§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any case within the last thirty years in which a Prize Court of any Power has condemned a neutral vessel carrying food as lawful prize of war on the ground that food was absolute contraband?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI am not aware of any case in which the vessel itself was condemned on this ground; but the question of the capture of the foodstuffs without proof that they were destined for the naval or military forces is, of course, a different question.
§ Sir GEORGE ROBERTSONIs it not a certainty that if Great Britain cannot maintain her own merchant ships in the great trade routes when at war with a powerful nation, she must be starved into surrender—?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat has nothing to do with the question on the Paper.
§ Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the Declaration of London has no binding effect on the Powers represented at the Naval Conference of 5 London unless and until such declaration is ratified by them, the Report of M. Renault would be binding on the Powers as an authoritative exposition of the meaning of the declaration, unless the Report were incorporated with the declaration for the purposes of such ratification?
Mr. McKINNON WOODIf the hon. and learned Member will refer to the answer which I gave him on the 22nd instant he will see the precise effect which His Majesty's Government attribute to the Report in question.
§ Mr. BUTCHERMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is intended to submit the Report for ratification along with the text of the Declaration?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. and learned Gentleman asked me that question before, and I replied to it.
§ Mr. BUTCHERWhat was the answer? I never asked that question?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. and learned Gentleman asked a supplementary question. The answer is that we do not contemplate doing so. There is no precedent for doing so. That is the only answer I gave.
§ Mr. BUTCHERAm I to understand that if the Report is not submitted for ratification, it will be binding on the Powers as if it had been?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI have stated very fully what the view of the Government is in regard to the matter, and the reasons why they think the Report is binding on the Powers without further ratification.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the official statements prepared for the London Conference of 1908 by Germany, Russia, Japan, and the United States, any claim was made or suggested that food other than preserved provisions suitable for the services of troops might be declared to foe absolute contraband by a belligerent when it suited her interests to do so?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not agree with the interpretation suggested in the question as regards the four Powers named.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs 6 whether M. Jules Ferry, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, in his communication to the British Government of the 13th March, 1885, stated that the rice which France in her war with China had declared contraband represented imperial tribute paid in kind and specially applied to the use of soldiers, who received it as part of their wages, and that consequently it was destined for military use?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat argument was used by the French Government during the discussion, but they did not pretend that it applied to all the rice of which the importation was prohibited, and in fact it did not so apply. Nor was this their original or principal argument. On the 10th March, 1885, M. Waddington, in a note to Lord Granville, said: "The particular circumstances under which the hostilities against China are carried on have determined my Government to take the step with regard to which your Excellency has thought fit to formulate reserves. But the Queen's Government cannot be ignorant of these special circumstances of which the French authorities are the best judges, and with regard to which the French courts will have to give an authoratative decision, should occasion arise. The importance of rice in the feeding of the Chinese population and army does not allow my Government to authorise its transport, in the north of China, without the risk of depriving themselves of one of the most powerful means of coercion they have at their disposal."
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government still holds to the declaration made by Lord Granville on 27th February, 1885, and the 4th April, 1885, to the French Government that Great Britain refused to recognise the claim that rice could be treated generally as contraband of war, and that the British Government would not hold herself bound by any decision of a Prize Court to this effect?
Mr. McKINNON WOODHis Majesty's Government still hold the view expressed by Lord Granville. I may point out that a similar difference of view between the two Governments will not arise if the Declaration of London is ratified by them.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of that being held by His Majesty's Government, whether it was not dangerous to state 7 that the present practice would expose to capture or deliberate destruction food supplies borne to any port of the United Kingdom in neutral vessels in time of war before the Declaration is ratified?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not know to what the statement of the hon. Gentleman refers. But there is nothing in his statement inconsistent with the reply I have given.
§ Sir GEORGE ROBERTSONIf the Declaration of London were not to be ratified, is there any way by which Great Britain, as a neutral Power, could enforce the rules of her own Prize Courts on belligerents without, of course, going to war?
§ Mr. BUTCHERDid any Power take exception to France in 1885; if so, how?
Mr. McKINNON WOODUndoubtedly the answer given by Prince Bismarck to the German commercial houses was clearly an indication that Germany was not prepared to protest against the view of France. Prince Bismarck's answer made it clear that he considered that France was within her right. What Germany did was to refuse to remonstrate against the view of France: that was supporting it in a very practical way.