§ Mr. BUTCHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been called to a statement made by the Right Hon. James Bryce, in the House of Commons on the 11th April, 1904, that food, by the general consent of nations, was not contraband of war unless it could be clearly proved to be intended for military or naval purposes; whether the Government have any reason to apprehend that any of the greater naval Powers will, when belligerents, declare food to be absolute contraband in the face of such general consent of nations; and whether, in view of this definite statement by a historian and jurist of recognised authority as to the necessity of proving a hostile destination in order to justify the seizure of food as contraband, 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 vessels or goods?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI have referred to the whole speech made by Mr. Bryce on the 11th August (not April), 1904. I see no reason to modify, or add to, what I have said in answer to previous questions of the Hon. Member. I adhere to the statement referred to by the hon. Member in the last part of his question.
§ Mr. BUTCHERDoes the hon. Member agree with the statement of Mr. Bryce as set forth in the question?
Mr. McKINNON WOODTo answer that question will require a discussion of the whole of Mr. Bryce's speech and sentences other than those quoted by the hon. and learned Member, and therefore it would be a matter of considerable length to argue. for which this is not the proper time.
§ Mr. BUTCHERCan the hon. Member refer to any part of the speech which contradicts the statement made in the question?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat again is a matter for argument which I should have to enter into at length. There is nothing inconsistent in Mr. Bryce's speech with the position I have taken up.