HOUSE OF COMMONS. FEBRUARY 21, 1912.1 NAVAL PRIZE BILL. Mr. W. Peel asked the Prime Minister if he proposes to reintroduce the naval prize bill during the course of this session. The PRIME MINISTER. Yes, but I can not say at what time. MAY 7, 1912.2 NAVAL PRIZE BILL. Mr. James Mason asked the Prime Minister if he can say when he proposes to introduce the naval prize bill. Mr. LLOYD GEORGE. I can not at present make any statement. Perhaps the honorable member will be good enough to repeat the question after the Whitsuntide recess. JULY 31, 1912.3 NAVAL PRIZE BILL. Mr. Chancellor asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to pass through the Commons this year the naval prize bill, which last year passed third reading, and was rejected by the House of Lords. The PRIME MINISTER. I can not yet state whether the House will be asked to pass the naval prize bill before the close of the year. OCTOBER 17, 1912.4 NAVAL PRIZE BILL. Mr. Chancellor asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to reintroduce this session the naval prize bill which was rejected last session by the House of Lords. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George). The answer is in the negative. We hope that the bill may be introduced next year. 134 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 614. 41 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 2077. DECEMBER 5, 1912.1 DECLARATION OF LONDON. Sir J. D. Rees2 asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs what law now obtains in respect of contraband and blockade; what effect, if any, is to be given to the Declaration of London; whether the action of Italy and Turkey in the recent war is to be regarded as a precedent; whether other States are strengthening, or contemplate strengthening, their legislation against breaches of neutrality; and whether, since Great Britain is more adversely affected than any other power by a stiffening of the standard of neutrality, the Government proposes to persist in efforts to obtain the ratification of the Declaration of London. The SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey). The rules now governing questions of contraband and blockade are those based on the view of international law prevailing in the several belligerent countries. The Declaration of London, not having been ratified, is not, as such, binding on any country, although, in several instances, belligerents have declared their acceptance of the provisions of the Declaration, so far as they do not conflict with their national law. I do not know what action on the part of Italy and Turkey the honorable member refers to as raising the question of precedent. I have no information respecting the intentions of other Governments in the matter of legislation directed against breaches of neutrality. I am not prepared to accept the view of the honorable member as regards the effect on this country of a raising of the standard of neutrality, nor to admit that this would be the general effect of the Declaration of London. The circumstance which does adversely affect Great Britain is the uncertainty as to what is at present accepted by foreign powers as the correct rule of international law on these matters. This would be removed by the ratification of the Declaration of London and it is therefore desirable to effect it. THE DECLARATION OF LONDON. DECLARATION CONCERNING THE LAWS OF NAVAL WAR.1 [Translation] His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; the President Having regard to the terms in which the British Government in- Recognizing all the advantages which an agreement as to the said Having regard to the divergence often found in the methods by Animated by the desire to insure henceforward a greater measure Hoping that a work so important to the common welfare will meet Having appointed as their plenipotentiaries, that is to say: M. Kriege, Privy Councilor of Legation and Legal Adviser to the 1 Signed at London, Feb. 26, 1909. The text of this Convention is taken from British 693 |