§ EARL STANHOPEMy Lords, I rise to ask His Majesty's Government—
- 1. Whether it is in accordance with the customs of International Law and the usual practice that an inquiry should be held in a foreign country into the loss of a vessel sailing under the British flag which is shipwrecked on the high seas.
- 2. Whether the United States Government communicated with His Majesty's Government before instituting the inquiry into the disaster to the "Titanic"; and whether the Governments of any other Powers who had citizens amongst the passengers have notified their intention of holding an inquiry into the matter.
852 - 3. Whether the evidence given before the Committee in the United States will be admissible as evidence at the inquiry to be held in this country.
I see by this morning's papers that it was stated yesterday in another place in reply to a Question concerning the inquiry now being held at Washington, that this was the first occasion on which a foreign Government had held an inquiry into the loss of a ship sailing under the British flag. I think the House will desire to know whether the situation is in accord with the customs of international law, and, further whether His Majesty's Government were approached with regard to the inquiry now proceeding in America before it was actually instituted. A departure of such magnitude from the practice to which we have been accustomed is of vital importance, not only to British shipping companies, but still more to the officers and men on ships sailing under the British flag. If this inquiry is taken as a precedent it is very difficult to say where we shall end. If the United States Government have already approached the responsible Department in this country it is obvious that the question of precedent must already have been raised, and in that case no doubt the House will be able to get some information on the matter.
So far as I have been able to see, this inquiry at Washington had, perhaps, two grounds of justification. The first is that, the shipping company which owned the "Titanic" was not altogether a British company. I believe it is partly American in its management, and therefore an inquiry could be held by the country which was largely interested in the shipping concern. Obviously, if that decision is accepted it raises an extraordinary situation, because it strikes at the root of the whole question of the position of the Mercantile Marine in time of war. It is obvious that a shipping company which is under such dual management would, in time of war, promptly hoist the flag of the neutral Power if one of these Powers happened to be neutral and the other belligerent. That would raise the question, which would be difficult to deal with, as to whether the ship belonged to the neutral Power or the belligerent Power. The only other justification which might, be advanced for the inquiry in America is the terrible loss of life among American citizens. But if that is to hold good as a reason for this inquiry, 853 it is obvious that every other nation which had citizens on board the "Titanic," who unfortunately are no more, would be justified in holding an inquiry of a similar character. To put it shortly, I can imagine nothing more deplorable for the survivors of a great disaster than to be dragged about from one country to another attending inquiries and giving evidence of an experience so awful.
There is another point, and perhaps the most important point of all, and that is the one raised in lily third Question-namely, whether the evidence given before the Committee in the United States will be admissible as evidence at the inquiry to be held in this country. The feelings of the officers and men who have given evidence at the American inquiry are naturally worthy of great consideration; but far more important still is the result with regard to the evidence to be given at the official inquiry in this country. I believe that noble and learned Lords will agree that evidence given at a first inquiry is of far more value and is far more to be depended upon than evidence given at a later inquiry. There are obvious reasons for such a view. H the evidence given before the inquiry now being held in America is to be admissible at the official inquiry in this country, no doubt His Majesty's Government have made arrangements for an official transcript of that evidence to be made for the purpose of the inquiry to be held here. If the evidence is not to be held admissible, then the inquiry here will obviously be penalised by not being the first inquiry held into tins great disaster.
I do not wish to go into the question of whether the American inquiry was right or wrong. Fortunately, the relations between this country and the United States are so friendly that no international question can possibly arise. Our relations with the United States Government are friendly; our relations with the people of the United States are, perhaps, even more so. But undoubtedly there is a certain amount of feeling in this country in regard to the inquiry which is now being held. I do not think that feeling is strong. It has certainly not been as forcibly worded as if the situation had been reversed. Imagine that it had been an American ship which had been lost and that we were holding an inquiry here and detaining American 854 citizens from going back to their own inquiry and possibly asking for documents from United States shipping companies to be laid before our inquiry. In that case I think things would be said in the United States which every one in this country would be likely to regret. Moreover if the action of the United States is to be taken as a precedent by other Powers, we may get to a serious situation indeed. If our relations with another Power were strained, and if, alas, there were a similar accident, I think we should hold very strong views indeed if we found that our citizens were being detained in that country for an inquiry into the loss of a British ship purely and simply because a number of citizens of that other Power had been aboard. Though such a disaster as this draws the whole world together, still these matters, unless threshed out before the situation arises, do give points for friction. I have therefore put these Questions on the Paper not only to elucidate the present position, but also, if possible, to make clear what is to be our position in the future.
§ VISCOUNT MORLEYMy Lords, I hope the noble Earl will not think me wanting in courtesy or good will if I rather wish to excuse myself as positively as I can from discussing to-day, even on the very threshold of such a discussion, a situation which is so clearly unripe. What may happen ultimately we do not know. I think the noble Earl is perfectly entitled to put down the Questions which he has put on the Paper. I have no complaint whatever to make of that. But I do contend that anything like a discussion this afternoon, here or another place, would be immature, could do no good, and might be prejudicial. The noble Earl asks, "Is there a right for another country to inquire into the circumstances of the wreck of a British ship on the high seas?" There is no doubt that any State may institute an inquiry about the wreck of a foreign vessel in which the lives of its own citizens have been lost, without any departure from international law, though we are not aware that any such case has arisen before. The answer to the second Question is simple. Communications have not been addressed to the Government of the United States, and no intimations or communications have been received from any other Powers by us. On the point of the admissibility of evidence, the Wreck Commissioner, Lord Mersey, in this country will be able to 855 receive any information that he thinks will be useful, and will attach to it whatever weight he thinks it deserves, quite independently of what may have happened anywhere else. No doubt he will get all the most direct evidence that he can obtain in the regular course. But the inquiry that Lord Mersey undertakes is different from a trial between parties, and the rules of evidence applicable to litigation are not necessarily adhered to in an inquiry of this kind. As to the detention of witnesses, compelling witnesses to attend, and, maybe, detaining them, powers of that kind, as I am advised, exist in most countries. It is obvious that such powers, existing as they do, should be exercised with full consideration for the witnesses themselves, and also for the necessities of any inquiry at home. We cannot and do not, and I am sure the noble Earl does not, suppose that the Committee of the Senate will overlook the necessity for regard for these fair and reasonable considerations.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I was glad to hear the noble Viscount admit that my noble friend was justified in putting these Questions on the Paper. They relate to matters which are engaging a great amount of public attention at this moment, and they are matters with regard to which much anxiety is felt in many quarters. I feel sure that my noble friend will not disregard the appeal made to him by the noble Viscount and that he will not press more than is necessary his demand for fuller information. It seems, of course, to most people unusual and not in accordance with precedent that a ship sailing under the British flag and wrecked in mid-ocean should be made the subject of an inquiry of this kind by a foreign Power; but, on the other hand, we have to remember that the circumstances of this case are. I think I am justified in saying, wholly unparalleled both as regards the magnitude of the tragedy and the moving incidents by which it was accompanied. In these circumstances it is, perhaps, not a matter for surprise that public opinion in the United States should have been deeply stirred, and should have insisted upon some such inquiry as that which is now in progress.
I do not think it would be quite correct to say, as my noble friend apparently suggested, that other foreign Powers stand 856 with regard to this question where we-stand. I do not think it can be said that any foreign Power is interested in this deplorable episode in the way in which this country and the United States are interested. There is another consideration which occurs to one—it occurred, I think, to my noble friend—and that is that it was not unnatural that public opinion in America should insist upon a prompt inquiry into the loss of the "Titanic," for it is clear that there is a better chance of obtaining trustworthy evidence while the events are still recent and while the vivid impressions of this lamentable occurrence are still freshly impressed upon the minds of those who were involved. With regard to the noble Viscount's statement that no diplomatic communication has been made to the Government of the United States—
§ VISCOUNT MORLEYMay I just say that this is not a Government inquiry, but an inquiry by the Senate. The Executive Government have, I think, nothing whatever to do with it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am well aware of the fact that the Senate is a body which claims for itself very great independence of the Executive Government, and I do not, of course, suggest for a moment that representations should be made to the Senate. But it was stated in the House of Commons last night by the representative of His Majesty's Government that they were considering whether any diplomatic representations should be made, and it does seem to me that such communications may become necessary to this extent, at all events, that possibly British subjects who have to appear before the Senate Committee may need a certain amount of advice and assistance. I will go a little further and say that I trust it may be so arranged that the proceedings on the other side of the Atlantic will not be of a kind which will interfere with the proceedings which will have to take place on this side of the Atlantic under circumstances which to most of us suggest that the proceedings here will be more regular in form and more satisfactory in substance than those which are going on at Washington. But, my Lords, although difficulties may arise in connection with this question, I feel, as I think my noble friend feels, that public opinion on both sides of the 857 Atlantic is sound upon this question, and that on neither side will that public opinion allow two countries connected, as we and the United States are, by the closest ties and also, in this case, by a common sorrow, to fail in their obligations either to the living or to the dead owing to any mere technicalities of international procedure or etiquette.
§ LORD ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount on the Front Bench a further Question on this subject. The noble Earl on the other side of the House, in putting these Questions, stated that British subjects had been "detained" in the United States for the purposes of this inquiry. I take it that the word "detained" in this kind of case would usually mean detained by some process of law. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether, as a matter of fact, that is so. From a perusal of the reports in the newspapers I gather that the Committee of the Senate had detained these individuals by a statement that if they had not got a legal right to detain them they had a right to do so as the people who owned the harbours. I believe that was the exact expression used. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether, as a matter of fact, any British subjects have, against their will, been detained in the United States for the purpose of this inquiry. I concur with the sentiment expressed by the noble Marquess that no attempt to get at the facts of this wholly deplorable matter should be hampered by technicalities, but I think it is vital to remember that the "Titanic" was only technically a British ship. She sailed, it is true, under the British flag, but to the best of my belief the company that owned her is entirely and absolutely controlled by an American corporation. The American Shipping Trust undoubtedly owns and controls this Line and can do exactly what it likes with it, although technically it is a British company and flies the British flag. It seems to me that although the "Titanic" flew the British flag, that is a technicality which ought not unduly to weigh with us when we know that it was owned by a foreign company. I 858 cannot help hoping that as the result of the inquiry which is to be held in this country there may be an agreement between the nations of the world that the state of things under which a ship is technically owned in one country and controlled in another should no longer exist, but that the flag and ownership should go together.
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURYMy Lords, there are one or two observations that I should have liked to make on this occasion, but after what the noble Viscount has said as to the inappropriateness of at this moment interfering, I abstain from doing so. The national character of a ship is by no means a technicality. It is a matter of supreme importance, and a supposed jurisdiction of all the world would be absolutely intolerable. I do not want to enter into a discussion of the matter after what the noble Viscount has said. I feel it cannot do any good, and it might do some mischief.
VISCOUNT MORLI am sure my noble friend behind me (Lord St. Davids) does not expect me to follow him into the large and serious questions with which he dealt. But in reply to the question which the noble Lord put to me, all I can say is that we are in communication naturally with our Ambassador, and up to to-day, or at all events yesterday, our Ambassador has received no appeal from any British subject desiring protection against detention, arrest, or anything else. That is the extent of our knowledge.