§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISWill the hon. Member state whether the Declaration of the Naval Conference recently signed by the plenipotentiary appointed by the Government requires further ratification by the Government; and whether it is proposed to give such ratification?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODThe answer to the first question is contained in the Declaration itself. If the hon. Member 315 will read Article 67 he will see that ratification is required. The question of ratification by this country is under consideration.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISI understand that actual ratification has not been given.
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODNo, Sir.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEIs it not a fact that ratification is not necessary, and the matter is still open?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODYes, that is so. The matter is still open.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, under the terms of the declaration of the Naval Conference, foodstuffs consigned to German or French Army contractors resident in Antwerp or other neutral ports, and admittedly destined for the armed forces of those countries, would in time of war be immune from capture?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODIf the hon. Member will read article 35 of the Declaration, he will see that articles of conditional contraband may not, there-under, be seized if consigned to a neutral port.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISMay I ask the hon. Member to state whether goods consigned to German or French Army contractors resident in Antwerp would in time of war be immune from capture?
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODI think it would be more advantageous if the hon. Member would give notice of complicated questions of that kind.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISMy supplementary question is the same as the latter part of the question which stands on the Paper.
§ Mr. McKINNON WOODIf it is the question standing on the Paper, then it has been answered.
§ Mr. LEVERTON HARRISI will put down my question again for another day, because it has not been answered.