HC Deb 03 November 1911 vol 30 cc1189-93

Where a ship (not being a ship of war) is taken as prize, and is or is brought within the jurisdiction of a Prize Court, she shall forthwith be delivered up to the marshal of the Court, or, if there is no such marshal, to the principal officer of Customs at the port, and shall remain in his custody, subject to the orders of the Court.

Mr. W. PEEL

I beg to move, after the word "forthwith" ["she shall forthwith be delivered"], to insert the words "and without bulk broken."

The result of the Amendment will be that when a vessel is taken and is brought within the jurisdiction of a Prize Court she shall forthwith, and without bulk broken, be delivered up to the marshal of the Court. It is very important that some such words as those should be introduced, because, after all, the evidence on which the case has to be decided may be contained within the ship herself, and it is of the utmost importance to prevent frauds and, in dealing with either the cargo or the ship's papers, that there shall be a distinct prohibition against tampering in any way or dealing with the contents of the ship. There will be of course very great temptation to do so, both as regards the papers and as regards the cargo. Article 40 of the Declaration of London bears very closely on the matter. It says: A vessel carrying contraband may be condemned if the contraband, reckoned either by value, weight, volume or freight, forms more than half the cargo. Of course, if the cargo in some of these respects approaches that mystic half, and perhaps it is a question whether there might be a little over, there would be a very great temptation, if possible, to remove some of the cargo in order to bring it under the half, and in that case the vessel might be saved from condemnation as contraband. That is only one instance. I submit on general principles that it is very important that there should be no opportunity for fraud, and that there will be better security if these words are inserted.

Mr. GRETTON

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. McKINNON WOOD

The object with which these words were originally inserted, I am told on good authority, was to prevent excesses on the part of privateers, but I think if I explain the reason why they are omitted the hon. Member will be content to withdraw the Amendment. Under modern conditions it is quite impossible to examine the cargo of a ship for contraband without breaking bulk. It is necessary in the interests of the naval service that these words should not be inserted. If they were put in they would impose a restriction on a naval officer in discovering contraband. I hope the hon. Member will be induced to withdraw the Amendment. Of course, we have great interest in discovering contraband in case of war

Mr. BUTCHER

I think the explanation given by the hon. Gentleman is hardly sufficient. A ship is taken into port in time of war, and it may be necessary at the time of capture to examine her in order to find out whether there is contraband on board. I quite agree, but that is not the point referred to by my hon. Friend. He refers to a later period altogether. In the first stage you take the prize, and for that purpose you make any examination that is necessary, and then at the second stage, when the ship is brought within the jurisdiction of the Prize Court, my hon. Friend says, that "she shall forthwith and without bulk broken be delivered up to the marshal of the Court." The explanation of the hon. Gentleman does not meet that case. There is going to be no restriction on a naval officer at the time of capture, but what my hon. Friend proposes is that once the ship is brought within the jurisdiction of a Prize Court it should be handed over to the marshal intact. I should like that the question should be considered from that point of view. If there is an answer from that point of view I shall be glad to hear it.

Mr. GRETTON

The Amendment does not mean cargo being turned over in the ship's hold. It means that no portion of the cargo shall be removed out of the ship to another place. That is to say, in the ordinary sense of the commercial term that bulk shall not be broken.

Mr. PEEL

I have not the slightest intention by this Amendment to prevent the capturing of a ship.

Mr. KING

Is the hon. Member in order in speaking twice?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member has the right of reply in the case of a Bill which has come from a Grand Committee.

Sir A. CRIPPS

I do not know whether I shall be in order in speaking after the hon. Member has replied.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The hon. Member could only speak then by leave of the House.

Sir A. CRIPPS

I only want to say that everyone on this side of the House sympathises with the statement that nothing should be done to interfere with the proper discretion of a naval officer of this country. But if we look at the Clause we find that it refers to a ship brought within the jurisdiction of a Prize Court. Therefore the question does not arise here as to what is done at the moment of capture by the captain. Surely, after the ship has been brought within the jurisdiction of a Prize Court, bulk ought not to be broken. I agree that at an earlier stage it might be necessary to break bulk.

Mr. PEEL

I only want to get an answer upon this point. The hon. Gentleman's answer met really a wrong point. There is not the slightest intention by this Amendment to prevent the capture of a ship. The captain who takes the vessel examines the cargo. Perhaps the Solicitor-General, who is ready with an answer upon every point, will state the objection to my proposal.

Sir J. SIMON

It appears to us extremely doubtful whether the construction suggested by the hon. Gentleman would necessarily be the right one if these words were inserted. I hope the Committee will not regard this as a technical point raised by lawyers. It is a plain and simple rule. I say that the other view is the natural one to take, that a ship (not being a ship of war) should, when brought within the jurisdiction of a Prize Court, forthwith be delivered up to the marshal of the Court. In this matter we are anxious to avoid misunderstanding, and we desire to have a rule which will work for the advantage of good administration and in the country's interests in time of peril. We think it is not desirable to lay down such a hard and fast rule as that proposed by the hon. Member. If these words were put in it might be considered that a captain could not examine cargo at the time of capture.

Mr. PEEL

If the Solicitor-General takes that view I will withdraw the Amendment, because my hon. Friend (Mr. Butcher) has another Amendment which I think expresses what I mean without any manner of doubt.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. BUTCHER

I beg to move, after the word "forthwith," to insert the words "in the state in which she and her cargo then are."

By that Amendment we will secure the result we desire, that after a ship has been captured and brought into the jurisdiction of a Prize Court, she shall be delivered up to the marshal of the Court. That will prevent any tampering with the ship after she is brought within the jurisdiction, and the Amendment is not open to the objections which have been stated by the Attorney-General.

Sir J. SIMON

I know that there is some difficulty in drafting an Amendment at a moment's notice, and I trust that the hon. Member will not ask me to accept those words, as they are capable of being understood as something very little short of a pleonasm. I quite understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman means, and it will be considered. But I would ask him not to press those words, because we must consider the right form in which to put anything, if, indeed, anything is needed.

Amendment negatived.