§ 59. Sir LESLIE SCOTTasked the Prime Minister on what day and, approximately, at what hour the two recent so-called Russian Treaties were signed and sealed?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn a point of Order. May I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that this question and the following one contain the adjective "so-called," as I have always understood that such adjectives were not permitted in a question, especially when they contain an innuendo, as I think you will agree is the case in this use of the word?
§ Mr. SPEAKERMy attention had not been drawn to those words. I understand, however, that there is some question as to whether certain documents which have already been presented to the House are draft treaties or signed treaties, and that, I suppose, is the reason for the use of the words here.
§ Mr. PONSONBYThe two treaties were signed and sealed shortly after 6 p.m. on the 8th August.
§ Sir L. SCOTTWas it an incorrect statement, then, when the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said to the House, on the 6th August—
There is a commercial treaty, which is a separate document, and there is a general treaty, which has also been agreed upon.Is that incorrect?
§ Mr. PONSONBYNot at all.
§ 60. Sir L. SCOTTasked the Prime Minister what was the form and content of the full powers found in due and good form according to the recitals of the so-called Russian Treaties, in virtue of which the British signatures were attached; particularly whether the said powers were under the sign manual of the King; and, if they were, under what law of the Constitution, and/or precedents of diplomatic usage, as recently stated by him, the said treaties were made in the name of Great Britain and Northern Ireland instead of His Majesty the King, and, conversely, if the said powers were not under the sign manual, under what rule of constitutional law the British signatories had any right to sign?
§ Mr. PONSONBYThe British signatories signed in virtue of full powers given under the sign manual in the usual form. There are numerous precedents for omitting the name of the Sovereign in international engagements concluded under full powers and requiring ratification. I might mention the Convention between Great Britain and France regarding Tunis of the 18th September, 1897; the Convention between Great Britain and Germany for the settlement of the Samoan question of the 14th November, 1899: and the Treaty between the principal Allied and Associated Powers and Poland, Rumania, and other States, relative to the frontiers of those States, signed on the 10th August, 1920. The last part of the question does not arise.
§ Sir L. SCOTTMay I ask why those precedents were followed in this case?
§ Mr. PONSONBYI do not see that there is any reason in this case why those precedents should not have been followed more especially as in this case it was more convenient to make it between the Governments, because in the Soviet Union there is no individual head of the State.
§ Sir L. SCOTTAccording to the Constitution of this country, is not the King the treaty-making power, and is it not the ordinary practice, in making a treaty, that the treaty should be made in the name of the King?
§ Mr. PONSONBYI have already explained to the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are many instances in which treaties are not made in the name of the Sovereign.
§ Lord EUSTACE PERCYIs it not the fact that His Majesty has frequently signed treaties with the Swiss Federation, with the United States and with many Republics, in which the name of the head of the State has not been mentioned?
§ Mr. SULLIVANIs it a good thing for hon. Members opposite to bring the King into the Debate here?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is with regard to a matter of procedure.
§ 61. Sir L. SCOTTasked the Prime Minister why, in the Command Papers 2215 and 2216, the Russian Treaties were described as drafts of proposed treaties; and whether the Russian signatories were informed before signature that the documents were treaties or that they were drafts of proposed treaties?
§ Mr. PONSONBYThe documents issued on the 7th August as Command Papers Nos. 2215 and 2216 are described as drafts of proposed treaties, because they were in fact on that date drafts only and not signed treaties, as was explained to the House at the time. The documents became actual treaties when signed on the following day. The signed treaties have been laid as Command Papers Nos. 2260 and 2261.