§ Mr. BUTCHERasked whether there is any instance in the last thirty years in which foodstuffs carried on a neutral vessel have been condemned by a Prize Court of any nation as absolute contraband of war; and, if so, when and by whom?
§ Sir EDWARD GREYI am not aware that such cases have actually occurred. Foodstuffs were not condemned as absolute contraband in the Prize Courts of either Russia or Japan, but if the hon. and learned Member will refer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Central Bradford yesterday, he will see that in various cases during the Russo-Japanese war foodstuffs were condemned without any clear proof that they were intended for Government use, and when they were shipped under conditions which afforded no satisfactory reasons for assuming that they were so destined.
§ Mr. BUTCHERNot on the ground that they were contraband?
§ Sir EDWARD GREYNot on the ground that they were contraband, but without any proof that they were.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would state which, if any, of the articles enumerated in Article 28 of the Declaration of London as not capable of being declared contraband of war have been within the last 30 years declared contraband of war; by what Powers and under what circumstances; if he would say in what instances within the last 30 years any of the articles 1371 so enumerated have been condemned by a Prize Court as contraband of war; and whether any of the Powers represented at the Naval Conference in London claimed at such conference to exclude any of the articles so enumerated from the provisions of Article 28?
§ Sir EDWARD GREYCotton is the only article included in the free list in Article 28 of the Declaration of London which has been definitely declared by a belligerent to be contraband within the last thirty years. On 8th April, 1904, a Supplementary Imperial Order was issued by the Russian Government that cotton should be included amongst the articles declared to be contraband in the notification of the 14th of February, 1904; and cotton was condemned as contraband in the Russian Prize Courts in the cases of the "Calchas" and the "St. Kilda." I find that there were other articles which were condemned in the Prize Courts of First Instance during the Russo-Japanese War, but in regard to which the decisions were subsequently reversed on appeal. Amongst them may be cited the following: Paper, knitting machines, glass ware, window glass, paint, aniline dyes, wearing apparel, copra, hemp, camphor, bristles, chairs, old indiarubber, varnish, tanned sheepskins and hides. In some cases these final decisions were not pronounced until long after the war had ended, and the object of the free list is to ensure that the shipping trade of neutrals shall not be dislocated by the capture of goods of this kind, which can have no connection with the military operations of the belligerents. No article could have been inserted in the free list against the wish of any of the Powers represented at the Naval Conference, but some of the articles ultimately included were objected to in the first instance by some of the Powers, for example, the important article of cotton.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice sitting as a Prize Court has jurisdiction throughout the whole of His Majesty's dominions and has power to enforce its orders against our fellow subjects within its jurisdiction; whether he is aware that there is a large number of decisions of the Prize Courts of this Country in which the law of nations of particular points has been declared and applied by those courts, and orders have been made 1372 and enforced against our fellow subjects in accordance with the law so declared, and that the law of nations so declared by our Prize Courts constitutes the unwritten law to which our Prize Courts are bound to conform in giving their decisions, unless and until an alteration has been made therein in such a manner as to become binding on our fellow subjects; whether an alteration in that unwritten law can be made binding upon and enforced against our fellow subjects by a treaty or convention made in the exercise of the royal prerogative without the authority of Parliament; and, if the answer to the last question be in the affirmative, whether, in view of modern constitutional usage, it is intended to make alterations in such unwritten law which may injuriously affect our fellow subjects without the authority of Parliament?
§ Sir EDWARD GREYThe answer to the first three questions is in the affirmative. That to the last is in the negative, inasmuch as, although I do not admit that any provisions of the Declaration of London could have the injurious effect referred to, I have already stated, in answer to a supplementary question asked on 18th November, 1910, that the consent of Parliament is constitutionally not necessary to the ratification of the Declaration of London, but as is well known no Government would advise His Majesty to ratify a Convention against the declared opinion of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIn giving that answer has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the case of Walker and Baird which has been brought before the Privy Council?
§ Sir EDWARD GREYMy attention has not been called to it.
§ Mr. BUTCHERWill the right hon. Gentleman consult the Law Officers?
§ Sir EDWARD GREYIf the hon. Member will put down a question, an unstarred question, so that I can be quite sure what he refers to, I will then consider the point.