member for the Holborn Division on Tuesday last. To that statement I have nothing to add. Mr. BUTCHER. In view of the fact that all that is asked for in the notice of motion which stands in my name is that we should postpone our decision until fuller and clearer information has been obtained will the right honorable gentleman dispense with the services of the party whips on that occasion? The PRIME MINISTER. No, sir; His Majesty's Government take full responsibility for this Declaration, and we shall ask for the assent. of Parliament to it. Mr. BUTCHER. Can the Government not trust their followers? FIRST SEA LORD'S MEMORANDUM.1 Mr. William Peel asked, in view of the authorization by the Admiralty of the publication of the First Sea Lord's memorandum of 19th November, 1910, on the risk of invasion, do His Majesty's Government propose to publish a similar memorandum by the First Sea Lord on the effect of The Hague conventions and the Declaration of London; and will the opinion thereon of the First Sea Lord be communicated to this House before this House is asked to agree to a second reading either of the naval prize bill or of the second peace conference (convention) bill? THE PRIME MINISTER. The answer to the question is in the negative. Mr. PEEL. Does the right honorable gentleman only ask for the publication of the expressions of opinion of the higher officials when those opinions agree with those of the Government? The PRIME MINISTER. The answer to the question is in the negative. NAVAL PRIZE BILL.3 Mr. James Mason asked the Prime Minister whether he will direct the preparation of a statement showing which of the provisions of the naval prize bill are consolidation of existing law and which of its provisions are or contain new matter; and whether he will lay such statement on the table of the House at an early date. The PRIME MINISTER. If the honorable member will refer to the printed copies of the bill, he will see that the marginal notes cite the corresponding sections of the existing acts of Parliament. A comparison of those sections with the clauses of the bill will indicate the extent to which new matter has been included in the bill. 127 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 236. 2 Unionist. 327 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 237. Mr. BUTCHER. Are we to understand that where there are no marginal notes the bill applies to new matter? The PRIME MINISTER. It is either new matter or old matter reproduced. Mr. BUTCHER. How are we to distinguish between new and old matter when apparently a marginal note in reference to a statute means nothing at all? The PRIME MINISTER. That is not a proper inference from my answer at all. A little ordinary research will enable the honorable member to see what is new and what is old. JUNE 28, 1911.1 DECLARATION OF LONDON. Mr. Peel asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that by the order of 20th October, 1904, the duty is placed on the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty to advise on all large questions of naval policy and maritime warfare, and that by the same order the First Sea Lord is always to be consulted in any matter of importance by the other sea lords, the Civil Lord, and the Parliamentary or Permanent Secretary, did the First Sea Lord in fact advise and was he consulted upon the conventions signed at The Hague in October, 1907, and ratified in November, 1909, either before their signature or before their ratification: and was he also consulted and did he advise on the Declaration of London before its signature in February, 1909. Mr. MCKENNA. The conventions signed at The Hague in 1907 were submitted to the First Sea Lord in the ordinary official course, and a similar procedure was followed in the case of the Declaration of London. Mr. LEE. May I ask whether the First Sea Lord advised that the Declaration of London should be ratified? Mr. MCKENNA. Yes, my recollection is that we discussed it very frequently, and he did advise so, but I think the honorable gentleman will agree it is most undesirable to raise questions as to the opinions of particular members of the board. Mr. LEE. But the First Sea Lord has given his particular opinions on another great question. Mr. BUTCHER. Might I ask the right honorable gentleman whether the Board of Admiralty was consulted as to the Declaration of London before it was signed? 127 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 407. Mr. MCKENNA. Yes, sir; the Board of Admiralty decided in support of the Declaration of London, and it has been stated so repeatedly. Mr. BUTCHER. Was the First Sea Lord asked to give his opinion? Mr. MCKENNA. Yes, sir Mr. SPEAKER. That does not arise out of the question on the paper. Mr. Eyres-Monsell asked whether, in the event of the Declaration of London being ratified, a new edition of the Naval Prize Manual is being prepared; and, if so, who is preparing it. Mr. MCKENNA. The revision of the Prize Manual was provisionally considered by a departmental committee in 1909, but in the event of the Declaration of London being ratified, the question will be again taken into consideration. Major Archer-Shee1 asked why the Admiralty propose to employ steam trawlers for mine-sweeping purposes in time of war when, under article 3 of the convention on the restriction of the right of capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, contracting powers are not allowed to take advantage of the harmless character of such vessels nor use them for military purposes while preserving their peaceful appearance. Mr. MCKENNA. The arrangement under which these vessels will be employed in the event of war will not be a contravention of the convention referred to. While employed as mine-sweepers these trawlers will cease entirely to be fishing craft. Trawlers, being deep sea fishing vessels, are not exempt from capture under the article quoted. MAJOR ARCHER-SHEE. Is it not almost impossible to make a trawler look like a torpedo-boat, which is the only war vessel of anything like the same size? Mr. MCKENNA. I can not add anything to the answer I have given the honorable and gallant gentleman. Major Archer-Shee asked (1) whether, in conformity with article 1 of the convention on the right of capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, captains of His Majesty's ships at present serving on foreign stations have been instructed that in the event of war being declared by or against the United Kingdom they are not to open official correspondence found on captured enemy ships, but to forward it with the least possible delay to the enemy Government; and (2) whether captains of His Majesty's ships at present serving on foreign stations have been instructed that in the event of war being declared neutral mail ships are not to be searched except when absolutely necessary, and then only with as much consideration as possible. 1 Unionist. Mr. MCKENNA. These questions raise points which will be dealt with in the revised Naval Prize Manual, which will have to be issued when the convention for the establishment of the international prize court has been ratified. It is not considered desirable to make any statement as to the actual instructions which will be given to captains of His Majesty's ships, the Manual being regarded as for His Majesty's officers only. MAJOR ARCHER-SHEE. Is it not the fact that the Battle of Trafalgar would never have been fought but for intercepted dispatches, and consequently this convention will not be worth the paper it is written on? Mr. SPEAKER. That is a matter of argument. Major Archer-Shee asked whether, under article 3 of the convention for restriction of the right of capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, which exempts small boats employed in local trade from capture, the expression "small boats" covers coasting steamers and barges; and up to what limit of tonnage vessels may be regarded as small boats under this article. Mr. MCKENNA. I can not do more than refer the honorable member to the protocols of the plenary meetings of the second peace conference, as contained in Command Paper 4081, Miscellaneous, No. 4 of 1908, article 1 on pages 220 and 221. Major Archer-Shee asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether article 6 of the convention on the restrictions on the right of capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, which enacts that the captain and crew of an enemy merchant ship were not to be made prisoners of war if they undertake in writing not to engage, while hostilities last, in any service connected with the operations of war, means that they were at liberty to ship on board another enemy merchant ship. The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood). The answer is in the affirmative, provided that the enemy merchant ship is not herself employed in service connected. with operations of war. Major Archer-Shee asked whether article 7 of the convention on restrictions of the right of capture, ratified on 27th November, 1909, which states that the belligerent is forbidden knowingly to employ these persons after they have given their parole, means that they must not be employed by the naval or military authorities only, or whether it means that they must not be employed by the subjects of the enemy State. Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. It means they must not be employed by the belligerent State in any capacity. MAJOR ARCHER-SHEE. Does that include subjects of the enemy's State? Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. It means they must not be employed by a belligerent State in any capacity. It is a question of State employ ment. NAVAL PRIZE BILL (ELEVEN O'CLOCK RULE).1 Mr. Hunt asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose the suspension of the 11 o'clock rule on Thursday, 29th June, so that members may have a chance of expressing their views on the Declaration of London. The PRIME MINISTER. I see no sufficient reason for suspending the rule. Mr. HUNT. May we not fairly conclude that the Government refuses to allow a full discussion on a matter concerning the food of the people and also the question of starvation in war? The PRIME MINISTER. The honorable member may draw any conclusion he likes, but it will not be a rational conclusion. Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON. Will the right honorable gentleman give us another day for discussion? Mr. HUNT. Is not the conclusion that I come to the conclusion of the whole of the naval and almost all mercantile people? Declaration of London. NAVAL PRIZE BILL.3 Order for second reading read. Motion made and question proposed. "That this bill be now read a second time." The UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood). In rising to move the second reading of this bill I may point out to the House that part of the bill is a consolidation of prize practice and is similar to the draft which was prepared about seven years ago. That part of the bill is non-controversial, and I do not suppose that any point will arise upon it except possibly in the committee stage. The important part of the bill is that which deals with the necessary alteration of prize practice in view of the establishment of an international prize court of appeal. The House is aware that the Government consider that the questions of the establishment of an international prize court and the provision of rules under the Declaration of London are closely connected questions, and therefore some months ago the Government promised that on the second reading of the bill full opportunity should be given to the House for the discussion of these two important international agreements. I do not think that the severest critic of the Govern 127 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 423. 2 Conservative. 327 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 434. |