§ MR. WILLIAMSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether or not he can confirm a statement, made in a circular recently issued by the Peruvian Bondholders' Committee, to the effect that the approval of Her Majesty's Government had been given to the sending of a Representative to Chili in the interest of the Bondholders; and, whether it is to be understood, by the sending of this Representative to Chili, that Diplomatic action by the Government, in regard to the claims of the Bondholders, has now ceased?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE, in reply, said, that on application being made, an ordinary letter of introduction to Her Majesty's Minister in Chili was sent to the agent of the Committee of Peruvian Bondholders. This letter contained no reference to the object of the mission; and, as stated in the letter forwarding it, only authorized Mr. 994 Pakenham to extend to Mr. Smiles the civilities offered by Representatives of Her Majesty to gentlemen travelling abroad. No approval whatever by Her Majesty's Government of the proposed mission was asked for or given. The Committee had acted entirely on their own responsibility in sending out an agent to Chili, and his mission was of a private character. He could not say that the mission of Mr. Smiles would terminate the diplomatic action of the Government, with regard to the recent Treaty, as there was no connection between the mission and diplomatic action. He had already informed the hon. Member that no action in favour of the Bondholders as such had been or would be taken by the Government, and it might be hoped that these questions would be settled by private arrangement. The Government only interfered to protest against a violation of accepted principles of international law.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERasked, whether the noble Lord was aware that he, as Chairman of the Committee of Peruvian Bondholders, called with Mr. Smiles at the Foreign Office and saw Sir Julian Pauncefote, who expressed his entire approbation of Mr. Smiles's mission, and stated how glad he was that Mr. Smiles was going out?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI am quite aware of what transpired at that interview; but I do not consider that anything justified the issuing of this circular.
§ SIR HENRY TYLERasked, whether the noble Lord was aware that the hon. Member who put the Question was a member of the firm of Balfour and Williamson, who were greatly interested in the affairs of Peru and Chili, and that the Question was prompted by private motives?
§ [No reply.]
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI have admitted nothing.
§ MR. RAIKESI understand the noble Lord to say he was perfectly aware of the interview with my hon. Friend and Sir Julian Pauncefote.
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI said I was quite aware of what passed at that interview, and that nothing that passed at that interview in any way 995 justified the issue of the circular in question.
§ MR. RAIKESasked, whether the noble Lord was not now willing to admit that the circular or the statement contained in it had been demanded after the interview?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, he would admit nothing, his answer having been clear, and, as he should have thought, satisfactory.
§ MR. RAIKESThe noble Lord was aware that this interview had taken place; and I wish to ask, whether he is not willing to withdraw his previous statement that no approbation on the part of the Foreign Office had been solicited or asked?
§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEI do not withdraw it—quite the contrary.