CO885-(16-18) — Page 734

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

חוז!

Reference :-

C.O.885

18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

Thirteenth Day.

8 May 1907.

NAVAL DEFENCE.

TREATY QUESTION.

46

Lord TWEEDMOUTII: That we shall be glad to give. Dr. Smartt spoke about the Naval dock at Simonstown the other day, and the matter was referred to the Hydrographer. I have not got his report yet, but I will get it.

Dr. SMARTT: So long as I know you are really considering the matter I am satisfied, because it is a matter of considerable importance to the Cape, and to the Empire.

Lord TWEEDMOUTH; Yes, it has been referred to the Hydrographer for report already. I do not think I have anything else to add. I do not We must have the answers from the think we can pass a resolution now. various Parliaments before we can come to a definite conclusion.

CHAIRMAN: I find that at the last Conference there was no definite resolution on the subject, but only discussions on proposals put forward, which were taken for consideration, and that is our position now.

Dr. SMARTT: I should think perhaps, if you would not mind letting that wait over until the Conference is again up to its full strength, the Con- ference may be able to affirm the advisability of the various Dependencies of the Empire recognising their obligations, and insisting on doing anything they can to assist the Navy. If we do not close it now it can be put in some form before the Conference. The Admiralty might draft a resolution of that

character.

Mr. F. R. MOOR: Apart from what the Conference say to-day, Natal and the Cape will be quite satisfied to have that short Memorandum from the Admiralty, so that we can lay these views of the Admiralty before our Parliaments.

CHAIRMAN: Yes.

After an adjournment.

TREATY QUESTION.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it might shorten proceedings if just before Mr. Deakin resumes, I said a word about the treaty resolutions. I understand from the Foreign Office that they are perfectly willing to do their best to get rid of these treaty obligations, but that a resolution is the very thing that will make it difficult. Supposing you approach Italy or Austria, and say to them, "We want to get rid of, to alter, or to modify, your treaty,' they will say "Oh, you want to modify the treaty, do you, in order to exclude "Austrian ships or Italian ships from the Canadian or the Australian "traffic?" Of course they will not agree, but I think if I might make the suggestion, that that undertaking from the Foreign Office would really meet Mr. Deakin's point, and if it is necessary to have a resolution—

Mr. DEAKIN: This is not a resolution; I put this in the form of a request, and do not move any resolution We simply request you to take the necessary steps for the revision of any commercial treaties which prevent this preferential treatment, and also suggest you should remove everything from the treaties which it is not obligatory upon you to grant. Why should you tie your hands in any way?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: In future you may depend upon it that nothing of the sort will be done. There are one or two so small as to be ridiculous, but which are very ticklish, Morocco, for instance.

47.

Mr. DEAKIN: Because of the French?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Because of the French and of the Germans. Whatever we attempted to do in Morocco, the Germans would at once say: "Hallo, what is this? It is some little move in the game against us.' Therefore you must not touch Morocco at the present moment.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Of all moments.

Mr. DEAKIN : It is too expensive.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is so; that is the real difficulty, but with the object Mr. Deakin has in view.

Mr. DEAKIN We are agreed.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We agree we ought to get rid of them but we must get rid of them gradually. The small treaties, except as I said, Morocco, we can get rid of so Sir Edward Grey states-pretty quickly. But you must approach Russia a little carefully; it is a more difficult problem for purely other reasons. If Mr. Deakin is satisfied-

Mr. DEAKIN : I am satisfied to put the request, that is all, and do not need to develop the argument; in fact, what I proposed to do was to say quite incidentally that I have several times passed by the question whether as to the treaties which were adhered to by one or more, any number less than all of the States of Australia, or even by all the States of Australia as such, they really can now be held obligatory. This I take it is a question of legal interest only and one which would attract a comparatively small number of lawyers; but I think the simplest way would be, instead of detaining the Conference, that I should hand in the opinions which include one by myself when Attorney-General in 1902. I will have copies of these made and sent in. At that time the question came up in a general form, and on reference to the English and American text writers, it seemed to be doubtful whether under the circumstances there had not been such a change in our condition by the establishment of the Commonwealth as would render State treaties nugatory.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What is the date of your Opinion?

Mr. DEAKIN : The Opinion of mine was given in January 1902. I was then considering the treaty between Great Britain and Japan, to which

last When the question came up year, the present Queensland had accoded. Attorney-General, at my request, went into the question further. He con- sidered the treaties which existed which made no special reference to the Colonies at all, or with the proviso that they do not apply unless adhesion is notified, to which some have adhered; next the treaties with a similar proviso to which all have adhered; and next treaties made since the establishment of the Commonwealth to which adhesion had been given. About these there is He again no doubt but for the purpose of symmetry he included them. reviewed the authorities and looked up a few others. In the course of his Opinion he has arrived at the conclusion that there is grave doubt as to whether those treaties under such precedents as we can find, can be held to be binding upon the Commonwealth as a Commonwealth.

The question seems of theoretical rather than practical interest at the present time, but as it has been raised and as there is now leisure to examine

Thirteenth Day.

8 May 1907.

TREATY QUESTION.