§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the question of the legality of the conversion of merchantmen into warships on the high seas is left unsettled by the Declaration of London, the International Prize Court, when established, would not, under the Hague Conference of 1907, be entitled and bound to decide all questions relating to such conversion in accordance with what the majority of that Court might conceive to be the general principles of justice and equity; and whether such decisions of the International Prize Court would not be binding upon and enforced against British subjects; and whether His Majesty's Government still adhere to their expressed views that, in the event of an International Prize Court being established and the Declaration of London being ratified, our position as regards questions left unsettled by the Declaration will be the same as it has hitherto been?
The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood)It is impossible to discuss these complicated matters within the limits of the reply to a question, but the subject will be dealt with fully in debate within a very short time.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIn view of the forthcoming debate on the Naval Prize Bill and the Declaration of London, is it not right that Parliament and the country should know the views of the Government before the debate comes on?
§ Mr. BUTCHERCannot the hon. Gentleman give an answer to a comparatively simple question?
Mr. McKINNON WOODNo discourtesy was intended in my reply. I have tried to give an answer, but I could not reply to the question in less than ten minutes.
§ Major ANSTRUTHER-GRAYIs it not worth while spending ten minutes in order to elucidate the views of the Government?
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked which, if any, of the Powers represented at the London Naval Conference have up to the present time ratified the Declaration?
§ Mr. BUTCHERHave any other Powers acceded to the Declaration?
Mr. McKINNON WOODAll the Powers that were parties to the International Conference have signed the Declaration.
§ Mr. BUTCHERBut have any of the Powers not party to the International Conference acceded to the Declaration?
§ Mr. BUTCHERHow many years will have to elapse before the Declaration can be amended?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a question of which notice should be given.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of Article 69 of the Declaration of London, which provides that none of the signatory Powers can denounce the Declaration until the end of a period of twelve years, beginning sixty days after the first deposit of ratifications, this country will not, during that period, be deprived of all right to insist on any improvements in the Declaration; and whether, in view of these facts, he adheres to his statement at the Imperial Conference, on 2nd June, 1911, that, by ratifying the Declaration of London now, His Majesty's Government did not in the least prejudice their freedom of action in regard to advocating further improvements in the future; and whether His 41 Majesty's Government attach any value to their alleged freedom of action in regard to advocating such improvements?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI see no reason to qualify in any way the statement referred to. The great advance in international law and practice marked by the Declaration of London is happily secured for a fixed term of years. That provision does not at all preclude any of the parties to the Declaration from advocating still further progress in the way of international agreement, and our freedom of action is, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, not less valuable than it was before.
§ Mr. BUTCHERDoes the right hon. Gentleman anticipate any other Powers will accept an improvement in the Declaration, and, if so, cannot that be provided for before ratification of the Declaration rather than after?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, Sir, the Declaration is such a substantial advance that we heartily desire its ratification at the earliest possible moment.
§ Mr. NEWMANrepeated his suggestion that this Debate should not be conducted on party lines.