Mr. PICKERSGILL. On what authority does the right honorable gentleman state that the report of the reporting committee would be binding upon the tribunal?

SIR E. GREY. On the authority of the formal vote of the international conference.

Earl Winterton1 asked whether any pourparlers have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States as to the composition of the tribunal for settling international disputes foreshadowed in President Taft's statement.

SIR E. GREY. The answer is in the negative; the point could not arise till some proposals were under consideration.

Earl Winterton asked whether the willingness of His Majesty's Government to enter into an arrangement with another power of first-class importance to refer all international disputes to arbitration has been submitted to the Government of His Imperial Majesty the Mikado of Japan; and, if so, whether he will lay their answer upon the table of the House.

SIR E. GREY. The Japanese Government are aware of the views of His Majesty's Government. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

EARL WINTERTON. In view of the great interest taken in this question at present will the right honorable gentleman reconsider his decision not to lay these papers on the table of the House?

SIR E. GREY. At this stage of the proceedings such a course would be quite premature, even if there were any papers to lay on the table, which I have not admitted in my answer.

EARL WINTERTON. Will the right honorable gentleman consider the point whether he could do so in the future? Does he propose to apply to the Japanese Government?

SIR E. GREY. It would be quite undesirable after I have stated that the Japanese Government are aware of the views of His Majesty's Government to lay on the table at this stage papers relating to what has passed between the two Governments.

EARL WINTERTON. Officially aware or aware from the newspapers? SIR E. GREY. I think the noble lord must be content with my answer that they are aware of the views of His Majesty's Government. I have expressly stated if any communication had passed this would not be the time to make them public. Obviously, therefore, I can not reply further.

1 Conservative.

MARCH 20, 1911.1

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Sir William Bull asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the British naval officers delegated to the conference which drew up the Declaration of London have conveyed to the Government any assurances that, in their opinion, the provisions of the Declaration would be advantageous to this country in the event of the navy being engaged in war.

Mr. MCKENNA. The representative of the Admiralty at the conference was in agreement with his colleagues, and although not called upon to give any separate assurance to His Majesty's Government, he concurred in the provisions of the Declaration.

MARCH 21, 1911."

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Mr. Butcher asked what continental prize courts, other than Russian in the recent war, have declared that the sinking of a neutral prize is permitted on the personal responsibility of a naval commander and that the question whether the circumstances justified such sinking is one for the superior officer of the naval commander who gives the order, and not for a prize court; and whether this view has met with the acceptance of any of the great naval powers of the world.

SIR E. GREY. As far as I am aware, the war referred to is the only one in which the matter has come before continental prize courts in recent years. I can not speak definitely as to the views of other powers on the particular point raised in the question, but on the general question of the right of a belligerent to sink neutral merchant vessels, several powers, including Austria-Hungary, France, and Germany, voted for the Russian proposition at The Hague conference.

Mr. BUTCHER. Do I understand there is no decision of the prize court to this effect?

SIR E. GREY. As far as I am aware, the war referred to is the only one in which the matter has been before the prize courts.

Mr. Butcher asked whether any attempt was made by our representatives at the naval conference of London to include cotton piece. goods on the free list under article 28 of the Declaration of London; whether, under the Declaration of London, it would be competent

123 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 189.

H. C. Deb., 5 s., 213.

for a belligerent to declare and to treat cotton piece goods as conditional contraband of war and liable to capture as such; and whether in the event of a war in the Far East the treatment of cotton piece goods as conditional contraband liable to capture under the provisions of articles 33 and 34 of the Declaration would have a serious and far-reaching effect on the trade of Lancashire with the Far East, and would tend to paralyze that trade.

SIR E. GREY. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. What it is competent for a belligerent under the Declaration to treat as contraband is clearly set out in that instrument. 1 would draw attention to article 24, by which it is agreed that, among other things, "fabrics for clothing suitable for use in war" may be treated as conditional contraband-for instance, cotton khaki cloth— and to article 27, which provides that articles not susceptible of use in war may not be declared contraband. Accordingly, cotton piece goods may or may not be declared conditional contraband, according as they are or are not suitable for use in war. The proper application of this rule would not have the consequences suggested by the honourable member, and in any case it is the existing practice, and would certainly remain whether the Declaration of London were ratified or not.

Mr. BUTCHER. Is there any instance up to the present time where cotton piece goods have been declared conditional contraband by a belligerent?

SIR E. GREY. I cannot undertake to say whether there are any such instances. But it is a well understood practice that things which are intended for the armed forces of the enemy may be declared conditional contraband.

Mr. MACCALLUM SCOTT. Seeing that the Declaration of London has now been in existence for two years how can the right honourable gentleman account for the fact that honourable and learned gentlemen opposite have only just made the discovery?

Mr. SPEAKER. That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. Butcher asked the Prime Minister if he will state by what mode of procedure do the Government intend to take the opinion of the House on the question whether the Declaration of London should be ratified or not; and, if the Government have no such intention, what opportunity will be afforded to private members for raising the question in a definite manner.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith). I do not think that the honourable and learned member can have seen the answer which I gave to the noble lord the member for Portsmouth on 9th February, when I said that in our opinion a convenient opportunity for discussing the whole of the Declaration of London will arise on the second reading of the naval prize bill.

Mr. BUTCHER. May I ask in what form the question can be raised in a definite manner on that occasion?

The PRIME MINISTER. Well, sir, we will consider the matter, and I have no doubt that an adequate and proper form can be devised.

Mr. BUTCHER. May I ask whether the right honorable gentleman will take care that, in view of the very difficult and very important nature of the question, full and adequate time should be given for the discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER. Yes, sir. I have no doubt it will be possible, without defining what is full and adequate time.

Mr. W. R. PEEL. May I ask whether it is not a fact that the two questions-the setting up of an international prize court, and the ratification of the Declaration of London-are two quite different questions, and how, in view of the fact that this House might be in favor of the one and against the other, it will be able to express its opinion on the second reading of the naval prize bill?

The PRIME MINISTER. That was a matter frequently discussed in the last parliament, and I do not think there is any practical difficulty.

MARCH 23, 1911.2

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

3

Mr. Hamilton Benn asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in view of the fact that the correspondence between the Foreign Office and various chambers of commerce and other bodies on the subject of the Declaration of London had been published up to a certain point in White Paper Cd. 5418, he would cause the paper to be reprinted, with the addition of the subsequent correspondence, and laid before both Houses.

SIR E. GREY. I would refer the honorable member to the answer which I gave on the 14th instant to the honorable member for York, to which I cannot usefully add anything at this stage.

MARCH 27, 1911.4

HAGUE CONVENTION.

Mr. Shirley Benn 3 asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the table the papers wherein the Government declared their intention of ratifying The Hague Convention before finding out the will of Parliament.

1 Unionist.

2 23 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 585.

3 Conservative.

423 H. C. Deb., 5 s.. 874.

Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. I do not know to what papers the honorable member refers. Thirteen conventions and one declaration were signed by the British representatives at the second peace conference. Of these, eight conventions and the declaration, which did not require fresh municipal legislation, were ratified by the King on the advice of his responsible ministers. The remainder require legislation, for which a bill will shortly be introduced, and they will not be ratified by the King till the measure has been passed by the House of Commons. Where legislation is required, the carrying out of an intention to ratify any particular convention is, of course, dependent upon the passing of that legislation by the House of Commons.

Mr. Shirley Benn asked if, in case His Majesty should not ratify the convention signed at The Hague in 1907, owing to Parliament not passing the necessary legislation, the Declaration of London would fall to the ground.

Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. The Declaration of London will not be ratified, as has been repeatedly stated, till after there has been an opportunity for discussing it in the House. Till that has taken place, it is not necessary to consider the point raised in the question.

DECLARATION OF LONDON.1

Sir William Bull asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the table a copy of the instructions given to the British naval delegates who attended the conference which formulated the Declaration of London.

Mr. MCKENNA. Separate instructions were not given to the British naval delegates who took part in the international naval conference in London. The instructions of His Majesty's Government to the British plenipotentiary, the Earl of Desart, will be found in Parliamentary Paper Cd. No. 4554 of 1909.

Sir William Bull asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will request the British naval delegates who attended the conference which formulated the Declaration of London, to draw up a report, showing their opinion as to the advantages or disadvantages likely to accrue to the British Navy in war time by the Declaration of London, if it is finally ratified.

Mr. MCKENNA. As stated in the reply to the honorable member's previous question of Monday last, the representatives of the Admiralty at the international naval conference, while not called upon to give any separate assurance to His Majesty's Government, concurred in the provisions of the Declaration. It is not proposed to call for any separate report such as that suggested.

123 H. C. Debs., 5 s., 1095.