to the one as the enfant gâté of the House and the other as its enfant terrible. At Sir E. Sassoon's dinner to a party of the French parliamentarians, Sir Henry handed me to read a letter in perfect French from Lord Burghclere, congratulating him on his speech. There are hundreds of well-known Englishmen who speak French fluently, but I never heard any of my countrymen, except perhaps Lord Reay, show such a mastery over the finesses of the language as Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.

At length in October of the same year the Treaty of Arbitration between Great Britain and France was signed and the first step in a new period in the history of Anglo-French relations was taken.

In the beginning of the month I knew the treaty was coming, and left London as a member of the Mosely Educational Commission to spend the autumn in the United States. The news of its signature had preceded me to New York, and it was on the landing stage from reporters who were waiting to interview me on the subject on my arrival that I learnt the expected and none the less happy tidings.

CHAPTER XX

THE ACHIEVEMENT

A WEEK after Mr. Beckett's question in the House of Commons began the negotiations for the AngloFrench standing Treaty of Arbitration which was the official beginning of the end of Anglo-French hostile rivalry.

Meanwhile, concurrent negotiations were commenced for the purpose of settling all outstanding points of difference. The demand for an Arbitration Treaty presupposed a settlement of existing difficulties, and there were many and very delicate difficulties to be solved. Arbitration necessarily involves judicial methods, and a solution in accordance with contractual obligations, if any, or, if none, with principles of justice acknowledged and accepted by both parties. The continuance of the British. occupation of Egypt was dictated by an overwhelming British interest. There are no principles of justice under which our overwhelming interest could be taken into consideration as against our contractual obligations resulting from Treaties1 and deliberate promises of evacuation publicly given and repeated by British statesmen. Nor in the case of Morocco had

either party any party any locus standi to submit their respective claims in an independent State to arbitration. Nor, again, are there any principles of justice by which

1 Treaties of 1856 and 1878. See my book on The Turco-Italian War and its Problems," Chap. VII., for a full discussion of Egypt's political status.

arbitrators could decide as between the commercial interests of the one and the geographical position of the other. The New Hebrides question involved on the British side the reserving of the Australian claim to a prior right over the islands of Australasia,an Australian Monroe doctrine, which is as reasonable as that of the United States and as little accountable to any existing principles. In the Newfoundland fisheries matter, only a subsidiary question of interpretation of a clause in the existing Treaty was susceptible of submission to arbitration. The main question involved the very existence of the French rights, rights which were derived from a Treaty which could only be reversed by the conclusion of a cancelling Treaty.

There were other questions relating to Siam, Tunis, Madagascar, and the Niger. All were questions based rather on policy than on assessable or definable rights, and, however desirable it is that arbitration should extend to all international difficulties without distinction, no principles have yet been devised by which such difficulties can be submitted by both contending parties to an impartial referee. For this reason I had proposed the adoption of the principles of the AngloAmerican Treaty of "conciliation" of 1896, which would have enabled the parties to submit differences of the kind in question to a joint commission without an alien umpire. The alternative was to deal with all the then existing differences by negotiation and agreements, and provide arbitration for differences of interpretation of the agreements and any further matters of a judicial character, i.e., such matters as, when arising between citizens of the same country, would be within the scope of a national court of law.

The latter alternative was the course adopted by the two Governments, and accordingly on May 20, 1903, M. Paul Cambon, the French Ambassador, wrote to M. Delcassé as follows:

"Guiding myself by the information your Excellency was good enough to give me verbally, I have asked Lord Lansdowne to tell me how he feels towards the campaign for arbitration among the British Chambers of Commerce. The opportunity of an interview of this sort was offered by a question put on this subject to Mr. Balfour on the 11th inst., and his answer, though he confined himself to generalities which made it difficult to infer any adhesion to the scheme of a permanent Treaty of Arbitration, did not discourage the hopes of the supporters of the scheme.

"Lord Lansdowne stated that a Government could not be asked absolutely to tie its hands, and that, according to their nature or importance, some questions must be kept outside the scope of arbitration; that, on the other hand, the movement in favour of a permanent Treaty was so general that the Government could not do otherwise than earnestly take it into consideration.

"I told him your Excellency shared this view and had already drawn up a formula, and repeated the words you had yourself used at our last conversation.

"We could submit,' you said, ' to arbitration divergencies referring to the juridical interpretation of conventions existing between the two countries.'

"Lord Lansdowne seemed impressed by this formula, which he thought might serve as a satisfactory basis for an understanding."

While the details of a general settlement were being discussed, from time to time the negotiations for the Arbitration Treaty were resumed. Thus two months later (July 16, 1903) M. Delcassé wrote to M. Paul Cambon :

"By a letter dated 20th May last, you reported an interview which you had had with the Principal Secretary of State on the subject of a permanent Treaty of Arbitration between France and Great Britain.

"Since then, this question has constantly been agitated

on both sides of the Channel. Numerous addresses have reached me in which an understanding of this sort is urged either by chambers of commerce or by individuals.

"This movement of opinion being no less marked in England than in France, I should attach some value to knowing what the King's Minister for Foreign Affairs precisely thinks. I should, therefore, be obliged to you if you would take the first opportunity of conferring again on the subject with Lord Lansdowne.

"I think it useful to communicate to you the enclosed copy of a form which has already been approved by the cabinet and which seems capable of serving as a basis for the negotiations which might be entered into with the King's Government.”

The enclosure was as follows:

"Differences falling within the scope of article 16 of the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Conflicts, signed at the Hague on the 29th July, 1899, that is to say, differences of a juridical order, and particularly those relative to difficulties of interpretation or application of existing Conventions, which may arise between the High Contracting Powers, shall-provided, however, that they affect neither the vital interests nor the honour of the said Contracting Powers, and that, on the other hand, they cannot be solved through the diplomatic channel-be submitted to the permanent Court of Arbitration, in conformity with the provisions of the above-mentioned Convention."

A few weeks again passed, and then M. Cambon wrote on August 6 to M. Delcassé :

"Carrying out your instructions, I yesterday told the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that you were quite ready to discuss with him a draft Convention of Arbitration between the two countries. I handed him the formula which you had requested me to communicate to him officially and which appeared to him worthy of careful consideration. He will submit it to his colleagues, and his personal opinion is that in restricting, as you do, arbitration to differences of a juridical order and to difficulties of interpretation of existing conventions, it is possible to reach some practical understanding."

Some six weeks passed; then M. Delcassé wrote to