§ Mr. BUTCHERasked what Continental Prize Courts, other than Russian in the recent war, have declared that the sinking of a neutral prize is permitted on the personal responsibility of a naval commander and that the question whether the circumstances justified such sinking is one for the superior officer of the naval commander who gave the order, and not for a prize court; and whether this view has met with the acceptance of any of the great naval Powers of the world?
§ Sir E. GREYAs far as I am aware, the war referred to is the only one in which the matter has come before continental prize courts in recent years. I cannot speak definitely as to the views of other Powers on the particular point raised in the, question, but on the general question of the right of a belligerent to sink neutral merchant vessels, several Powers, including Austria-Hungary, France, and Germany, voted for the Russian proposition at the Hague Conference.
§ Mr. BUTCHERDo I understand there is no decision of the prize court to this effect?
§ Sir E. GREYAs far as I am aware, the war referred to is the only one in which the matter has been before the prize courts.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked whether any attempt was made by our representatives at the Naval Conference of London to include cotton piece goods on the free list under Article 28 of the Declaration of London; whether, under the Declaration of London, it would be competent for a belligerent to declare and to treat cotton piece goods as conditional contraband of war and liable to capture as such; and whether in the event of a war in the Far East the treatment of cotton piece goods as conditional contraband liable to capture under the provisions of Articles 33 and 34 of the Declaration would have a serious and far-reaching effect on the trade of Lancashire with the Far East, and would tend to paralyze that trade?
§ Sir E. GREYThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. What it is competent for a belligerent under the Declaration to treat as contraband is clearly set out in that instrument. I would draw attention to Article 24, by which it is agreed that, among other things, "fabrics for clothing suitable for use in war" may be treated as conditional contraband—for instance, cotton khaki cloth—and to Article 27, which provides that articles not susceptible of use in war may not be declared contraband. Accordingly, cotton piece goods may or may not be declared conditional contraband, according as they are or are not suitable for use in war. The proper application of this rule would not have the consequences suggested by the hon. Member, and in any case it is the existing practice, and would certainly remain whether the Declaration of London were ratified or not.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIs there any instance up to the present time where cotton piece goods have been declared conditional contraband by a belligerent?
§ Sir E. GREYI cannot undertake to say whether there are any such instances. But it is a well understood practice that things which are intended for the armed forces of the enemy may be declared conditional contraband.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTSeeing that the Declaration of London has now been in existence for two years how can the right hon. Gentleman account for the fact that hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite have only just made the discovery?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not arise out of the question.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister if he will state by what mode of procedure do the Government intend to take the opinion of the House on the question whether the Declaration of London should be ratified or not; and, if the Government have no such intention, what opportunity will be afforded to private Members for raising the question in a definite manner?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)I do not think that the hon. and learned Member can have seen the answer which I gave to the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth on 9th February, when I said that in our opinion a convenient opportunity for discussing the whole of the Declaration of London will arise on the Second Reading of the Naval Prize Bill.
§ Mr. BUTCHERMay I ask in what form the question can be raised in a definite manner on that occasion?
§ The PRIME MINISTERWell, Sir, we will consider the matter, and I have no doubt that an adequate and proper form can be devised?
§ Mr. BUTCHERMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will take care that, in view of the very difficult and very important nature of the question, full and adequate time should be given for the discussion?
§ The PRIME MINISTERYea, Sir. I have no doubt it will be possible, without defining what is full and adequate time.
§ Mr. W. R. PEELMay I ask whether it is not a fact that the two questions—the setting up of an international prize court, and the ratification of the Declaration of London—are two quite different questions, and how, in view of the fact that this House might be in favour of the one and against the other, it will be able to express its opinion on the Second Reading of the Naval Prize Bill?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat was a matter frequently discussed in the last Parliament, and I do not think there is any practical difficulty.