§ Mr. POLLOCKasked whether any further effort has been made since the statement made to the House of Commons on 7th May, 1874 (Hansard, Vol. 218, col. 1839), to carry out the stipulation contained in the sixth article of the Treaty of Washington, 1871, to bring to the knowledge of other maritime Powers and to invite them to accede to the three rules contained in the said article?
§ Sir E. GREYThe answer is in the negative, and the reasons were given in the Blue Book, United States, No. 2, 1897.
§ Mr. POLLOCKasked whether the three rules contained in the sixth article of the Treaty of Washington, 1871, as to the duty of a neutral government are still binding upon this country and the United States of America; and whether the Government of His Majesty and the Government of the United States have yet reached an agreement as to the interpretation to be placed upon these three rules?
§ Sir E. GREYThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I must again refer to the Blue Book, United States, No. 2, 1897. The Convention signed at The Hague in 1907 for regulating the duty of neutrals in time of maritime war will, when ratified, practically supersede these rules. The United States have ratified this Convention, and it will be ratified by His Majesty the King as soon as the necessary legislation has been passed by Parliament. It is therefore not worth while to raise further discussion concerning the rules, nor is it probable that the United States Government would desire it.
§ Mr. POLLOCKHas it been agreed between the United States Government and the Government of His Majesty that these rules at present binding upon them as neutrals shall be abrogated?
§ Sir E. GREYNo, it has not been agreed, and the position is that the United States Government have ratified the Convention, and we have not yet ratified it, but intend to do so. After we have ratified it I think there certainly ought to be an exchange of views between ourselves and the United States Government as to whether the rules are abrogated altogether or not, but at the present moment I think the United States Government having ratified, and we having 587 declared our intention to ratify, the United States Government will certainly say after we have both ratified will be the time for an exchange of views.
§ Mr. POLLOCKasked whether His Majesty's Government intend to invite other maritime Powers, or such of them as have not already done so, to accede to these rules coincidently with the Declaration of London?
§ Sir E. GREYThe matter is not allied to the Declaration of London, and the answer, as will appear from my reply to the previous question, is in the negative.
§ Mr. POLLOCKWill the right hon. Baronet take steps to secure that a definitive translation of the Declaration of London is prepared in order to avoid the difficulty which he admits arose on the matter of the construction of the three rules which appeared in the Treaty of Washington?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat hardly seems to arise out of the question on the Paper.
§ Earl WINTERTONDoes the right hon. Baronet's answer include the Government of His Majesty the Mikado of Japan?
§ Sir E. GREYThere has been nothing to bring Japan into the question.
§ Earl WINTERTONIs it not the fact that the right hon. Baronet answered that the other maritime Powers had not acceded to these rules? Does that include the Government of Japan?
§ Sir E. GREYThese are rules dating back to 1871 exchanged between ourselves and the United States. They never existed between ourselves and any other Power except the United States.