HC Deb 15 December 1902 vol 116 cc1262-87

(Stirling Burghs): Oh, no.

*LORD CRANBORNE

Then I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. But, at any rate, the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Manchester argued the case as an advocate for the Venezuelan Government. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] He certainly did not argue it as the advocate of the British Government—I did not expect that; but he was not even judicial or impartial. What he did was to endeavour to paint the attitude of this Country as black as he could, to show that in every particular we had strained every point against the Venezuelan Government and to convict us of oppressive action, a suggestion which I believe the hon. Gentleman in his judicial moments—for I am sure the hon Gentleman has judicial moments—would feel was not justified. The real truth is that in this matter the British Government have been engaged in the performance of the necessary police duties of enforcing the laws which have to exist between all the nations of the world. They have to restore order where order is destroyed; and they have to prevent such nations as Venezuela from breaking what is an obvious law of nations. The hon. Gentleman has asked why we did not apply to the Chambers of Commerce before taking proceedings against Venezuela.

MR. SCHWANN

I said the Government might have asked the bondholders what they thought on the matter.

*LORD CRANBORNE

I will deal with the bondholders presently. Surely you would not expect a policeman to ask the permission of the neighbouring tradesmen before trying to stop an assault that was being committed in the streets? That is precisely the situation in Venezuela in which we were placed.

It has been asked what view the United States takes of the situation. I can inform the House that the United States takes the very reasonable and sensible view of the situation that was to be expected from that country. They recognise that the insistence of England that the Venezuelan Government should meet its engagements and respect the rights of British subjects is in no way an infraction of the Monroe doctrine, and they recognise that no nation in the world has been more anxious than England to assist them in maintaining that doctrine. As the House is aware, in a celebrated passage in his Message to Congress, the President announced that in insisting on a South American Republic meeting its international obligations no European Power was infringing the Monroe doctrine.

Then the hon. Members who have addressed us began to discuss the various categories of claims which we have against Venezuela, and, as far as I could make out, the hon. Member who last addressed the House thought the most important were those of the bond-holders.

MR. PHILIPPS

Oh no, decidedly not.

*LORD CRANBORNE

I can frankly tell the House that it is not the claims of the bond-holders that bulk largest in the estimation of the Government. I do not believe the Government would ever have taken the strong measures to which they have been driven if it had not been for the attacks by Venezuela upon the lives, the liberty, and the property of British subjects. The hon. Member for North Manchester seemed to speak of the bond-holders with great contempt. I do not think that was deserved. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think the bond-holder a sort of hostis humani generis, who might be attacked and despoiled at pleasure, and was not entitled to consideration. I do not in the least agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my view the bondholders have conferred very great benefits on these South America Republics, and are entitled to protection from their own country; and, if that be true of the bond-holders, it is still more true of those who have invested their money in great industrial enterprises in that part of the world.

When I hear such charges as have been made against the Government coming from the Opposition, I am astonished, because usually I have to listen to very severe strictures upon the Government for not maintaining the rights of British investors in all parts of the world. If they are discussing China, it is said what a contemptible Government we are, and that we do not do what foreign Governments do to protect the rights of their people, but now that the Government have found it necessary to vindicate British interests in South America, and because it is the present Government who have so acted, the complaint is no longer that we do not maintain British interests, but that we maintain them much too vigorously. As I have said, in our view by far the most important matter is the attacks on British subjects. The hon. Member for North Manchester said that several of these attacks had to do with Patos Island. Our position in Patos Island is a very strong one. That island was a part of the Government of Trinidad when Trinidad was ceded to Great Britain. I think I am not wrong in saying that our sovereignty was exercised over it for fifty years without question, and it was only in 1859 that any question of our right in that island was even mooted. But the charges made against the Venezuelan Government, even in the instance named by the hon. Member, do not depend on our title to Patos Island. Even if it belonged to the Venezuelan Government, the action they have taken is wholly unjustifiable. Take the first case on the list. On the morning of 22nd January, the Venezuelan gunboat "Augusto" appeared off the island, and summoned the people who had landed from a British vessel to come on board the "Augusto." This demand not being complied with, a force of some twenty armed Venezuelans was landed, and proceeded to remove the boats and collect their cargoes. About half the passengers and crews of the trading boats were removed on board the "Augusto," the remainder taking refuge in the woods, where they were left without food, water, or means of leaving the island. Suppose that had occurred even on Venezuelan territory, what possible defence could there be for treating a British ship in that way? The hon. Gentleman said that the position of Patos Island was very like that of Gibraltar, and that, just as the Venezuelans might find fault with what was done on Patos Island, we, on the Rock of Gibraltar, might find fault with what was done on the opposite coast. But what would be said of us if we treated a Spanish ship at Gibraltar in the way the Venezuelans treated these vessels?

MR. SCHWANN

Three of the boats were Venezuelan.

*LORD CRANBORNE

That makes very little difference. one boat was a British boat with a posse of British subjects. But that is not the only case, or the strongest case. There is the case of the "In Time." The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that he would make me a present of that case. Such a present from the advocate of the other side must be a very valuable one, and one for which I am much obliged to him. It appears that a Venezuelan gunboat arrived in the harbour of Pedernales and "orders were given to seize all craft in port, and this was done. No provocation or justification of this order has been assigned." One of the vessels was the "In Time," and she was fired on by the gunboat and an armed party boarded her and broke her up. Then there was the case of the "British Queen." She was not only a British vessel, but she was attacked on the high seas and overhauled. She was seized, taken into a Venezuelan port, stripped of her sails and papers, and finally confiscated on a mere suspicion of having carried a cargo of arms to Venezuela, the crew being put on shore and left destitute.

MR. SCHWANN

I said that that was a very high-handed proceeding.

*LORD CRANBORNE

I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

MR. SCHWANN

We have no information other than is contained in this book. I have not been to La Guaira, and I think it is rather unfair to treat the matter in the spirit adopted by the noble Lord.

*LORD CRANBORNE

If the hon. Gentleman thinks what we said is not true, that is going a long way even for the advocate on the other side. I will not go into the last, and, perhaps, the worst case of all, that of the ship "Racer," but if the hon. Member refers to it, he will find that that was a particularly pathetic case, because she had been struck by the act of God. She was dismasted, and, taking refuge in the nearest port, she was boarded as she approached by a body of armed men, who pillaged her and robbed the crew of everything they possessed. That was pretty bad, but as she was in port it was thought the authorities would do their best to protect her, and avenge the wrong that had been committed. Not a bit of it. They at once confiscated her by the advice and under the eyes of the Venezuelan Government. These things are, of course, cumulative. It is not one case or two cases. There are six or seven cases of attacks on British ships and British subjects, which make it absolutely necessary that the British Government should intervene. With every regard for the Venezuelan Government, we gave her not one summons, or two, but we gave her three summonses, in the hope that she would yield to our importunity and at last do us justice; but, in the first, second, and third case, she has refused to do anything to meet us and to do us justice, and under these circumstances we were absolutely driven to take the strong course which we have done. Even as it is we desire to pursue the same course of moderation which has dictated our action all through, and though the seizure of the gunboats which has now been accomplished wil, unless the Venezuelan Government yields, be sueceeded by a blockade of the whole coast, yet we hope and intend that blockade should be carried out with every regard to the interests and rights of neutrals, and, as far as possible, with every regard and consideration that is possible even to the interests of Venezuela. Less than that we could not have done. We fully recognise that the Venezuelan Government is not so highly developed as our own. We fully realise that and we are fully aware of the position which we are fortunate enough to occupy in the world. Therefore, we are bound to act with regard to the rights of others, and I venture to say that if the present Government, or any other Government, had not gone so far as we have done in maintaining and avenging the rights of British subjects we should have been justly exposed to the criticism and condemnation which this House would not have been slow to inflict upon us.

(10.23.) SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNER-MAN

The noble Lord ended just where we should have wished him to begin. My hon. friend has moved the adjournment on this occasion in order that the House of Commons and the country may really understand what are the causes of the present situation of affairs with regard to Venezuela, and also what are the intentions and prospects of the Government in carrying out the policy they have entered upon. The noble Lord has said some extraordinary things, and he has assumed for this country duties in the world which, I am afraid, are even too much for the strength and resources which this great country can usefully employ, because he says he has thrown his aegis over all the bond-holders.

*LORD CRANBORNE

I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I do not prejudge the rights of every bondholder in what he puts forward. On the contrary, if the right hon. Gentleman will look at page 11 of the correspondence, he will see that the Government proposed that on the submission of the Venezuelan Government, and after payment of the claims in the first category, they would then consent to the heavier claims being referred to a small Mixed Commission, and he will see further on that there is to be a Venezuelan member of the Commission, and that, if that Member can show that any claim is unfounded or excessive, effect will be given to the finding.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

That does not include all the bondholders, but the noble Lord went far beyond the longitude and latitude of Venezuela. He spoke of the bondholders of the whole world, and he spoke of our police duties in restoring order. ["No, no."] He was full of contempt, as you might expect from that sort of spirit which is not infrequently exhibited by the present Government, for my hon. friend the Member for North Manchester. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] I recognise the politeness, the courtesy, of that cheer, so admirable an illustration of the good manners which always characterise the House of Commons. My hon. friend suggested that before taking violent steps in Venezuela, as there was a great body of trade with Venezuela in this country, it would have been well to consult—and he wished to know whether such consultation had taken place—such bodies as the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, who surely know something about it, and who would be able to tell the Government whether on the whole they thought that more advantage would have been gained to the trade of the country by taking strong measures or by reliance on other courses. [MINISTERIAL interruptions.] Again I notice the courtesy and good feeling which prevails. The noble Lord's view is that when a policeman is engaged in preventing breaches of order and punishishing assaults he is not going to consult the tradesmen in the neighbourhood. The vulgar tradesman—["Oh"]—really he ought not to interfere with a sublime mission of one who has to exercise his authority in the way of police. That is not the tone or spirit in which the affairs of this country are to be successfully conducted, and it is not the tone or spirit in which they were conducted in the days when this country was much more strong than it is at the present day in the respect of the civilised world. When my hon. friend moved the adjournment of the House he went over the separate cases. I am not going over the separate cases, because we are not in a position to judge the merits of each case. They will require, and no doubt will receive, inquiry. As they stand in the, I have no doubt, perfectly honest and straightforward statements conveyed in these Papers themselves, they show a great want of proper conduct and supervision on the part of the Venezuelan Government, and a disregard of international usage on the part of the officials of that Government; and their actions deserve, therefore, not only to be reprobated and protested against, but, if necessary, that protest should be supported by strong measures.

We must remember that it is quite conceivable that there should be strong suspicion attached by Venezuelan officials to vessels proceeding from Port of Spain, especially during a time when one of the innumerable revolutions is going on. Port of Spain is the focus for every intrigue and conspiracy against the Government of Venezuela; it is the nearest most convenient port for such a purpose, whether it be smuggling or intervention in a revolution; and it is natural they should be inclined to stretch Venezuelan authority to the ulmost as against a vessel from that port. That, of course, does not justify or excuse them, but it is a circumstance to be borne in mind in judging the case. But the papers, although they contain particulars of these irregular and improper proceedings on the part of Venezuelan officials, do not contain other information useful and necessary for us to posses. We have no information as to the extent and character of the financial claims urged on behalf of this country, nor have we any indication whatever as to the nature and extent of the German claims. Germany apparently has none of these breaches of order to resent or punish; the attitude of Germany is based purely on financial claims. We want to know, we ought to know, from the Government—that is why I say the noble Lord stopped where he ought to have begun—we want to know the nature of our own financial claims and of the German claims; because the relations of this country as established by the Government to Germany in this matter are of the most extraordinary, of an almost unprecedented, kind. I am a strong advocate of the best feeling between this country and Germany—I should be very glad to see the two countries acting together on every occasion where it is possible; but the Government has gone a great deal beyond joint action and co-operation in this matter. Look at page 11, and the despath from Lord Lansdowne. The German Ambassador communicates to Lord Lansdowne the conditions of co-opration. In his despatch to Mr. Buchanan, Lord Lansdowne says:— As to the joint execution of measures of coereion, the German Government recognised that there was a sharp distinction between the character of the British and German 'first-line' claims. We want to know what is this sharp distinction dividing the claims. Nevertheless, the two claims ought to stand or fall together. So that we cannot accept compensation for damage done to one of the vessels hailing from Trinidad, we cannot do anything in regard to any of our claims which are on a different footing to those of Germany unless Germany is perfectly satisfied for her claim, And we ought to exclude the possibility of a settlement between Venezuela and one of the two Powers without an equally satisfactory settlement in the ease of the other.'' Then he goes on to say— I told Count Metternich that it seemed to me only reasonable that, if we agreed to act together in applying coercion, we should also agree that each should support the other's demands, and should not desist from doing so except by agreement. So we are bound hand and foot to Germany, and the House of Commons and the country have not the ghost of an idea what the claims of Germany may be. whether they are reasonable or unreasonable; we have this responsibility without knowledge, we are boundhand and foot not to accept any satisfaction unless Germany agrees. I venture to say such an arrangement so stringent is not for the best interests of this country. There is no one in the House or out of it more anxious than myself to do away with the stupid bad feeling some people have tried to excite or foster between this country and Germany. Nobody is more anxious to work hand in hand with Germany, as we ought to work, being kindred nations in so many respects. But that we should enter into this in the dark, having claims of different characters, Germany having claims of a financial character of which we are not vouchsafed any explanation, that we should accept no solution of our wholly different claims that did not include complete satisfaction to Germany, to bind ourselves in this way, is a state of things only equalled by some other international arrangements which the Government have within a short time explained to the House, and are endeavouring to bring about.

We have information through the Press that a communication has been received from the United States Government on this subject. I am told so; I have not seen the report of what has occurred in another place, where. I understand, the Secretary of state for Foreign Affairs made the announcement that there had been these communications from the United States; but that is surely a matter of the first importance. Yet the noble Lord, having disposed of this and that case of, outrage on this or that vessel, which have been maltreated by the Venezuelans, thinks he has done all he ought to do, and he sits down and leaves the House of Commons destitute of this knowledge which some hours ago was given to the House of Lords. The House and the whole country are anxious to know the nature of this communication; and I am quite sure there will be a universal feeling of satisfaction if it is such as may lead to a peaceful settlement of this question without any further violent measures being taken. But we know nothing; the House of Commons is not allowed to hear a whisper of this, though a communication has been made to the House of Lords. The opinion will be shared by everybody that an opportunity of settling this dispute by arbitration should be availed of; they seem to me to be particularly the sort of claims that can with advantage be submitted to settlement in that way. Perhaps the head of the Government can confirm what his colleague has said elsewhere, if he knows of it, for it is almost inconceivable that the noble Lord should have sat down without reference to it. If somewhere in his pockets he can discover some little note that such an approach has been made to the Government of this country by the Government of the United States, I am sure the whole House will rejoice to know it, and hope that they will find in it a solution of what, after all, we cannot but regard as a somewhat squalid difficulty.

(10.40.) Mr. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has, I think, misunderstood the intentions of the mover and seconder of this Motion. He certainly misunderstood the Government of this country, and he has also misunderstood the Government of the United States—a considerable list of misunderstanding for one speech. As regards the intention of the mover and seconder, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to suggest that their object was simply to elicit information from the Government. If that was the object, they set about it in the most extraordinary way.

MR. SCHWANN

You were not present.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No, but the fame of the hon. Gentleman's speech has reached my ears, and I was present during the speech of the hon. Gentleman who seconded it, and I understood that speech to be entirely worthy of the first. I can state with absolute confidence, from personal experience of the second speech and the authenticated report of the first speech, that whatever else they may have intended to do, their object was not to elicit information from the Government but to throw discredit upon them; and there was no virtue, except, perhaps, efficiency in naval matters, which they were not prepared to attribute to the Venezuelans, and no vice which they were not prepared to attribute to those who now control the affairs of this country. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh !" and MINISTERIAL cheers.] I candidly confess that I do not think that that is the way in which to approach what all must admit to be a painful international episode. There is not a man in this country who does not regret to find that we have been compelled to take these steps; there is not a man in this country who does not grieve that it has been found impossible to carry on international relations upon a sound basis with this State, to whom international law appears to be a matter of absolute indifference. So much, for the intentions of the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Motion. Now, Sir, for the misunderstanding as regards the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman came down to this House prepared to assume that the Government had gone to war for the bondholders

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

No, no !

MK. A. J. BALFOUR

If he did not come down with that intention, I cannot understand how he can have so misinterpreted the speech of my noble friend who has already spoken for the Government. My noble friend said not one single word to suggest the idea that His Majesty's Government, any more than previous Ministries, have thought it the first duty of this country to adopt overt acts of hostility in order to protect the interests of the bondholders. I do not deny, in fact, 1 freely admit, that bondholders may occupy an international position which may require international action; but I look upon such international action with the gravest doubt and suspicion, and I doubt whether we have in the past ever gone to war for the bondholders, for those of our countrymen who have lent money to a foreign Government; and I confess I should be very sorry to see that made a practice in this country. The real crux of this difficulty has been the outrageous manner in which the Venezuelan Government, not once nor twice, but time after time, have invaded the rights of British seamen and British shipowners, have insulted our nationality, have treated English sailors and English captains as no nation in the world treats us. And, when we have remonstrated, they have not only refused us any substantial compensation, but have scarcely deigned to reply—sometimes, I believe, they have absolutely refused to reply at all. I put a plain question to those Gentlemen who have taken up the cudgels for Venezuela, and to the right hon. Gentleman opposite— "Would they have sat down indefinitely under treatment of that kind? "If they had done so, it would not have been consistent, I do not say merely with the traditions of this country, but with the practice and traditions of any civilised State, that they should tolerate, time after time, outrages of this description for which no apology was offered, no compensation given, and no explanation suggested. Such a situation is an intolerable situation, and it did require overt action on the part of His Majesty's Government. Has that action been unduly hasty in its character? As far back as July last we sent, to use a Hibernicism, our first ultimatum to the Venezuelan Government.

MR. T. M. HEALY

We never issue ultimatums.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that, at all events, I meant no offence to his countrymen. That first ultimatum was absolutely disregarded. We went on month after month, and on the 11th of November we sent our second ultimatum, and, finally, we have been driven, after exercising boundless patience, to issue a final ultimatum. When that was disregarded, we took overt action. I do not know whether the Gentlemen sitting on the benches opposite differ from our policy. I am not sure that they do. But, whether they differ from it or not, I am perfectly confident that their patience would have been as early exhausted as ours. That is the first point I have to make. The second point I have to make turns on the question of co-operating with Germany. The last portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech consisted of two propositions. The first was that there was nothing so much to be desired as cordial cooperation with Germany in all international matters. The second proposition he suggested was that nothing was more dangerous than co-operation with Germany, and that we had committed a great error by co-operating with Germany in this particular case.

SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMAN

I never said so.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not mean to misrepresent him, but if that was not the gravamen of his criticism against His Majesty's advisers I do not know what it was.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman in two seconds. It is riot only that you are co-operating with Germany, but that you have entered into such a formal arrangement and so bound yourselves to them that your independence of action is hampered.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I understand now. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. He desires to co-operate with Germany on terms peculiar to himself—terms which, I venture to say, have never been the basis of international co-operation before and never will be the basis of international co-operation in future. He thinks that the proper way to make an alliance for warlike purposes with a foreign State is to inform that State that no doubt you will fight as long as it suits you, and when it does not suit you you do not intend to go on fighting any longer. All I can say is that, when in the ordinary revolutions of public affairs the right hon. Gentleman takes an important part in deciding who our allies are to be, and on what terms we may have to carry on operations together, I can promise him he will find very few allies prepared to deal with him on the basis he has laid down. The truth is that anybody who considers the situation will see that the British Government had no alternative but to take the course they have actually done.

Let me recapitulate. In the first place, I think it will be admitted by everybody who has read the Blue-book that it was perfectly impossible for the Government of this country to tolerate the way they were treated by Venezuela, and overt action had to be taken. In the second place, Germany found herself aggrieved in a manner which also induced her to agree that overt action had to be taken. The third proposition is that we ought to co-operate with Germany in circumstances of that kind. Surely the fourth proposition is self-evident, that, if we are to co-operate with another country for common purposes, that co-operation must be based upon an understanding which binds the two allies together until the common object has been accomplished. I do not see how we are to escape from that issue of cause and consequence, and if you cannot escape from it, then this policy of the Government with regard to Venezuela is justified from beginning to end. That is all I need say on the merits of the question.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

Will the right hon. Gentleman forgive me for interrupting him? Will he kindly give an answer to the two questions I addressed to him? Namely, first, what is the nature and extent of the financial claims put forward on our part, and, secondly, what is the nature and extent of the financial claims put forward by Germany.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not admit this theory of debt collecting. That is not to me the main justification nor the main origin of these difficulties. If hon. Gentlemen will look at the Blue-book they will see that so far as we are concerned, at all events, we are prepared, to agree to a tribunal by which the exact amount of the financial claims, which are less important than the other, may be assessed. As regards the German claims, of course I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman information of the same precise character.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

May I ask this—Has the German Government any claims, such as we have, on other grounds than financial debts? In other words, is this joint, co-operation not to be used mainly for the purpose of collecting debts?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Yes, I understand they have other grounds.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

What are they?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman the detailed information he desires to get. The only other observation I need make refers to the version which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to infer from what was said in the House of Lords this afternoon. It is a mistaken version. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that the United States Government has made to us a suggestion of arbitration. That is not so. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, British and German interests have been entrusted to the United States Minister in Venezuela, and that Minister has with admirable energy protected the lives of our compatriots and those of German nationality. I understand it is from Venezuela, through the United: States, that a suggestion has come for arbitration. Ou that I will say no more than this—that it is surely unfortunate that the Venezuelan Government should not have thought of the advantages of arbitration during the many months and years in which we have had these controversies with them; that they should have refused all answer, and all suggestion, even of apology or explanation for anything that has occurred; that they should have received the ultimatums of July, of November, of December, without condescending to take the smallest notice of our action: and that it is not until we are actually engaged in what I suppose I must describe as these hostilities that this idea of arbitration should suggest itself to their minds. Whether the idea be good or bad—as to that I sayabsolutelynothing—practicable or impracticable, it does not come from the United States Government: it comes from that of Venezuela.

(11.12) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT () Monmouthshire, W.

There is one question l should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer, and that is, what are the claims of the German Government. The right hon. Gentleman says very truly that we are entered upon a common enterprise for a common object—that is, to obtain satisfaction of the claims of the British Government and the claims of the German Government. We have been told in those papers what are the claims of the British Government, but we have no information whatever as to what are the claims of the German Government, and yet the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the engagement is that neither party shall come to an arrangement until their respective claims are fully satisfied. Surely we ought to know what are those claims of the German Government which we undertake to see satisfied before we accept any satisfaction ourselves. We are bound to maintain the claims and the see them satisfied without knowing what those claims are. That is a position in which no Minister or Government ought to be placed. When you enter into an alliance for the purpose of hostilities, both parties should come to an understanding as to what is the object, and what are the demands to be satisfied. Now the official answer of the right hon. Gentleman is that we do not really know what is the object of these hostilities as regards Germany. We only know what is the object we are pursuing. We are not told what is the object the German Government are pursuing. Surely it is not unfriendly to this Government or the German Government to ask about proceedings which may result in very serious consequences. We should be frankly told what are the engagements and what are the demands which are to be satisfied on behalf of Germany before we accept any satisfaction for ourselves. I really think the Government ought to give us some information on that subject.

LORD CHARLES BERESFORD(Woolwich)

I should like to ask, Who is the senior officer in these operations? Is it the German or the British officer? He is in rather a difficult predicament, from my point of view. In this case, if the senior officer happens to be German, and he does such things as sinking the Venezuelan hulks, which is totally opposed to the chivalrous ideas of this nation, we might be in the position of doing something to cause irritation to Germany by our refusal to sanction such action. I think, whatever we do, we ought to be most careful to cement friendly feeling with the Government of the United States. We should do nothing of any kind, sort, or description that would be in the least way provocative of irritation or animosity on the part of the United States. I should like my right hon. friend to state who is the senior officer who will be charged with the duties carried on, so far as hostilities are concerned, in Venezuelan waters.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It is only by leave of the House that I can answer my noble and gallant friend. There is no question here of seniority. The German Admiral is not under the orders of the British Admiral, nor is the British Admiral under the orders of the German Admiral. No doubt they consult together and co-operate together; but the fleets are acting on different parts of the Venezuelan coast, and not as one organisation under one commander. Therefore there is no question of that seniority which, as my noble friend justly observes, might in certain circumstances land us in some difficulty. The responsibility for the action of each fleet primarily rests with its Admiral and with the country to which it belongs, and neither fleet is responsible for the action of the other.

*MR. NORMAN () Wolverhampton, S.

From what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman it would appear that the Government has plunged into this matter without asking or knowing how they are to come out of it. The despatches seem to indicate that they have not made up their minds what would follow if President Castro refused to yield. We are in a state of war, yet we do not know what for, and even after the challenges which have been addressed to them the Government do no inform us. Our claims also seem to have grown. They are formulated in Numbers 3 and 10 of the Despatches, but in these the bondholders do not come in at all. They come in as an afterthought in No. 14, and it seems to me to be a deplorable afterthought. This idea of the British Fleet being employed to collect the debts of foreign bondholders is assuredly a mistaken one. It was said by Wellington once that the British army did not exist for the purpose of collecting certain debts. It is still more true of the British Fleet that it does not exist for the purpose of collecting the debts of bondholders. People who lend money to South American Republics know what the security is and what they are likely to get in return, and they ought not to have the British Fleet at their backs. I believe, from the response that greeted some of the very powerful remarks of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, that this view is shared on the other side of the House. The Government do not seem to have realised the feeling with regard to Germany. it is clear from the de spatches that Germany suggested joint action, and it was the German Government that suggested that neither Government should recede until the other was satisfied. We are pledged to support the German claims without knowing what they are.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON () Manchester, N. E.

Quite the reverse is the case. Lord Lansdowne's statement will be found on page 16.

*MR. NORMAN

I am in the dilemma of either accepting the statement of the right hon. Baronet who interrupts me, or that of the Prime Minister. Under the circumstances I accept the statement of the Prime Minister, who said that he was not aware what the German claims were. Are German aims and objects in South Africa identical with our own? There is a good deal of doubt on that matter in the United States. Is our Government quite sure that they see eye to eye, while they are walking step by step, with Germany? That seems to me to be a question on which every legitimate doubt can be felt. Is it not conceivable that certain developments might be at the same time extremely pleasing to Germany and extremely displeasing to this country? Already one example of different methods of thought and action has suggested itself. According to the despatches exchanged the naval officers of the two countries were pledged to seize the Venezuelan ships and hold them; but we have information that the Germans not only seized but destroyed ships. With regard to the position of the United States the most important point is the great weight public opinion has there. It is certain that the action of the United States Government will be scrupulously correct and friendly to this country: but the American Government is peculiarly susceptible to public opinion, and public opinion may from one week to another take a much keener interest in this matter, which may make the position more serious for this country. I speak with some confidence, for I happened to be in Washington, and was pretty well acquainted with the state of feeling in America during the negotiations in regard to a previous Venezuelan dispute. If arbitration has been offered it must be the obvious duty of this country to accept it; and they ought to be thankful for such a very good way of getting out of the difficulty. But, if arbitration has not been offered, then there is every reason why this country should approach the United States with a view to securing it.

MR. BRYN ROBERTS

said that the Government had not given the House any information on what he considered was a most important subiect—viz., whether the owners, officers and crew of these vessels were supposed to be guilty of smuggling or any other crime. If there was no suspicion of that kind there could be no two opinions in the House as to the propriety of the action of the Government. If there was no possibility that these British subjects were lawbreakers, if without any provocation British vessels were seized, and their crews put into prison, then this country ought to act promptly and vigorously. On the contrary, if we in this country claimed the right to suppress smuggling, so did the Venezuelan Government, and we should not claim that British subjects caught smuggling there should be treated in a different way from that which would be given to the subjects of any other nation if they indulged here in mal-practices. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether it was tolerable that half the passengers and crew of a trading steamer should be taken prisoners, and the cargo seized, while the remainder of the passengers and crew had fled into the woods where there was neither food nor water. The whole question depended on whether they were smugglers or not. The mere fact that half the passengers and crew had taken refuge in the wood raised a suspicion that they had been breaking the law. The same applied to vessels supposed to have been carrying contraband of war to the insurgents. This Government ought to be most particular to see that none of its subjects were permitted to interfere in any shape or form with the internal peace and order of other countries; and if they did that, either by freebooting raids, or by smuggling arms, that they could not be protected by this country. The very foundations to enable hon. Members to give a reasonable judgment on the question seemed completely wanting. Surely a dispute of this kind should have been referrd to arbitration, and the Venezuelan fleet ought not to have been taken possession of. The Venezuelan Government sought refuge in the fact that no compensation had been given for the action of the "Ban Righ," and said that until the matter of the "Ban Righ" was settled, they declined to listen to the representations of the British Government. That meant that the Venezuelan Government considered that they had a prior claim to this Government on account of some action of the "Ban Righ." He thought the House ought to have some fuller information in regard to the facts of the case. The noble Lord made an excuse for the Papers not being delivered in time on the ground that the Government were hoping that some accommodation would be arrived at. That need not have prevented the House getting earlier information than they had. He noticed that the Admiralty were communicated with in August, and told that matters were coming to an important stage. The entire correspondence ought to have been ready to put into the hands of hon. Members at the same time as the ultimatum was delivered—not before, as was the case under the new diplomacy in the Transvaal and the defence of which had been that it carried the public opinion of this country along with the Government.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said that the right hon. Gentleman the member for South Aberdeen, who was so well acquainted with United States politics, had told the House that it was because of the existence of the Irish vote in America that we had been driven into this curious arrangement with Germany. German emigrants in America were always in favour of their own people in cases of dispute with the United States, and the German Government could rely on the support of that sentiment. But, whenever the American Government was dealing with England, it knew that the whole weight of Irish sentiment would be thrown against England. Accordingly, in this matter, England had to go hat in hand to Germany, who had no grievances of prestige to redress as England had, to get the United States to allow this inroad to be made on the Monroe doctrine in Venezuela. The right hon. Gentleman said that Venezuela had rejected arbitration; but who gave that country that bad precedent? It was Lord Salisbury; but before long America was irritated by that high-handed action, and then followed the Cleveland incident, In the same way the high-handed manner in which Germany had seized two Venezuelan vessels—which were worth probably ten times the amount of their monetary claims—and sent them to the bottom of the sea, had roused irritation in America Was it to be imagined that the American people would go on tolerating that conduct indefinitely? The President of the United States would be looking out for a second term of office. Everything in America was decided on by political issues; and soon the Democratic gong, and President Roosevelt would be asked if he were not as good a man for the Monroe doctrine as Mr. Cleveland. He expressed no opinion on the merits of the quarrel; but he warned the Government that they were in a risky and perilous position, having regard to politics in the United States, and the enmity of a large body of men of Irish blood, driven from their country by British laws.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON

said that an hon. Member had stated that Lord Salisbury had persistently refused arbitration in regard to certain former claims against Venezuela. That was not the case. The difficulty of submitting these claims to arbitration was that there was no basis of reference which we could accept consistently with the undoubted rights of this country. When a basis of arbitration was proposed by the United States Government which was consistent with our national position, arbitration was resorted to, and resulted in the concession of nearly all the claims for which Great Britain contended. He thought it would be most unfortunate and inconsistent with the practice of this House if an impression were made to prevail that the action of His Majesty's Government was not being supported by the House and the country, when the Government were making claims in satisfaction of the just rights of British subjects. He would remind the House that, not many years since. Her late Majesty's Government was compelled to resort to a naval demonstration in Venezuelan waters for outrages committed on British subjects, and that, following that demonstration, the Venezuelan Government made the necessary concessions.

(11.25.) MR. STEVENSON () Suffolk, Eye

said England and Germany were not the only two Powers which had claims aganist Venezuela. Within the last few hours Italy had entered into the field on account of a dept of £12,000. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether any arrangement in regard to common, or concerted action had been made between this country and any other country besides Germany? If so, the arrangement would become very complicated, for it was obvious that the claims might be of as very different character. The British claims were for aggression aganist British persons and property. The main cliam of Germany was financial, and the claim of Italy was of a purely financial character. If we were to bind ourselves to other countries in the same way as we had bound ourselves to Germany, it would be absolutely impossible for us to obtain satisfaction for our claims of a very different character by Germany, Italy, and possibly other powers were settled; and in that way the settlement of our claims might be postponed indefinitely.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I understand that the Italians are sending a ship, but there is no agreement like that which exists between us and Germany.

*MR. ARTHUR LEE () Hampshire, Fareham

said he most heartily supported the action of the Government in bringing whatever pressure was necessary to bear on the Venezuelan Government tosettle these claims; but he ventured to express disagreement both with the leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the House in their view that it was desirable in this particular instance that he should co-operate with Germany, He did not deny the general proposistion, though it was a good thing to work with other Powers in as friendly a way as possible; but from a long experience in the United States he was constrained to express the belief that it was a serious mistake on out part to co-operate with Germany in bringing pressure to bear on Venezulean Government, surely this country was big enough and strong enough to enforce them without the assistance of Germany or any other Power. We ought to have more fully considered the great jealousy there was in the United States with regard to Germany and German aspirations, in South American, before the people of the United States as an ally of Germany in enforcing these claims. It had created a very bad impression in the United States that we should not be acting alone. United States opinion would never have allowed Germany to have undertaken independent action aganist a South American State, and Germany, knowing this, had astutely cajoled us into a partnership, and thus was able to use us a buffer between her and American public opinion. He hoped the arrangement with Germany would be restricted to what was absolutely necessary to meet the British claim, and that we should not be bound to the chariot wheels of Germany in whatever action she might be inclined to take of a more drastic character.

*MR. CREMER () Shoreditch, Haggerston

said that before the Motion was withdrawn he would like to urge that this, of all questions he had ever heard of, was one for arbitration. He had listened to the whole of the debate, and felt pleased that so many of the speakers had recommended arbitration. He hoped that this country would even go so far as to propose arbitration, and not be deterred from doing so by fear of being charged with climbing down. We were a great Power and could afford to be magnanimous to a little one. It was not long since France had similar claims against Venezuela for damages. The disputed claims were submitted to arbitration, and the points at issue were amicably settled. Surely we might follow the example which had been set us by such a high-spirited nation as France and settle all matters in dispute between the British Government and the Government of Venezuela by arbitration. He did not care whether the amount of the claims was large or small; or whether the vessels sunk by the Germans were good, bad, or indifferent; it was clear that the matters in dispute might assume such an aggravated form as would lead this country into conflict not only with Venezuela but with the United States. Now was the time to stop the growth of the unfortunate ill-feeling which existed; and he would urge most strenuously on the Government to refer the matter to arbitration as speedily as possible.

MR. SCHWANN

said, having received the information he required, he asked leave to withdraw the Motion. [Several HON. MEMBERS: No, no.]

Question put. and negatived.