§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the declaration recently signed by the representative of Great Britain at the International Naval Conference, the words commercant and l'ennemi are understood by the Powers represented to respectively mean government contractor and enemy's forces; and, if not, whether, under this declaration, all foodstuffs consigned from abroad to any merchant in this country might, in time of war, be regarded as contraband, and, as such, would be liable to capture?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODI quite appreciate the importance of the question of interpretation raised by the hon. Member. If the hon. Member will refer to the General Report to the Naval Conference, which contains an authoritative commentary on the provisions of the Declaration (pages 48 and 49 of the Blue Book, No. 4, Miscellaneous), he will see that the passage in Article 34, from which the words referred to are quoted, deals with the case where goods falling under one or the other 37 of the heads of the list of conditional contraband are consigned to a contractor who notoriously supplies that particular class of goods to the enemy's Government. That this is the correct interpretation will appear clearly if Article 34 be read, as it should be, in conjunction with Article 33. The dominant rule is that articles of conditional contraband may be captured only if destined for the use of the armed forces or of a Government Department of the enemy's State. Such destination must be proved by the captor. The meaning and purport of the presumptions set up in Article 34 are solely to shift the burden of proof as to destination on to the shoulders of the owner of the goods in the cases specified. In those cases it will be for the owner to prove that the goods are not destined for the enemy's Government or forces. Obviously it would not have been intended that the fact of goods being consigned to a merchant not a Government contractor should justify a presumption that they were destined for the enemy's Government or forces. The answer to the second part of the question is therefore in the negative.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINArising out of that question, may I ask which is the official text, the French or the English?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODI take it the French text.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIs there any authority at all for limiting the French word comerçant to Government contractors, either in the French dictionaries or in the diplomatic language?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODThat is the subject of the next question.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISAre we to understand, as the French text stands at present, foodstuffs consigned to a merchant are to be assumed to be contraband?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODCertainly not, unless the merchant is notoriously a Government contractor.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the words "Government contractor" are mentioned at all in the French text?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. Gentleman has the published Report of the Conference, and the words used are "A contractor who, as a matter of common knowledge, supplies articles of this kind to the enemy." That could not possibly 38 mean a merchant who merely supplies the general public.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISMay I ask the hon. Gentleman what French word is translated as contractor?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODThat is the subject of the next question.
§ Mr. STEWART BOWLESHas the Government any assurance from any of the Powers that the interpretation which they place upon this French word comerçant is shared by any other signatory?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODI am bound to point out that the interpretation I have referred to is not the interpretation of His Majesty's Government, but the official interpretation drawn up by the Conference itself.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINHas that explanatory declaration any binding effect on any of the Powers that signed the Convention, or does it merely affect the French case?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODYes; but in reply to that question, I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that Article 33 must be read in conjunction with Article 34, and when these two Articles are read together there can be no doubt as to the meaning.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURI beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter on the earliest possible date.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the word comerçant in Article 34 of the declaration of the International Naval Conference is correctly represented in the English text by the word contractor, in view of the fact that it equally means in English a merchant or a broker?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODThe translation accurately conveys the meaning of the word as used in the Article. The word "contractor" is used to cover "merchants" and "brokers" who habitually supply goods to the Government.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISDo the words occur in the declaration "Supply goods to the Government," and not the words "to the enemy."
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODIf the hon. Gentleman will look at the words "Who as a matter of common knowledge supplies articles of this kind to the enemy" he will see that they cannot possibly apply to a mere merchant who supplies goods to the general public. The words would be perfectly senseless in that case.