§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he saw any reason to depart from the statement in his letter to Lord Desart of 1st December, 1908, to the effect that it was recognised by the universally acknowledged principles of International Law that all prizes ought, if possible, to be brought into a Prize Court and ought not, generally speaking, to be destroyed or otherwise dealt with prior to condemnation; and whether any of the Powers represented at the Naval Conference of London claimed the right to sink neutral vessels suspected of carrying contraband of war except under special and exceptional circumstances.
§ Sir E. GREYThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the point raised in the second part, although it is true that the Powers asserting the right to sink neutral prizes prior to adjudication in a prize court claim to exercise it in exceptional circumstances only, the value of this limitation is under present conditions practically nullified by the fact that, according to the view taken by the Russian, and probably by the other Continental, prize courts, "the sinking of a vessel is permitted on the personal responsibility of a naval commander, and that therefore the question whether the exceptional circumstances observed by the naval commander in a particular case, which induced him to sink the vessel, were a sufficient justification or not is one for the superior officer of the person who gave the 2041 order for sinking her to decide, and not for a prize court." For this theoretical limitation, which has been found to be valueless for practical purposes, the Declaration of London substitutes the real restriction involved in having to submit to the judgment of the prize courts (and in the last instance of the International Prize Court), the question whether the exceptional circumstances, that alone Mould justify sinking, did, in fact, exist in a particular case.
§ Mr. BUTCHERHave not representations been made to His Majesty's Government that the exception in the Declaration of London is singularly vague in its terms?
§ Sir E. GREYVarious representations have been made. But however vague the particular terms may be, they are very much better than having nothing at all, as is at present the case.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what Powers, if any, had ratified the Declaration of London, and when; whether he was aware that, by the constitution of the United States of America, it was impossible that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States should be altered or reserved by the decision of any extraneous tribunal such as an international prize court, and that there was in consequence an insurmountable difficulty in the way of the United States ratifying the Prize Court Convention of 1907 in its present form; whether any steps had yet been taken for modifying such Prize Court Convention; and whether, unless and until such convention was modified so as to permit of its ratification by the United States, the United States Government had refused, or still refused, to ratify the Declaration of London?
§ Sir E. GREYI have already stated that the Declaration has not yet been ratified by any Power. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. In order to overcome the difficulty experienced by the United States, they have proposed the signature of an Additional Protocol to the Prize Court Convention, to be ratified together with the latter. The Convention and the Protocol have been submitted to and approved by the Senate of the United States. The Protocol has already been signed by a number of Powers signatory of the Convention, including the United States and Great Britain; but it remains open for further signatures until the date of ratification 2042 of the Convention. The text of the Protocol and correspondence relating thereto are being prepared for presentation to Parliament.
§ Mr. BUTCHERWill not the Protocol have to be signed by all the Powers prior to ratification?
§ Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTIs it not the fact that even if the Declaration of London is ratified, one of the belligerents can make food supplies pure contraband?
§ Sir E. GREYThe answer to the last question is certainly in the negative. The question would not have been put if the Declaration of London had been thoroughly understood. The question on the Paper is entirely different. I think the signatures of all the Powers are required, but I am not sure. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me notice of the question.
§ Mr. REMNANTCan the right hon. Gentleman now say when we are likely to have the promised opportunity of discussing the whole matter?
§ Sir E. GREYI understood the arrangement to be that it would come before the House of Commons after it had been discussed in the Imperial Conference.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIn what form will it come before the House of Commons?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat hardly arises out of the question on the Paper.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the promised further papers bearing on the Declaration of London, and, in particular, the communication from the Commonwealth of Australia in reference thereto, would be laid upon the Table; and would he also lay upon the Table any correspondence or other papers showing that Germany in 1885 acquiesced in the claim put forward by France in that year to treat rice going to Chinese ports north of Canton as absolute contraband?
§ Sir E. GREYThe communication of the Commonwealth of Australia will be found on page 9 of Blue Book No. Cd. 5513, which was presented to Parliament last month. I believe the only other paper which I have said definitely I was prepared to lay is further correspondence with the Bristol branch of the Navy League, correspondence which is not in itself important after what has been laid already. 2043 I can certainly add to it Prince Bismarck's statement on the subject. But it is very inconvenient to lay small papers in driblets, and probably the most convenient course would be to lay another paper in reasonable time before the Declaration of London comes before the House.