§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Second Rule in Article VI. of the Treaty of Washington is understood by Her Majesty's Government as prohibiting the use of neutral ports or waters for the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms to a belligerent, only when those acts are done for the service of a vessel cruizing or carrying on war, or intended to cruize or carry on war, against another belligerent; and not when military supplies or arms are exported for the use of a belligerent power from neutral ports or waters in the ordinary course of commerce; whether any steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to ascertain that the Rule in question is understood by the Government of the United States in the same limited sense; and, if so, with what result; and, whether it is intended, in any communications 1904 which may be addressed to Foreign Governments with a view to the general adoption of this Rule, to guard against its being accepted or understood in any larger sense?
MR. GLADSTONEWith reference, Sir, to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I perceive that it has been framed with great care, and having considered our reply with equal care, while avoiding entering into any of the details of the Question, I am in a position to answer this part of the hon. and learned Member's Question in the affirmative. In answer to the second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I may state that we have had an opportunity of communicating with Lord De Grey, with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and with Mr. Bernard on the subject, who have all of them given us the fullest assurance that the understanding referred to in the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question is that of the United States in reference to this matter, and, further, that it has been in our power to communicate with the distinguished gentleman who has arrived in this country as the representative of the United States, who was a member of the Joint High Commission—General Schenck—who has informed Her Majesty's Government that such was his understanding also of the meaning of the Rule in question; and, indeed, we have been told by that gentleman that the President of the United States himself understands the Rule in that sense, and that the latter would himself be the first not only to admit and allow, but to contend for that construction of the Rule in question. With regard to the third part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question, I am able to state that Mr. Fish, the United States Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who was also one of the Commissioners, has expressed an opinion that it would be advantageous if the two Governments were to make a joint declaration which should place the meaning of this Rule beyond all chance of misconstruction. I believe that communications have been entered into between some of the British Commissioners and some of the United States Commissioners and other distinguished authorities in America on the subject, and that they also have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to 1905 entertain the slightest doubt but that the meaning to be attached to the terms of the Treaty is that which the contracting parties themselves attach to them.