§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Convention recently concluded between Great Britain and France has to be submitted for final ratification, so far as France is concerned, to the French Chamber; and, if so, whether similar opportunities of discussion will be afforded to the House of Commons at an early date.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.I understand that, according to the French constitutional usage, the Agreement between Great Britain and France must be submitted to their Chamber before final atification. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, that is not the constitutional practice in this country. But I think it is most desirable that there should be a discussion in this House on the subject. In any case a Bill will have to be brought in dealing with portions of the Agreement, because, as no doubt hon. Members are aware, there can be no cession of any territory of His Majesty without the consent of Parliament.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONDoes the treaty not expressly stipulate that it shall be subject to ratification by both Parliaments?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWhether it is stipulated or not, there are certain portions of this treaty which require the assent of Parliament.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANWill the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, relating to parts of the subject, give an opportunity to the House of discussing the whole subject?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUROn that, of course, it is not for me to offer an opinion. I may say I am very desirous that it should be so. So far as I am concerned, I should think it most desirable, in the general interests of Parliamentary business, that we should have one discussion, and that an adequate discussion. If that discussion can be taken on the Second Reading of the Bill, I think it would be a very convenient course from every point of view.
§ MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSECan arrangements be made so that the discussion will take place simultaneously with the discussion in the French Chamber.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am afraid I cannot give any pledge. The French Chamber does not reassemble for some time, and I think we had better keep our proceedings independent of the French Chamber, though I should be glad if the two discussions were as nearly simultaneous as possible.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESWill it be possible to discuss on the Bill two very important declarations in the treaty affecting other matters?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat is a Question which should be addressed to Mr. Speaker and not to me. I do not imagine, with all deference to the Chair, that it would be possible for Mr. Speaker to give any opinion until the Bill is before the House. The Bill is being prepared. As these negotiations, although relating to different subjects, are a single great transaction, I think it would be fitting that an opportunity should be taken of discussing the whole subject, and that we should not deal with it piecemeal.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury did His Majesty's Government consult the Government of Morocco before agreeing to the declaration of 8th April, 1904, recognising a right in France to keep watch over the tranquillity of that country, and declaring that the Governments of France and England will not permit the erection of any fortifications or of any strategic works whatever on certain parts of the Moroccan coast; have they had any communication with the Spanish Government regarding the Spanish interests involved, and when will Papers be laid upon the Table of this House containing correspondence that has passed on the subject with the Governments of France, Morocco, and Spain respectively; does the prohibition of any strategic works whatever include a prohibition of the construction either at Tangier or elsewhere on the Moroccan coast of harbours suitable for the accommodation of men-of-war or of destroyers.
§ MR. A.J. BALFOURThe Government of Morocco was not consulted. In regard to the second Question of my hon. friend His Majesty's Government have been in communication with the Spanish Government. I am not aware that there is anything in these communications which can with advantage be made public. As regards strategic works on the Moroccan coast, my hon. friend is, of course, aware that if a harbour is built which will accommodate merchant ships it is impossible to prevent ships of war from making use of that accommodation.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESDoes the arrangement which prevents the erection of any strategic works include harbours.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is held to include military harbours.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANMy hon. friend asked a Question with regard to the condition of the treaty that its terms should be approved by the respective Parliaments of the two countries. I find that these words exist in the preamble to the Convention:—"That the plenipotentiaries…have 210 agreed as follows, subject to the approval of their respective Parliaments."
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURYes, Sir. I do not think there need be any misunderstanding on the point. There are portions of the treaty relating to the cession of territory which require the assent of Parliament, and there are also provisions in the treaty which require the voting of money by Parliament. Parliament must be consulted on both those points. But on other parts of the treaty Parliament need not be consulted, though I think it is desirable that the House should have an opportunity of discussing so great an international instrument.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESI beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how it is proposed to provide for the payment by His Majesty's Government of the indemnity stipulated by the Convention with France of 8th April. 1904, to be paid to French citizens; will the Convention providing for that payment, and for certain French rights on the coast of Newfoundland, be submitted in any, and, if so, in what manner to the approval of the Colony of Newfoundland; and in what manner will it be submitted to the approval of this House.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURAs I think I have already indicated, the indemnity will be paid by this country, and of course an Estimate will have to be presented for that payment. The Newfoundland Government need not be consulted with regard to that payment, as they will not share in it. They will have to be con-suited as to the regulations which will have to be put in force upon what was known as the treaty shore. I think I have already answered the last part of the Question.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI am not sure. I should think that the matter could be dealt with by an ordinary Estimate.