HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MARCH 13, 1911.1

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Sir William Bull 2 asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government of the United States of America has signified its final adhesion to the Declaration of London.

SIR EDWARD GREY. The United States are signatories of the Declaration of London, which has not yet been ratified either by them or by any other country.

DECLARATION OF LONDON.3

Sir George Scott Robertson asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he was aware that Russia in the war with Japan destroyed five neutral ships which her own courts subsequently found were not liable to condemnation, at the same time exonerating the naval officers concerned on the ground that suspicion justified their action; and, if the Declaration of London were ratified, would it be possible for any neutral ship to be destroyed on suspicion, or under provision 49 of the Declaration of London, unless the vessel were also guilty of breach of blockade, or of unneutral service, or of carrying a cargo more than half of which was contraband.

Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. The facts stated in the first part of the question are correct. Under article 49 of the Declaration of London, the destruction of a neutral prize could not under any circumstances be justified, unless she had been engaged in breach of blockade, or in unneutral service, or in the carriage of contraband exceeding in amount half her cargo, or had forcibly resisted the legitimate exercise of the belligerent right of search.

SIR GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSON. Is it a fact that ships liable to condemnation are ships that practically have become the property of the captors, and if therefore the captors sink and destroy them they are destroying their own property?

Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. I think that is a question of which there should be notice.

122 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 1836.

Some

2 Sir William Bull was a Unionist and a strong opponent of the naval prize bill. thing of the man's character and a sidelight on the posters to which reference is made from time to time in the debates may be found in the following extract from The Times, London, of February 15, 1911:

"Sir William Bull claims sole responsibility for the recent issue of posters denouncing the Declaration of London, and the Unionist committee formed to oppose the Declaration, of which Mr. Lee is Chairman, dissociate themselves from this step."

$22 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 1839.

DECLARATION OF LONDON.1

Mr. Butcher asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, before finally determining that the Declaration of London does not require the authority of Parliament for its ratification, and that the decisions of our prize courts, founded on the law as laid down in the Declaration, could be enforced without the authority of Parliament against British subjects within British jurisdiction, he will refer to the decision of the Privy Council in 1892 in the case of Walker v. Baird, and will consult the law officers of the Crown and inform the House accordingly.

Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. I am advised that the case of Walker v. Baird has no bearing on the question raised by the honorable and learned member. That case dealt with the question whether the terms of a treaty afforded a good defense to an action for trespass in the municipal courts. I see no need to refer the matter to the law officers of the Crown.

Mr. Butcher asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any power, except Russia, has within the last 30 years treated or attempted to treat cotton as contraband, and, if so, under what circumstances and with what result.

Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. The answer is in the negative. So far as I am aware, except in the war between Russia and Japan, there has not been, in the last 30 years, a war in which the question of cotton has been considered important.

MARCH 14, 1911.2

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Mr. Butcher asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he saw any reason to depart from the statement in his letter to Lord Desart of 1st December, 1908, to the effect that it was recognized by the universally acknowledged principles of international law that all prizes ought, if possible, to be brought into a prize court 3 and ought not, generally speaking, to be destroyed or otherwise dealt with prior to condemnation; and whether any of the powers represented at the naval conference of London claimed the right to sink neutral vessels suspected of carrying contraband of war except under special and exceptional circumstances.

1 22 H. C. Deb.. 5 s., 2028.

2 22 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 2040.

3 Sir Edward Grey to Lord Desart, December 1, 1908. British Parliamentary Paper, Miscellaneous, No. 4, 1909 [Cd. 4554], p. 20; Scott, The Declaration of London, February 26, 1909, p. 210.

SIR E. GREY. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As to the point raised in the second part, although it is true that the powers asserting the right to sink neutral prizes prior to adjudication in a prize court claim to exercise it in exceptional circumstances only, the value of this limitation is under present conditions practically nullified by the fact that, according to the view taken by the Russian, and probably by the other continental prize courts, "the sinking of a vessel is permitted on the personal responsibility of a naval commander, and that therefore the question whether the exceptional circumstances observed by the naval commander in a particular case, which induced him to sink the vessel, were a sufficient justification or not is one for the superior officer of the person who gave the order for sinking her to decide, and not for a prize court." For this theoretical limitation, which has been found to be valueless for practical purposes, the Declaration of London substitutes the real restriction involved in having to submit to the judg ment of the prize courts (and in the last instance of the international prize court), the question whether the exceptional circumstances, that alone would justify sinking, did, in fact, exist in a particular

case.

Mr. BUTCHER. Have not representations been made to His Majesty's Government that the exception in the Declaration of London is singularly vague in its terms?

SIR E. GREY. Various representations have been made. But however vague the particular terms may be, they are very much better than having nothing at all, as is at present the case.

Mr. Butcher asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what powers, if any, had ratified the Declaration of London, and when; whether he was aware that, by the Constitution of the United States of America, it was impossible that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States should be altered or reserved by the decision of any extraneous tribunal such as an international prize court, and that there was in consequence an insurmountable difficulty in the way of the United States ratifying the prize court convention of 1907 in its present form; whether any steps had yet been taken for modifying such prize court convention; and whether, unless and until such convention was modified so as to permit of its ratification by the United States, the United States Government had refused, or still refused, to ratify the Declaration of London.

SIR E. GREY. I have already stated that the Declaration has not yet been ratified by any power. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. In order to overcome the difficulty experienced by the United States, they have proposed the signature of an additional protocol to the prize court convention, to be ratified together with the latter. The convention and the protocol have been submitted to and approved by the Senate of the United States. The

protocol has already been signed by a number of powers signatory of the convention, including the United States and Great Britain; but it remains open for further signatures until the date of ratification of the convention. The text of the protocol and correspondence relating thereto are being prepared for presentation to Parliament.

Mr. BUTCHER. Will not the protocol have to be signed by all the powers prior to ratification?

LORD NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART. Is it not the fact that even if the Declaration of London is ratified, one of the belligerents can make food supplies pure contraband?

SIR E. GREY. The answer to the last question is certainly in the negative. The question would not have been put if the Declaration of London had been thoroughly understood. The question on the paper is entirely different. I think the signatures of all the powers are required, but I am not sure. Perhaps the honorable gentleman will give me notice of the question.

Mr. REMNANT. Can the right honorable gentleman now say when we are likely to have the promised opportunity of discussing the whole matter?

SIR E. GREY. I understood the arrangement to be that it would come before the House of Commons after it had been discussed in the imperial conference.

Mr. BUTCHER. It what form will it come before the House of Commons?

Mr. SPEAKER. That hardly arises out of the question on the paper. Mr. Butcher asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the promised further papers bearing on the Declaration of London, and, in particular, the communication from the Commonwealth of Australia in reference thereto, would be laid upon the table; and would he also lay upon the table any correspondence or other papers showing that Germany in 1885 acquiesced in the claim put forward by France in that year to treat rice going to Chinese ports north of Canton as absolute contraband.

SIR E. GREY. The communication of the Commonwealth of Australia will be found on page 9 of the Blue Book No. Cd. 5513, which was presented to Parliament last month. I believe the only other paper which I have said definitely I was prepared to lay is further correspondence with the Bristol branch of the Navy League, correspondence which is not in itself important after what has been laid already. I can certainly add to it Prince Bismarck's statement on the subject. But it is very inconvenient to lay small papers in driblets, and probably the most convenient course would be to lay another paper in reasonable time before the Declaration of London comes before the House.

1 Conservative.

MARCH 16, 1911.1

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Mr. Pickersgill 2 asked whether the right honorable baronet's attention has been drawn to the statement of the Lord Chief Justice of England that in his experience before international tribunals he had had to deal with the specific question as to the weight to be given to contemporaneous documents which had passed between nations at the same time as a treaty or convention, and it was impossible for any one who was an international lawyer to say that a tribunal would regard a report of the character of the Renault report as having a conventional force; that if the Renault report was to be regarded as having conventional weight, it should be made a part of the convention; and whether he still adheres to the statement which he made to the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce on 9th November last, that if the proposed international prize court is set up at The Hague, it will be bound, when applying the provisions of the Declaration of London as between the signatories, to construe the text in conformity with the terms of the Renault report.

SIR E. GREY. My attention has been called to the statement of the Lord Chief Justice referred to, but I am informed that there was a subsequent observation made by him on this point in answer to a question put by Lord Courtney of Penwith, which must also be taken into consideration. The reports referred to by the honorable member are not correctly described as "M. Renault's report." They were, in fact, the report of the second peace conference on the international prize court convention, and the report of the London Naval Conference on the Declaration of London. Reports of this nature, adopted by a formal vote of an international conference for the express purpose of affording an authoritative commentary on conventions concluded by the signatories, stand on a different footing altogether from ordinary diplomatic correspondence or protocols recording the views of individual Governments or delegates. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. PICKERSGILL. Will the right honorable baronet state upon what authority his original statement was made as against the very high authority I have quoted?

SIR E. GREY. The original statement was made on what is plain, from the nature of the proceedings, and which I stated in this answer, that the reports were adopted by a formal vote of an international conference, and were, therefore, not on all fours with the instances referred to by the Lord Chief Justice.

122 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 2428.

91572-1910

2 Conservative.