cd. 5554. Under this Protocol, the rights secured under the Convention either to individuals or to their Governments are in no way impaired. The alternative procedure by way of a direct action for damages is not, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, more advantageous than that by way of appeal from the national courts. On the contrary, it involves the risk, with all the attending practical inconveniences, of a conflict between the judgments of the national courts and the judgments delivered in the same case by the International Court. It is only by the system of direct appeal that this difficulty can be overcome, and for this reason His Majesty's Government do not consider the system disadvantageous as compared with the alternative procedure under the Protocol.