Mr. MCKENNA. No; the honorable member must not assume from my reply that because the Board of Admiralty has not signified their approval in a formal manner that they have not approved.

Mr. LEE. Have they approved!

Mr. MCKENNA. Yes, sir-no; let me explain. The Admiralty, being represented at the conference, there was no formal meeting of the Board of Admiralty, and consequently no formal approval has ever been expressed by the Board of Admiralty, but in the approval which has been given the assent of the naval members must be supposed.

Mr. LEE. Was the representative on the conference a member of the Board of Admiralty?

Mr. MCKENNA. No. He was the Director of Naval Intelligence, and represented the Admiralty, and put forward the Admiralty views at the conference. His action was approved by the board, and that approval must be accepted as approval of the conference.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

FEBRUARY 15, 1911.1

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH.2 My lords, I think it is due to the House that I should give my reasons for withdrawing the notice that is down in my name for to-morrow night with reference to the Declaration of London—namely:

To call attention to some of the reasons why the Declaration of London should not be ratified.

Since putting this notice on the paper I have been informed that a good deal of important correspondence is going on between the Foreign Office and the associated chambers of commerce, and that both parties are agreed that it would be undesirable to have a discussion while this correspondence continued. I regret very much that the discussion of this subject is postponed, as I think there certainly ought to be a debate on it in this House before it is brought up in the other House. In the meantime I would suggest to His Majesty's Government that they might send the declaration down to Portsmouth to be discussed by the officers going through the war course there, and that those officers should be asked their opinion as to the effect which the declaration, if strictly carried out, would

17 H. L. Deb., 5 s., 83B.

2 The fact that Lord Ellenborough was a retired commander in the Royal Navy who had seen much active service may in some measure account for his stand against all restriction on naval warfare and for his belief that England's best defense was in the strength of her navy.

have on naval strategy in the North Sea, and what could be done. to prevent neutral ships, or ships disguised as neutrals, approaching our men-of-war provided the Declaration is strictly adhered to. I would also ask whether any noble lord on the Government bench can tell me when it is likely that the correspondence to which I have referred will come to an end, so that the subject may be brought before this House.

The LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount Morley of Blackburn). My lords, if I may say so, the noble lord has acted wisely in suspending it is not more than that-the motion which was down on the paper for to-morrow night. Your lordships will probably remember that in the debate on the address my noble friend the leader of the house said that we proposed to defer consideration of the declaration until after, or, at all events, during the time of, the conference, and we understood by a gesture by the noble marquess opposite that he did not dissent from that intention. The noble lord puts the issue too narrowly when he says that we are waiting for the correspondence with the chambers of commerce. A much wider set of considerations than that correspondence is affected and has to be taken in view. The noble lord is mistaken in thinking that there could have been any discussion in another place. What the Government said in answer to questions in the House of Commons was that the matter was under discussion and consideration, and we could say nothing; and I am afraid that would have been the substance of my answer to the noble lord to-morrow night if he had proceeded with the matter.

The MARQUESS OF LANDSDOWNE. My lords, the noble viscount has referred to me, and I am anxious that there should be no misunderstanding as to our position in regard to this matter. I gathered from what I think was said by the noble earl, the leader of the house, that it was intended to bring up the Declaration of London for discussion at the colonial conference, and I may have made a gesture which seemed to signify approval of that proposal. But I certainly did not intend to convey the idea that, in my view, the reference of the Declaration of London to the colonial conference was in any way to preclude us from discussing the matter in this House should any peer desire to bring it before your lordships. I am under the impression, on the contrary, that the matter is likely to be brought

1 After sitting in Parliament almost continuously from 1883 to 1908 and holding a number of important offices, including that of Secretary of State for India, the Rt. Hon. John Morley, one of the most distinguished of the Liberal leaders, took his seat in the House of Lords as Viscount Morley of Blackburn. His ability and previous career made it most fitting that he should succeed the Earl of Crewe as minority leader and thus have charge of the Government bills in that house. Cf. ante, p. 4, note.

91572-19-2

up, and I can not but think that the discussion will be extremely useful.

VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN. We may have misinterpreted the gesture of the noble marquess. There is nothing at all unreasonable in the position he now takes up, and we shall be ready to meet the noble marquess and his friends when the time comes.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH. I may say that I think it highly desirable that a discussion should take place in this House, so that the members of the imperial conference will be able to read that debate in Hansard before they come to conclusions themselves on arriving in this country.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

DECLARATION OF LONDON (DOMINION GOVERNMENT).1

Mr. Butcher asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the table of the House the resolution of the Commonwealth of Australia in reference to the Declaration of London which has been communicated to His Majesty's Government. Also upon what date or dates the parliamentary papers Cd. 4554 and Cd. 5418, relating to the Declaration of London, were sent by His Majesty's Government to the Dominion Governments; and whether the omission to invite the views of such Governments on those papers was accidental or deliberate on the part of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. HARCOURT. The resolution of the Commonwealth of Australia in reference to the Declaration of London will be published this week, with other resolutions, for the imperial conference. The parliamentary papers Cd. 4554 and Cd. 5418 were issued on 22d March, 1909, and 5th December, 1910, and sent to the Dominion Governments on 2d April, 1909, and 9th December, 1910, respectively. It has not been the custom to invite criticism on these matters, though His Majesty's Government is always prepared to receive it.

Mr. BUTCHER. May I ask whether no expression of opinion has reached the Government from any of the Dominion parliaments except that by the Commonwealth of Australia?

Mr. HARCOURT. I think not; but I should not like to pledge myself without notice.

INTERNATIONAL NAVAL CONFERENCE.

Mr. Butcher asked the Secretary for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the table of the House the general report of the drafting committee of the international naval conference in London, generally known as Mr. Renault's report.

121 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 1034.

The UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood). The report will be found, together with all other documents essential to a correct appreciation of the Declaration of London, in the Blue Books, Command Numbers 4554 and 4555, which were laid before Parliament as long ago as March, 1909.

Mr. BUTCHER. Is the report of M. Renault regarded as an exposition of the Declaration of London?

Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. Certainly it is so regarded, and would be so treated in the international prize court.

FEBRUARY 16, 1911.1

DECLARATION OF LONDON.

Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would explain why the dominions and colonies were not consulted as to the Declaration of London before it was signed.

2

SIR E. GREY. The answer is that such a course was not practicable at the time.

LORD NINIAN CRICHTON-STUART. Will the right honorable gentleman not take into consideration its enormous importance to the port of Cardiff in connection with British trade?

SIR E. GREY. As to the question of the importance to British trade, it has, of course, been taken into consideration all through.

Mr. Eyres-Monsell asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he had notified any of the foreign powers who were signatory to the Declaration of London of his intention to declare the term "l'ennemie" in article 34 of the Declaration to mean the Government of the enemy; and, if so, whether this interpretation of the term has been accepted by any of the powers concerned.*

121 H. C. Deb., 5 s., 1207.

2 Sir Edward Grey took a leading part in the negotiations which resulted in the assembling of the naval conference in 1908. As Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he issued the instructions to the British delegates and was an important factor in determining the Government's policy in regard to the Declaration of London.

For the text of the Declaration see Appendix, post, p. 693.

A discussion of the Declaration had been going on since the spring of 1909. A number of articles, many of them by eminent authorities, appeared in periodicals and the newspapers contained many communications on the subject, as well as accounts of speeches made at meetings called to discuss or take issue on the question of the ratification of the Declaration. The more important of the periodical literature is noted in the bibliography of The Declaration of London, February 26, 1909, by James Brown Scott (New York, 1919), and the newspaper material may be found in such papers as The Times, London.

SIR E. GREY. The answer is in the negative, but a notification will be made as soon as His Majesty's Government announce that they are ready to ratify.

Mr. LEE. Has the right honorable gentleman any hope that by previous negotiations with foreign powers an interpretation of this term satisfactory to all concerned may be arrived at?

SIR E. GREY. So far I am not aware that anyone except in this country has expressed any doubt with regard to it. We shall notify other powers when we are in a position to announce that we are ready to ratify the Declaration, but until then we cannot say what steps will be taken,

Mr. Eyres-Monsell asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to show that the Government of the United States of America have declined to accept as authoritative the Foreign Office official translation of the Declaration of London, as published in Blue Book 4554, and have had a fresh translation made; and, if so, can he state what is the translation of the word "commercant," which appears in article 34.

SIR E. GREY. Correspondence on the subject of the translation is still going on with the United States Government, and pending its conclusion no statement can be made.

FEBRUARY 20, 1911.1

DECLARATION OF LONDON (M. RENAULT'S REPORT).

Mr. Butcher asked the Prime Minister whether the powers represented at the naval conference in London have agreed to regard the general report of the drafting committee, known as M. Renault's report, as an authoritative exposition of the meaning of the Declaration of London which would be binding on the international prize court when established; and, if so, whether there is any written record of such agreement.

Mr. MCKINNON WOOD. It is the well-recognized practice of international conferences to entrust to a special committee the drafting of a general act, and of any conventions to be adopted and signed by the plenipotentiaries. Where the report, in which the drafting committee submits to the conference the result of its labors, contains a reasoned commentary elucidating the provisions of such conventions, it becomes, if formally accepted by the conference, an authoritative interpretation of the instruments, and the conventions must thereafter be construed by the signatory powers with reference to the commentary where necessary. The general report of the drafting com

121 H. C. Deb., 5. s.. 1704.