§ Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the terms of Article 49 of the Declaration of London, which authorises the sinking of a neutral prize if the taking of the prize into a port for adjudication—peut compromettre le succès des opérations dans lesquelles le bâtiment de guerre est actuellement engagé—and whether the French words above quoted are accurately translated by the words—would involve danger to the success of the opera- 1118 tions in which the warship is engaged at the time?
§ Sir E. GREYThe answer is in the affirmative. If the hon. Member will refer to the Report of the Conference, on Article 49 (page 56 of the Blue Book, No. 4, Miscellaneous, 1909), he will see that the French words employed were expressly declared to be the equivalent of the words of the English translation.
§ Mr. BUTCHERAre we to take it that the Report is competent to say what the English equivalent of the French term is.
§ Sir E. GREYYou cannot get a more accurate translation than the one specially agreed upon by the whole Conference as being accurate. They discussed this very point, and it was agreed that this should be regarded as the equivalent.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIn view of the numerous statements made as to the mis-translation of the original text by the United States and others, will the right hon. Gentleman direct that a new translation be made?
§ Sir E. GREYI am not aware that any of the complaints are well founded.
§ Mr. RUSSELL REAasked whether the right hon. Gentleman will consent to publish a statement of the representations which were made by Chambers of Commerce and Shipping Associations during the Russo-Japanese War to the late Foreign Secretary, with a view of obtaining a clearer definition of contraband, and the replies which were made by Lord Lansdowne?
§ Sir E. GREYI am having the Papers examined, with a view to including them when further Papers are laid.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that some Members of this House might desire to support the Second Reading of the Naval Prize Bill who were opposed to the ratification of the Declaration of London, and that other Members might desire to oppose such Second Reading who were in favour of such ratification, he would inform the House at what stage in the proceedings on the Naval Prize Bill, and by what mode of procedure, the opinion of the House could be taken on the definite question whether the Declaration of London should be ratified or not?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)The undertaking that His Majesty's Government have given will be fulfilled when the time comes in whatever way is found to be for the general convenience of the House and the course of public business. The undertaking cannot be carried out until the matter has been brought before the Imperial Conference.
Mr. PEELIs the Prime Minister aware that in another place they have had an opportunity of discussing the Declaration of London for three whole days? Will he give this House a similar opportunity?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI cannot say what goes on in another place.
§ Mr. BUTCHERWill the Prime Minister state for the convenience of the House the form in which this very important question can be raised here?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI think it would be premature to do so yet. It has to go before the Imperial Conference, and that cannot be before the month of May.
§ Mr. H. W. FORSTERWill this House be given no opportunity of discussing the question until after the Imperial Conference?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo.
§ Mr. BUTCHERIs the Prime Minister aware of the very great importance attached to this question by Chambers of Commerce and other important commercial bodies throughout the country?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI thought it was the general desire of the House that the Imperial Conference should first have an opportunity of considering the matter.