MARCH 28, 1911.1 DECLARATION OF LONDON. Mr. Butcher asked whether the right honorable gentleman's attention had been called to the terms of article 49 of the Declaration of London, which authorizes the sinking of a neutral prize if the taking of the prize into a port for adjudication-peut compromettre le succès des opérations dans lesquelles le bâtiment de guerre est actuellement engagé-and whether the French words above quoted are accurately translated by the words "would involve danger to the success of the operations in which the warship is engaged at the time." SIR E. GREY. The answer is in the affirmative. If the honorable member will refer to the report of the conference, on article 49 (page 56 of the Blue Book, No. 4, Miscellaneous, 1909), he will see that the French words employed were expressly declared to be the equivalent of the words of the English translation. Mr. BUTCHER. Are we to take it that the report is competent to say what the English equivalent of the French term is? SIR E. GREY. You can not get a more accurate translation than the one specially agreed upon by the whole conference as being accurate. They discussed this very point, and it was agreed that this should be regarded as the equivalent. Mr. BUTCHER. In view of the numerous statements made as to the mistranslation of the original text by the United States and others, will the right honorable gentleman direct that a new translation be made? SIR E. GREY. I am not aware that any of the complaints are well founded. Mr. Russel Rea2 asked whether the right honorable gentleman will consent to publish a statement of the representations which were made by chambers of commerce and shipping associations during the Russo-Japanese War to the late Foreign Secretary, with a view of obtaining a clearer definition of contraband, and the replies which were made by Lord Lansdowne. SIR E. GREY. I am having the papers examined, with a view to including them when further papers are laid. Mr. Butcher asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that some members of this House might desire to support the second reading of the naval prize bill who were opposed to the ratification of the Declaration of London, and that other members might desire to oppose such second reading who were in favour of such 123 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 1117. Mr. Rea, a ship-owner and merchant, had been an active Liberal in Parliament for some years and was at this time chairman of the Economics Committee. ratification, he would inform the House at what stage in the proceedings on the naval prize bill, and by what mode of procedure, the opinion of the House could be taken on the definite question whether the Declaration of London should be ratified or not. The PRIME MINISTER. (Mr. Asquith.) The undertaking that His Majesty's Government have given will be fulfilled when the time comes in whatever way is found to be for the general convenience of the House and the course of public business. The undertaking can not be carried out until the matter has been brought before the imperial conference. Mr. PEEL. Is the Prime Minister aware that in another place they have had an opportunity of discussing the Declaration of London for three whole days? Will he give this House a similar opportunity? The PRIME MINISTER. I can not say what goes on in another place. Mr. PEEL. The Secretary of State for War will tell you. Mr. BUTCHER. Will the Prime Minister state for the convenience of the House the form in which this very important question can be raised here? The PRIME MINISTER. I think it would be premature to do so yet. It has to go before the imperial conference, and that can not be before the month of May. Mr. H. W. FORSTER.1 Will this House be given no opportunity of discussing the question until after the imperial conference? The PRIME MINISTER. No. Mr. BUTCHER. Is the Prime Minister aware of the very great importance attached to this question by chambers of commerce and other important commercial bodies throughout the country? The PRIME MINISTER. I thought it was the general desire of the House that the imperial conference should first have an opportunity of considering the matter. APRIL 4, 1911.2 DECLARATION OF LONDON. Mr. Butcher asked whether he is aware that the question of the proper English translation of the words in article 49 of the Declaration of London-compromettre le succès des opérations dans lesquelles le bâtiment de guerre est actuellement engagé-is not in any way referred to in M. Renault's report; and whether, in view of these facts, he will reconsider the question whether those words are accurately translated in the English version issued by the Foreign Office by the words "involve danger to the success of the operations in which the warship is engaged at the time." SIR E. GREY. The translation accurately renders the meaning of the French, and makes use of the term specifically indicated in the report of the conference. Mr. JAMES MASON.1 Does the right honorable gentleman not consider that the phrase "prejudice the success" is a much more accurate translation and involves an entirely different meaning than danger to the success"? SIR E. GREY. I do not think it is. I think the phrase "involve danger" or "endangering" is the most accurate rendering of the meaning of the French. Mr. Butcher asked whether the scope of article 34 of the Declaration of London, read in conjunction with article 33, is correctly stated in the letter of the 13th October, 1910, from the Foreign Office to the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce (Cd. 5418, p. 6), to be to relieve the captor of the obligation of proving in cases specified in article 34 that the destination of foodstuffs, and other articles of conditional contraband, was the military or naval forces of the enemy, and to shift the onus of proof in these cases from the captor on to the owners of the captured goods; whether in those specified cases the practice apart from the Declaration of London has been to throw the onus of proof on the captor; whether his attention had been called to a speech delivered by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the Baltic, on the 15th March, 1911, in which, referring to articles 33 and 34, the Under-Secretary stated that the past practice had been to throw the burden of proof as to the destination of conditional contraband on the owners of the captured vessel or goods; and whether, in view of the previous statements on the subject by the Foreign Office, this statement of the Under-Secretary can be regarded as accurate. SIR E. GREY. The statement in the Foreign Office letter referred to means relief from the obligation imposed by the Declaration of London, which is the opposite of the existing practice. Both it and the extract quoted from the speech of the Under-Secretary of State are accurate. In actual practice under the existing law, the neutral owners have always found that the burden of proof in proceedings before a prize court is laid upon them. This will be fundamentally changed by the Declaration of London, which, for the first time, establishes the general rule that the burden of proof shall lie on the captor. Only in certain exceptional cases, namely, those covered by the presumptions set up under article 34, will the burden of proof, contrary to the new general rule, rest on the neutral owners and not on the captors. In these cases, but in these cases only, the present practice will be retained. 1 Chairman of the Unionist committee formed to oppose the Declaration. Mr. JAMES MASON. May I have a copy of the answer? Mr. Eyres-Monsell asked whether the right honorable gentleman now has any information to show that the Government of the United States of America have declined to accept as authoritative the Foreign Office official translation of the Declaration of London, as published in Blue Book 4554 and have had a fresh translation made; and, if so, could he state what is the translation of the word "commerçant," which appears in article 34? SIR E. GREY. The United States Government have agreed to discuss with His Majesty's Government the question of the English translation of the Declaration, with a view to the adoption of the common version to be officially adopted for the use of the navies of both countries. Pending the result of such discussions, I am unable to make any statement on points of detail. Mr. James Mason asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the expressed determination of other powers to reserve to themselves the right to convert merchant liners into warships without notification, His Majesty's Government propose to take steps with a view to securing that British merchant liners shall be equipped with adequate means for meeting such contingencies in case of war. FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna). The Admiralty are prepared to meet the contingencies anticipated in the honorable member's question, and to take all necessary steps for the protection of British trade. Mr. James Mason asked the Prime Minister whether the Declaration of London will be submitted to the approval of Parliament or of the House of Commons only. The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith). A promise has been given that there will be a full opportunity for discussion of the Declaration of London in the House of Commons before ratification. That promise holds good, and I am not prepared to go beyond it. Mr. JAMES MASON. Will the right honorable gentleman say on what grounds he bases his application of single-chamber government to this question? The PRIME MINISTER. The House of Lords has spent three nights aiready upon it. APRIL 6, 1911.1 DECLARATION OF LONDON. Mr. Butcher asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will say in what part of Mr. Renault's report, and on what page of the Blue Book Cd. 4554 any reference is made to the 1 23 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 2398. correct translation of the French words in article 49 of the Declaration of London-peut compromettre le succès des opérations-and whether the only reference in that report to the correct translation of the French of article 49 is in regard to the words-peut compromettre la sécurité du bâtiment de guerre. SIR E. GREY. The only direct reference is as stated, but the honorable member must be aware that the word "compromettre" occurs only once in the article, and that it refers both to the ship and to the operations. In so far as the report of the conference indicates the proper English translation of one of the phrases of which the word "compromettre" forms the essential part, it naturally affects the translation of both the phrases grammatically dependent from the same verb. Mr. BUTCHER. Does not the right honorable gentleman think the context of the word "compromettre" is different in the two cases? SIR E. GREY. I do not think it is. I think it is the same, and therefore it is properly translated by the same expression. Mr. BUTCHER. Can the right honorable gentleman say what the American translations of these words are? SIR E. GREY. I think the American version is the same, but I am not certain. I ask the honorable member to give notice. I think in these two instances it is the same. Mr. Butcher asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention had been called to the passage in M. Renault's report, on page 49 of the Blue Book, Cd. 4554, which states that the true destination of conditional contraband will usually be more or less concealed, that the captor must prove it in order to justify their capture, that in the absence of the presumptions contained in article 34 the destination is presumed to be innocent, and that this is the ordinary law, according to which the captor must prove the illicit character of the goods which he claims to capture; and whether, in view of this statement, reliance can be placed on the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the Baltic, on the 15th March, 1911, that the past practice has been to throw the burden of proof as to the destination of conditional contraband on the owners of the captured vessel or goods. SIR E. GREY. I must point out that to speak of "M. Renault's report" is an incorrect and misleading description of the report of the conference. Hitherto the ordinary law as administered by prize courts has not placed the burden of proof upon the captor: that the [has] been the case, for instance, in the Russian prize courts and in our own. The Declaration of London for the first time establishes the general rule that the burden of proof lies on the captor, and it is to this that the report refers. |