§ Mr. MacNEILLasked on what grounds were the terms of the new opium trade agreement concluded with China not communicated to the House of Commons although Parliament was in Session before the ratification of that treaty; why were the representatives of the people precluded from the gratification of expressing their approval of that measure while still inchoate; what is the reason of the distinction in method of procedure between the ratification of the opium trade agreement by the Government without the taking of the people into its confidence and the proposed Anglo-American arbitration treaty on which it has been promised to take the view of the House of Commons before ratification; what are the principles which govern the communication to the people of proposed treaties with foreign Powers and the obtaining of their consent thereto as a condition precedent to ratification in some cases and the withholding from them in other cases of the knowledge of treaties till their ratification in the name of the people and consequent binding force in matters of national obligation or responsibility have been unalterably determined; and will any, and, if 1813 so, what, steps be taken to modify the present control of the Executive over foreign policy?
§ Sir E. GREYThe answer to the first question is that the agreement does not require ratification, and that even if it were otherwise it would be consistent with constitutional practice to conclude it before publication. To the second question: that if the course advocated had been followed no agreement at all might have been concluded. To publish terms while still inchoate would often lead to breaking off negotiations. To the third question: that one subject falls within the class of exceptional cases, and the other has followed the general rule. To the fourth question: that the matter is one of constitutional practice and expediency rather than of principle; and that when exceptions have been made, as in the case of the agreement ceding Heligoland to Germany, it has been for exceptional reasons peculiar to the individual case. To the fifth question: that no steps of the 'nature indicated to alter the Constitution are in contemplation.
§ Mr. MacNEILLWill the right hon. Gentleman say under what exceptional category does the Arbitration Treaty between England and the United States fall; what is the distinction with reference to this Treaty which the House is to have the opportunity of sanctioning and the other Treaty in regard to the opium trade which this House had not the opportunity of sanctioning What is the distinction?
§ Sir E. GREYThere is no exceptional category as I have said in my answer, but when exceptions are made they are for reasons peculiar to the individual case. When any individual case comes before the House I shall of course be prepared to explain why an exception has been made.
§ Mr. MacNEILLAm T to understand that the exception in this case of the British Treaty with the United States in which this House is to have the power of sanction arises from the fact that the United States Senate have the power of ratification of Treaties, whereas this other power has not, and therefore there is a distinction?
§ Sir E. GREYThere is not at present any Treaty in existence, and can be no exception. When it does occur, and if an exception is made, I shall of course be prepared to state why.