The Administration's deliberations on the subject produced the decision that the _U-53_ had not ignored the German pledges. It came, saw, and conquered according to formula. It had first warned the vessels, gave enough time for the people on board to be "safely" transferred to boats, and there were American naval eyewitnesses to testify as to the regularity of its proceedings. The incident passed as one on which no action could be taken by the United States. But Germany saw that it could not well be repeated. American sensibilities had to be respected as much as international proprieties. The reproof conveyed to the British Ambassador by Secretary Lansing that "the constant and menacing presence of cruisers on the high seas near the ports of a neutral country may be regarded according to the canons of international courtesy as a just ground for offense, although it may be strictly legal," applied with double force to the presence of German submarines because of their greater danger. Tart comments on the incident came from Great Britain, though its Government did not appear to have protested to the United States against the view that the _U-53's_ proceedings were lawful and regular. Lord Robert Cecil, an official spokesman, saw a ruse in the submarine's visit: "German public opinion appears to be obsessed with the idea that the way to deal with the Allied blockade is to have a succession of sudden crises with neutrals, which may be used for striking diplomatic bargains. These bargains, in the mind of Germany, always take one form--that Germany is to refrain from violating international law and humanity in return for the abandonment by Great Britain as toward neutrals of the legitimate military and naval measures of the Allies." In the House of Lords the United States was accused of a breach of neutrality by Lords Beresford and Sydenham. Referring to "the activities of the _U-53_ under the very eyes of the American navy" and to President Wilson's ultimatum which resulted in the German pledge, Lord Sydenham said: "Even before the exploits of the _U-53_ that pledge was torn to shreds. Yet the Government of the United States has made no sign whatever that the sinking of neutral ships goes on almost every day. What must small neutrals think of their powerful representative?" No life, he said, was lost because of the presence of American warships. Lord Sydenham took the position that the presence of American warships actually enabled Germany to defy what President Wilson had described as a sacred and indisputable rule of international law. Lord Beresford expressed a similar view: