NAVAL PRIZE PROCEDURE BILL. (Hansard, 29 February 1916)

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
There is a material point which I wish to raise, though not in any hostile spirit. I speak on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel), who has unfortunately been called away and who asked me to raise this point, in which he is interested. I notice that at the end of this Clause there is a somewhat unusual provision in Bills of this kind, a provision that the Clause shall be retrospective in its action—that it shall apply to all cases which have arisen since the beginning of the War. I do not at all know why this was not done earlier in the history of the War. If a Bill of this kind had been brought in I do not suppose there would have been any objection, but now that proceedings have been started in other cases, if the law is changed, it is conceivable that under the changed condition of things there may arise hardship to individuals who are concerned in actions which are still pending. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman for an assurance that in the administration of this Act, and in connection with the retrospective words at the end, he will take special pains to investigate every case in which the procedure is being altered and call attention to it, to prevent hardship or injustice arising to any individual concerned in the case, and that he will be willing to receive representations from individuals who are concerned in those cases in this matter.

§ Mr. WATT
I would like to ask what are the advantages to be gained by making this Act retrospective? As my 1017 hon. Friend has pointed out, evils may arise in making such an Act as this go back to the beginning of the War, and I do not think the House ought to be asked to pass the Bill until an explanation has been given by my right hon. Friend who represents the Admiralty.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
On the Second Reading the learned Solicitor-General gave a succinct explanation of the purport of the Bill, the main part of which is contained in the first Clause; but I will answer my hon. Friends so far as I can and give what assurance I can that the Bill, being retrospective, will not work hardship or injustice upon any individual. My hon. Friends know that at present persons who make claims respecting the detention of ships and cargoes are advised to apply to the Prize Courts. My hon. Friends know that cases of detention have occurred overseas, and they know, of course, that there are Prize Courts in the Dominions. They know that claims do not lie against the Crown, but actions have to be brought against individual officers, and most of the officers concerned act under the immediate control of the Admiralty. Under the Act of 1864, the last paragraph of Section 51—that is to say, the remaining outstanding part of the Section which we are now seeking to repeal—"any such action or proceeding against any person in His Majesty's Naval Service, or in the employment of the Lords of the Admiralty, shall not be brought or instituted elsewhere than in the United Kingdom." Now it would be a matter of greater convenience if action could be heard in any particular case in one and the same Court. That is the purpose of the procedure. In some cases actions have been started or are pending in oversea Courts.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
In this country?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I am not so concerned about this, country, for the law as it at present stands provides that the claim against the individual can only be heard in this country. I have in mind actions which have arisen in the Dominion Prize Courts.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
Actions which are now pending in this country, and which, under the operation of this Act, and against the will of some of the parties who have taken steps here, may be transferred to a Court in the Dominions?

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I am afraid my hon. Friend does not understand my explanation. He has misconceived the purpose of the Bill. The purpose is to repeal the remaining paragraph of Section 51 of the Act of 1864, and thus, for greater convenience, enable claims to be heard against naval officers and Admiralty employés in a Court other than in the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT
The Bill enables you, I think, to transfer an action which has been started here under the law as it exists at present. This Clause enables you to transfer that action to a Court in the Dominions, which could not have been done before, and therefore to prejudice—

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
No; at present the action against an individual could only be heard in the United Kingdom. It is to hear a claim in a Court other than in the United Kingdom that this Bill seeks the repeal of the remaining part of Section 51 of the Act of 1864. I think I have made it clear that it would be convenient that the application against an individual should be heard in the same Court as that in which the claim for the detention of the ship and the cargo was heard. Now what my hon. Friend calls my attention to is the retrospective action now proposed, that is to say
"and such repeal shall take effect as from the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen."
The whole matter is simply transferring a claim from a Court in this country to the Dominions. I cannot imagine that any prejudice could arise, but if it does it would certainly be guarded against by those who are responsible for justice and equity by the proviso to Section 2 of the Bill, at which my hon. Friend should look. It is:
"Provided that where the proceedings are against a person in the service of His Majesty, or of the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions, or of any Government Department, the Court shall (except in the case of proceedings in the High Court of Justice in England) on the application of the proper officer of the Crown, make an order transferring the proceedings to another Prize Court."
If prejudice were likely to arise, we should have seriously to consider whether we 1019 ought not to take the course provided for in the proviso of Section 2.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.