§ QUESTIONS.
§ MR. CORRANCESir, I wish to be allowed to make a preliminary statement in putting my Question, without being obliged to move the Adjournment of the House. ["Order!"] Then I will move that the House adjourn, and I think the circumstances justify me in asking the indulgence of the House. I owe an apology to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government for having on a previous occasion put a Question of considerable importance without Notice. The position of the Prime Minister demands our utmost forbearance not only on account of the circumstances of the time, but of the situation which he holds in this House, and I should be the last to show any acrimony towards him, or trouble him with Questions except from a feeling of patriotism. On Monday last we received from him an intimation that parts of the Treaty of Washington might be proceeded with irrespective of other parts, and that he confirmed in his answer to the first part of the Question which I addressed to him yesterday. In that Question I introduced the San Juan subject simply as a test, for clearly, if that can go on to arbitration, so can other questions connected with the Treaty. I believe there are reasons why the San Juan question should be pressed to an immediate settlement, and I see nothing to prevent it. With regard, however, to questions connected with Canada there may be difficulties, and therefore I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making clear the answer he gave me on a former occasion. The Treaty was framed, as I imagine, with all its obligations and concessions, as a whole, and great concessions were made by Canada; and if necessary—which I do not imagine it is—I could produce documentary evidence to prove that those concessions were exacted from her by the Government for the sake of Imperial considerations, Canada surrendering important rights and privileges. Now, in the present state of the case those Imperial interests are likely to disappear, and Canada may 1739 be bound, nevertheless, by the concessions on record against her. That is not satisfactory, and unless I obtain a satisfactory answer I shall move on a future occasion—"That it is not in the interest of this kingdom or its dependencies in North America that any reference should be made or arbitration effected on the basis laid down in the Treaty of Washington." I now wish to ask, Whether, in pursuance of the announcement of the Prime Minister that it is competent to proceed to further arbitration upon all points unconnected with the Alabama question, it is his intention to submit to further reference any question or claims having regard to Canadian interests in respect to Fisheries or losses from Fenian invasion? In conclusion, I beg to move the Adjournment of the House.
§ MR. J. LOWTHERseconded the Motion.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Corrance.)
MR. GLADSTONEI am, Sir, unable to see the connection between the hon, Gentleman's Question and the preliminary statement with which he thought necessary to introduce it. The only notice which I need take of his statement is to enter my respectful protest against the assertion that assent to the Treaty of Washington was exacted from the Dominion of Canada by Her Majesty's Government. They have not the power—nor, if they had the power, would they have the will—to exact anything whatever from Canada, which they have recognized throughout as perfectly competent and entitled to judge for itself on any question affecting it. With regard to the Question, the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, through my fault, has misapprehended an opinion given by me which I thought yesterday I had sufficiently guarded against misunderstanding. I have not announced, without limitation, that it is competent to proceed to arbitration on all points unconnected with the Alabama question. I have not said, without limitation, that certain parts of the Treaty may proceed irrespective of other parts of it. What I have said is that, as far as we are informed, the adjournment at Geneva, which would arrest for the period of the adjournment all proceedings with regard 1740 to that portion of the provisions of the Treaty that is to take effect at Geneva, would not of itself in our view hinder the progress of other proceedings connected with the Treaty. As to the larger and more general question whether, as has been said, the Treaty is built in separate watertight compartments, so that the leaking or total failure of one does not affect the others, or whether the parts of it are like the wheels of a four-wheeled railway carriage, where when one comes to grief the others are sure to follow—that is a matter upon which I do not think any present necessity has arisen for my presuming to give an opinion on the part of the Government. I am bound, however, to say, after the misapprehension which has prevailed, that the Government must not be understood to have made or given countenance to any assertion that they can ensure the preservation of any portion of the Treaty, in case that portion of it which is to be prosecuted at Geneva should fall to the ground. As to the operative part of the Question, whether it is our intention to submit to further reference any question or claims having regard to Canadian interests as to the Fisheries or losses from Fenian invasion, what I would say is, that the question of the losses from Fenian raids as between ourselves and the United States, stands, like other diplomatic questions, to be dealt with according to the interests of the country, but it forms no part of any reference; and that with respect to the Fisheries, there has occurred in the natural progress of the provisions connected with that portion of the Treaty an interval. That interval is, however, totally independent of the proceedings at Geneva, and, as far as we are concerned, we have no intention of suspending any of these proceedings in consequence of an adjournment at Geneva.
VISCOUNT BURYSir, I asked the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, whether, as stated in the newspapers, Lord Granville intended to submit the arguments on which he relied to the Arbitrators at Geneva, and whether Mr. Fish had stated that any reservation of the British Claims, such as Lord Granville intended to put in, would be regarded by America as tantamount to putting an end to further negotiations? The right hon. Gentleman replied that 1741 that alluded to a state of things which had then gone by, and that Lord Granville's communication, of which I spoke, was no longer in existence. He referred, moreover, to the telegrams which appeared in the newspapers yesterday, and thereby implicitly acknowledged their substantial accuracy. On examining them, however, I found the state of things had really occurred to which the main point of my Question alluded, and that Lord Granville intended to submit to the Arbitrators some document in the nature of a reservation of British rights with regard to the Indirect Claims. My question, therefore, did not refer to a state of things which has passed away, for I understand such a notice will be regarded by America as putting an end to further negotiations. I wish, consequently, again to ask whether such a state of things has arisen, or is likely to arise? I also desire to ask whether a telegram which appears in The Daily Telegraph to-day, purporting to give in full the amendments made in the Supplemental Article by the Senate, is authentic?
§ LORD HENRY SCOTTasked, Whether, with respect to a joint application for an adjournment of the proceedings at Geneva, the American Government had refused to join in an application such as had been suggested by Lord Granville, and if not, whether Her Majesty's Government had determined to make a separate application?
§ MR. SPEAKERThere is now a Motion before the House, that this House do now adjourn, and therefore it is only by the indulgence of the House that the Prime Minister can speak again. But he can do so if it is the wish of the House that the indulgence should be granted. ["No, no!"and"Withdraw!"] This circumstance marks the inconvenience of the practice of moving the Adjournment of the House on putting Questions. If the hon. Gentleman who moved the Adjournment of the House had confined himself to putting a Question, then the Prime Minister could have answered the Questions now put by the two noble Lords without irregularity.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. GLADSTONESir, perhaps I may now answer the Questions so far as it is in my power to answer them. Witt respect to the Question of my noble Friend (Viscount Bury), I adhere strictly 1742 to the answer I gave yesterday. I do not think any advantage would arise to him or to the House in my entering into further particulars. As to the Question put by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Henry Scott), the Papers which are now about to be laid on the Table, and which will probably be in the hands of hon. Members of the House before the next day of meeting, will tell for themselves what course has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
§ LORD HENRY SCOTTsaid, he merely meant to ask a Question on a matter on which the people of this country were anxious—namely, whether a joint application for an adjournment had been agreed upon or not?
§ COLONEL BARTTELOTsaid, he wished to ask the first Lord of the Treasury, Whether the American Government having refused to address a joint Note to the Arbitrators at Geneva, to postpone their sitting for eight months, Her Majesty's Government have asked alone on behalf of England for that postponement?
MR. GLADSTONEI hope, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not think it discourteous if I repeat to him that which I have already stated. Yesterday I said that the paper which appeared in The Daily News was an abridgment of a communication from my noble Friend (Earl Granville) to the Minister of the United States; but I pointed out that it contained a negative where there was no negative in the original communication. That explanation I observed in The Daily News this morning. That being so, I think it is infinitely more satisfactory to refer to the Papers that will be immediately laid before the House than to say anything further.