HC Deb 06 August 1888 vol 329 cc1708-10
MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in a despatch dated February 2 last, the Chilian Government, in reply to written representations made by Mr. Fraser, Her Majesty's Minister resident in Chili, declared that the Government of Chili— Would limit itself, so far as the creditors of Peru are concerned, to faithfully carrying out the Treaty of Peace of October 20, 1883; whether, on February 28 last, Sir Julian Pauncefote addressed a letter to Mr. P. Nickalls, a jobber on the Stock Exchange, to the effect that a telegram had been received from Her Majesty's Minister in Chili reporting that, if the opposition to the Chilian Loan was withdrawn, the Chilian Government will negotiate at once for a settlement of the difficulties arising out of the recent contract between the Committee of Peruvian Bondholders and the Government of Peru, known as the Grace Contract, and, later, as to the other matters in difference in relation to their claims; whether Mr. Fraser was again instructed by the Foreign Office to obtain the withdrawal by the Government of Chili of its objections to certain clauses of the Grace Contract, which the Chilian Government contended were in conflict with the Treaty of Peace between Chili and Peru of October 20, 1883, and, in consequence of Mr. Fraser's appeal, a Protocol was signed in Santiago by Mr. Fraser and Senor Matte, the Chilian Minister for Foreign Affairs, on April 11 last, and whether in the said Protocol it was expressed that Chili required that the Treaty of Peace with Peru be maintained in its integrity; whether Her Majesty's Government has information that the President of Chili, in his Message to Congress, dated June 1 last, stated, with reference to the claims of Peruvian creditors against Chili— That the Representative of Her Britannic Majesty in Chili had put forward a request, and this request decided the Chilian Government to give its final answer on this matter in the despatch of February 2 last; and, whether, in view of this ultimatum, and in view of the serious consequences to British subjects and their interests which will follow any misunderstanding with this friendly Power, Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House all correspondence and documents relating to the matters in question?

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.)

The statements referred to in the first three paragraphs of the Question are correct. No copy of the President's Message to Congress has yet reached Her Majesty's Government. There is nothing in the Chilian Note of February 2 to indicate that it was final in its character; and, as a fact, further communications have recently been taking place with the Chilian Government on the subject. In reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter) on the 15th of June, he was told that the proposals made by Chili being confidential, they could not be laid on the Table.

MR. LABOUCHERE

inquired, when the Foreign Office would receive the text of the address of the President of Chili?

Sir JAMES FERGUSSON

replied, that sometimes the newspapers received earlier information by telegraph than did the Foreign Office.

MR. LABOUCHERE

would point out that this address of the President of Chili was delivered on June 1, and that it could come by post. Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last paragraph of his Question?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, that the hon. Member knew that it was unusual, and would be inconvenient, to lay correspondence upon the Table while the negotiations were going on—and they were going on.

MR. LABOUCHERE

asked if, when the address was received, it should appear that the President's decision was final, the negotiations would still go on?

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said, the question had passed through many phases, and it had entered upon a new phase since the address was delivered.