HC Deb 15 December 1902 vol 116 cc1245-62
(9.0.) MR. SCHWANN () Manchester, N.

I rise to move the adjournment of the House in order to call attention to the present state of our relations with the Republic of Venezuela. Burke once said it was the first duty of Members of Parliament to be jealous of the action of the executive, and I therefore make no apology for introducing at this period of the Session a subject which is now so markedly in the eye of the world as this is, especially as, in view of the nature of the work which Parliament has still to accomplish, there is not likely to be any other opportunity of discussing the Venezuelan question. I feel decidedly hampered in making out a case, because the Papers have only been in circulation since two o'clock today. It is difficult for any one to pick out the facts in so short a time, or to verify statements contained I in the Blue-book by information derivable from other sources. That is, however, a slight matter compared with the neglect by the Government of its duty to this House. In Germany, nearly a week ago, the matter was before the Reichstag, and ample information was given to the German nation; but with our own Parliament, although the Leader of the Opposition asked for Papers fully a week ago, they are only forthcoming today, which fact naturally precludes an adequate discussion taking place. I had always looked on the German Government as one of the most despotic Governments, and it is a little surprising that the English Government, which is supposed to be the very reverse, and to be popularly represented, should so long delay the representation to the House of these very important Papers. One of the morning papers—the Morning Post—which is more affected towards the Government than I am, says in its first leading article that "in the absence of knowledge we have to live by faith." My faith in the present Government is very small and exiguous, therefore I require facts and details before forming very strong opinions on any question. To declare war is to undertake a great responsibility at any time, but to do so without consulting Parliament, and without explanation to Parliament, is a much more responsible and extraordinary proceeding. I should have thought that the Jingo Ministry, having only just concluded a war in South Africa, which has been the means of losing many precious lives as well as 220 millions of treasure, would not have been anxious to engage in another war, especially as they have already on their hands a war with the Waziris and a conflict in Somaliland. I am almost tempted to conclude that this Government is anxious to show that it can take up a determined position in foreign politics, even when the Colonial Secretary is riding the waves of the Eastern Ocean.

I ask the Government to give full details to the House and the country with regard to the motives which have led them—not, perhaps, to declare war, but at any rate to institute a blockade of the Venezuelan coast. I have examined the correspondence laid before us today in the brief time at my disposal, and I must say I am astonished at the very small amount of evidence which is given of the necessity for taking such drastic action. It seems to me that the complaints made by our Government to the Venezuelan Government are rather exiguous, and scarcely sufficient to base such very violent action upon them. The first place in the Government complaint is given to what it calls the unjustifiable interference with the liberty and property of British subjects, including the shipping claims. What are these claims on which the Government base their warlike attitude? They are eight in number—first the seizure by the Venezuelan gunboat of the "Augusto"; second, the case of the "Sea Horse"; third, the case of the "Maria Theresa"; fourth, the case of the "Pastor"; fifth, the case of the "Indiana"; sixth, the case of the "In Time"; seventh, the case of "The Queen"; and lastly, the case of the "Racer." I should like the House to note the fact that the first, second, and fourth of these cases have reference to seizures of property of alleged British subjects at or on the island of Patos, off Trinidad, which is claimed by the Venezuelan Government as their own property. For some time the Venezuelan Government has kept a revenue cutter in the offing of the island with a view to preventing smuggling between Venezuela and Trinidad. Therefore it seems to me that the question of the ownership of Patos Island is one which needs both evidence and proof. I suppose the war, or attack on Venezuela, has not been carried out with the view of deciding whether that island does or does not belong to us or Venezula. I do not wish to take the part of Venezuela without hearing the whole case argued, but on the assumption of the Venezuelans that the island belongs to them, I can quite imagine that it must be irritating to them to have the island of Trinidad made a base for smuggling operations in their country. I know it has gone on for generations, and I do not see how it can be stopped, but it is known that the Venezuelan Government have felt that if stronger measures were taken by us in our own island of Trinidad a great deal of smuggling would be prevented. The case of Spain and Gibraltar affords an illustration of what is going on—there is a chronic state of smuggling between the two places.

I should like to read to the House what the Government itself says with regard to the Island of Patos. On page 2 I find these words— The correspondence exchanged with the Venezuelan Government with reference to this incident made it clear that they were determined to consider and to treat Patos as belonging to the Republic. In these circumstances it was thought expedient to record a formal protest against this renewed and gross violation of British territorial waters by a Venezuelan gunboat which the facts that the 'Pastor' was a Venezuelan vessel, and had infringed the Customs regulations of Trinidad, were not held in any way to justify. His Majesty's Minister accordingly made a strong remonstrance with reference to this incident, but the Venezuelan Government stated that they could not make any investigation with regard to the violation of British territory, as they considered Patos Island, on which the violation occurred, as their own legitimate possession. I would like to know whether our Government has not tacitly accepted this position. From the correspondence it looks as if we did not insist very emphatically on our rights, and the Venezuelans may possibly have imagined that their claim was admitted by us. With regard to the case of the "Maria Theresa," which was burned by those in charge of the "Miranda," it is stated that— The Venezuelan Government, in justification of the 'Miranda's' action, contended that the owner and master of the sloop had been actively engaged in assisting the revolutionists against President Castro. Although the treatment of the British subjects on board the sloop afforded ground for remonstrance, the Government forbore to press the matter strongly, as there was some evidence that the vessel had been in communication with, if not in the employ of, the revolutionary party. Further inquiry and explanation were promised. Then comes the case of the "Indiana," which was confiscated because she was accused of being a smuggler, the seizure having taken place on the river Barima, within Venezuelan territory, the waters of which are, by the terms of the Anglo-Venezuelan Boundary Award, open to the navigation of all nations in time of peace. It is stated on page 3— There was no evidence to support this charge of smuggling, and the colonial authorities, to whom the case was reported, point out that the confiscation of the vessel was an excessively severe penalty for any infraction of the Customs Law, if such were deemed to have occurred. The representations made to the Venezuelan Government have hitherto failed to elicit any explanation. It certainly does seem to be rather hard that a vessel should be destroyed because it was suspected of being engaged in smuggling, and I, for one, do not see any good reason for the exercise of force of that kind. Now we have the case of the "In Time," which was destroyed by the Venezuelan gunboat "General Crespo." I think that was pretty high-handed, and I make a present to the Government of that case as counting in their favour— In connection with this case" we are told "that the Minister was instructed to inform the Venezuelan Government that unless they could disprove the reports received as to the destruction of this vessel. His Majesty's Government might be obliged to cease extending the hospitality of British ports to Venezuelan cruisers. I am sorry that the Government has not given so the exact words of that notification, so we are unable to judge whether the communication from our Foreign Office was, or was not, of a needlessly offensive character. There only remain the cases of the "Queen, reported by His Majesty's Minister at Caracas, in June, as having been confiscated on a charge of having carried a cargo of arms to Venezuela, and of the "Racer," which was seized on September 22nd. These are cases which. I think, require explanations from the Venezuelan Government. I perfectly understand that we have to take into consideration the fact that for the last eighteen months or two years a revolution has been raging in Venezuela, and that during such times of crisis it is not easy for those in command of gunboats to exactly carry out their operations with every legal formality. It will not be forgotten that during the war in which we were recently engaged in South Africa we had to apologise to one or two foreign nations for rather high-handed proceedings on the part of our own zealous commanders, but this is usually condoned in such times.

These eight cases I have detailed to the House are, as I understand, our first line of defence, or rather of attack, and they seem to me rather small points upon which to base such an extreme proceeding as the sending of a huge fleet to the Venezuelan coast. The dates at which some of these seizures were made should be borne in mind. The "In Time" was seized on May 1st, 1902; the "British Queen" in June the same year, and the "Racer" in September. It does not seem that very much time was allowed to the Venezuelan Government to offer explanations, because, on November 11th, the first ultimatum was delivered. We must admit that President Castro, who was engaged in active warlike operations for the defence of his Government, and was indeed struggling for his own life, was not in a favourable position to carry such negotiations as these to a successful issue. I quite admit that many of the South American presidents are very irritating politicians. I have been a merchant in Manchester for twenty-five years, and I know that I have had to leave valuable property in Venezuela, St. Salvador, Columbia, and other countries, which I shall probably never look upon again in this world. I am therefore quiteable to sympathise with this Government. It is its duty in a general way to protect the interests of British citizens, but what they have done on this occasion, looks to me like using a Nasmyth hammer in order to crack a nut, and if they had allowed President Castro a little more time to pull himself together, it might have been possible to convince him of the desirability of satisfying our claims without having recourse to such drastic measures.

The second line of defence of the Government may be very much stronger. I am open to conviction on that point. These are the claims for injury to British property during the late Revolution, and the Revolution which put President Castro in power. There are no details given of these claims, and I have not had time to make inquiry in those quarters where it might be possible to get the information. I therefore await with great interest the statement the noble Lord has to make in regard to it. The third line is concerned with the claims of the bondholders. I always feel a little suspicious of these claims, especially when they are raised against a small nation. I believe there are some fine old defaulters to be found among the nations of Europe. There is, for instance, the irrepressible Turk, and there is also the case of Portugal. We have sustained serious losses in Turkey without sending a single warship there, while as to Portugal, she is still our friend. Surely, this House and the country have a right to know what those claims are. Here, in conjunction with Germany, we are sending a fleet to attack an apparently friendly country, and yet no information is vouchsafed to us. I am a lover of the principles of arbitration, and it would have to be a very peculiar war which found me among its defenders. I suppose, with reference to the bondholders, some of the claims are in connection with arrears of payment for English and German built railways, but as to that, the hon. Member for Pembrokeshire, who is to second this Motion, has fuller information. I should like to know, speaking as a Lancashire man. whether, before taking this unexpected action, the Government consulted the Associated Chambers of Commerce, or the Chambers of Commerce of Manchester and Lancashire. Hon. Members may laugh, but it must be remembered that we have enormous business dealings with Venezuela. America, of course, is not likely to disapprove of England and Germany putting pressure on Venezuela, because that would probably mean the boycotting of their goods to the great advantage of American trade. These questions are very interesting to us. We have no Minister of Commerce in our Cabinet, and I am not certain, that it would not be better for us if a few business men had seats therein, but it does seem to be desirable that, in a matter like this, Chambers should be consulted—of course, in quite a confidential manner—for they represent some of the right and power of the nation.

I was glad to hear it stated this afternoon from the Treasury Bench that we were entirely independent of Germany, and that each nation was solely responsible for its own acts. It is only right that if any indiscretions are committed the responsibility shall rest with those guilty of them. Perhaps the noble Lord will be able to give us fuller details on this point of the responsibilities of each Power, and also as to the 'attitude of the United States. We all understand the attitude of the United States, which is not opposing in any way the action of the two Powers, but, at the same time, we know that at any moment en- tanglement may occur. The Monroe doctrine has many times been used for Presidential election purposes, and, consequently, there may at any time be a change in American sentiment. I believe we may expect all reasonable moral support from President Roosevelt. But it is noticeable that the New York World and the New York Herald are strongly urging arbitration, and the Herald says— For lack of a statesman in the British Cabinet, England is cajoled into co-operating with Germany in an enterprise which may result in an attempt to extend European dominion over the Western Hemisphere, which the Monroe doctrine declares must be regarded as a manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States. I see, too, that the Standard correspondent in New York says— The general feeling in Congress is confidence in Messrs. Roosevelt and Hay. Senator Cullon, Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, says that the collection of Venezuela's debts by the process communicated to the United States is different from the course that affairs are taking, and which might call for prompt action if the allies were to march to Caracas or invade Venezuela. Mr. Cullon would regard it as a first step towards permanent occupation or acquisition of territory, whether the allies considered it so or not, or by whatever name they described their operations. I see that the New York Sun and the New York Herald express the views that the bombardment was unduly precipitate. I do not endorse everything said in these papers; I am only reading these extracts to show how opinion may be aroused which would force the hands of those who otherwise would be anxious to act in harmony with us. 1 notice that a German paper, the Neueste Nachrichten, naively admits that— Had we Germans intervened alone with armed force in Venezuela, we should have run a risk which is not worth the prize we hope to obtain. I conclude by saying that the complaints which the Government have put in the first rank are most slender upon which to base so awful a contingency as war, although the Government may have a long list of valid and important claims which may induce the House of Commons to endorse them. But as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs said at Manchester, "There is nothing which refuses to go by programme so much as war." Therefore, while protecting a few ships, we may find ourselves in a much more general engagement than we expect. If the second and third rank arguments are more weighty, let us, by all means, have them. We know that many nations have defrauded us; and that, if we attack them all, we shall have our hands full. Will the Government tell us what they propose to do if arbiration fails? I was glad to see from the evening papers that Lord Lansdowne has informed the nation in another place that the United States has offered its services in case Venezuela is willing to settle matters by arbitration. It is only upon the first claims that the Government are insisting upon an immediate reply; they are willing to submit the other claims raised during the penultimate revolution and the revolution which had just occurred, to a small Mixed Commission, which would ascertain whether they were fully justified or not. In a despatch from Lord Lansdowne, dated 17th November, I find the following statement:— on receiving the submission of the Venezuelan Government, and on learning that they were prepared to admit their liability on every count. His Majesty's Government would for their part exact immediate payment of the pressing claims in the first category. according to estimates approved by His Majesty's Legation at Caracas, or by the British Colonial authorities. They would than consent to the heavier claims being referred to a small Mixed Commission in case the Venezuelan Government should have any considerations to urge in mitigation of the damages claimed. An arrangement of this nature would be equitable as regards the Venezuelan Government, and would, moreover, prevent pressure being, exercised in cases such as might possibly occur, where the Venezuelan members of the Commission could prove a claim to be unfounded or excessive. I am glad to think, and the House will be glad to think, that the Government does not exclude the idea of arbitration by a Mixed Commission; and I hope that the offer of the American Government will lead to such a Commission being formed. But I should like to know what engagements we have undertaken with the German Government; and whether the American Government has fixed any limit as to the time for the evacuation of any port or portion of Venezuela which may be temporarily held by England and Germany. I do not wish to detain the House further.

[Some ironical laughter on the MINISTERIAL Benches.] Hon. Members laugh. This is a very important matter, and those are the sort of Members who seem to me to disgrace this House.

*MR. SPEAKER

That is not a proper expression.

MR. SCHWANN

I will put it in a different way, Sir—

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon, Member must withdraw the expression before he makes any further observation.

MR. SCHWANN

I will be very happy to withdraw the expression; but it seems to me that when such an important question as this, which affects the interests of two nations, and which may take an extension we do not dream of at present, is received with laugher by hon. Members, it shows how splendidly fitted they are for their position as Members of this House. I beg to move, Sir, that this House will now adjourn.

(9.35.) MR. PHILIPPS () Pembroke

In supporting this Motion, I may say I am very glad to see that the British Government are doing something to look after the interests of British traders and British investors in other countries. In my humble judgment, the British Government have not done enough in that direction in past years; and I should be the last to complain of their trying to do something; but I do not agree with the time or the methods. First of all, as to the claims which have been put forward on behalf of British subjects in the correspondence which was issued this afternoon, I should like the House to remember that the Island of Trinidad is very largely inhabited by people of the same blood and language as the people of Venezuela; and that it is used as a base for smuggling and revolution. In fact, Port of Spain is the natural home of the Venezuelan revolutionist out of a job; and when we hear of a British subject being seized, we must remember that, in three cases out of four, although the man is a British subject because he was born in Trinidad, he is, nevertheless, a Venezuelan by descent; and that the Venezuelan coastguard has the greatest difficulty in telling whether he is a British subject or a Venezuelan doing his best to assist revolution by importing arms and money. Still, I am willing to admit that the Government are undoubtedly doing their best in putting forward these claims. Some of them are undoubtedly strong claims, and the Government ought not to be blamed for doing something towards looking after the interests of British investors abroad, whatever some of my hon. friends may think of that; because, I cannot help thinking, that when a Briton invests his money abroad he is required to pay income-tax in order that this country may do something to assist him when it gets a chance. The Government have a moral right to assist him; and it is only a question of degree, and whether it is wise to do so in each particular case. I have been trying to make out what the total claims of Great Britain and Germany are likely to be. I have not been able to arrive at the actual figures, because I have not the information which is at the disposal of the Government; but I have reckoned up the amount as well as I could. The public debt of Venezuela is mainly held in Great Britain, and the coupons are in default to the extent of nearly pounds;700,000. Then we have large claims on behalf of some of the railway companies. In the report of the Bolivar Railway Company, it is stated that from December to June the railway was only in English hands for ten days. That railway has undoubtedly a claim against the Venezuelan Government which they compute at between pounds;40,000 and pounds;50,000, and which will ultimately be probably pounds;60,000. Our claims will amount to a minimum of about pounds;900,000; but I should like to ask the Government if they are going to make claims against every foreign State that is in default on its debt. There are plenty of others. There is Guntemala, Columbia, and Honduras. Are the Government going to blockade these countries, because they are in default on their debt? If they are, they certainly ought to blockade Honduras, which has been in default since 1871. The debt is only pouns;900,000, but the outstanding coupons amount to pounds;2,600.000. If the Government are not going to blockade Honduras, I should like to know why not. [An HON. MEMBER: The bonds are not mentioned.] Yes they are mentioned on page 16 of the Correspondence, where it is stated that the claims of the Government— Must be understood to include all well-founded claims which have arisen in consequence of the late civil war and previous civil wars, and of the maltreatment or false imprisonment of British subjects, and also a settlement of the external debt. That, of course, means the bonds. There are plenty of other claims against other Central American Republics. The other day some friends showed me a claim by a British subject against the Government of Nicaragua, in which an Englishman was so ill-treated that he was actually obliged to shut up his business altogether. I was asked whether the Government would help, and I said I thought not. If were asked tomorrow, I would say that I was sure the Government would help, because the claim is a far stronger one than anything that is alleged in these Papers against Venezuela. Why, when we have stronger cases against Guatemala, Nicaragua, Columbia, and Honduras, have we taken up the case against Venezuela? Because, in that case, we, have the Germans to help us, and because of the pressure which has been exercised on behalf of the German Government. The British claims, as far as I have been able to estimate them, are, as I have stated, about pounds;900,000. The German Government claim for damages during the civil war about pounds;188,000, in addition to which there will be claims in connection with German railways amounting to about pounds;200,000. That would be a total of about pounds;1,250,000 altogether. A debtor presses a creditor for a debt when he considers it is a good moment to get him to pay it; but how can anyone who knows anything about the country believe that this is a good moment to make Venezuela pay. The country has been absolutely torn by civil war for three or four years; its exports have fallen off by one-third; and the Government, even if they were ever so willing to pay, have not a shilling in the Treasury.

Now, I should like to say a word or two as to the methods we have adopted. I notice that Lord Lansdowne, in his instructions to Mr. Haggard, said that he left to his discretion the method of presenting the ultimatum. I never heard anything like the way in which that ultimatum was presented. I should have thought that the first move in conducting business like this would be for the British Minister, before presenting the ultimatum, to notify British subjects, in order that they might have a chance of getting out of the country; but in this case, the British and German Ministers left the ultimatums together, and sidled away out of the country without telling anyone. It was very safe and very discreet; but it did not seem a kind thing towards their fellow subjects. It was not the usual course; it was not recommended by the Government, arid I should like to know if it were the independent action of Mr. Haggard, in which case he is not a fit man to represent British interests abroad, or if it were the result of pressure by the German Government. There appears to be some misapprehension as to the taking of British and German subjects as prisoners. The moment I heard that, my own opinion was that they were taken prisoners really for their safety. When there was an excited feeling in the capital I am quite certain that the safest place to put a British subject was undoubtedly the gaol. I should like to say a few words about the bombardment, of which we heard today. I see it reported that the old Spanish Castle of Porto Cabello has been destroyed. The Castle was about as capable of doing damage as the Tower of London or Windsor Castle. It was of great antiquarian interest; it had a few popguns which would be able to throw a shot a few hundred yards; but it was absolutely incapable of being taken seriously as an instrument of aggression by anyone. I think it is most lamentable that our sailors, or the German sailors, should have bombarded this interesting old building, and should have treated it seriously as a warlike enterprise. There is also a report that the Germans have destroyed some of the Venezuelan fleet. I have not been in Venezuela for seven or eight years, but when I was there I do not think that any competent judge would have risked pounds;20,000 on the purchase of the whole fleet. It consisted of a few antiquated old tubs, most of them incapable of steaming; and the House will understand the reason when I tell them that the favourite Venezuelan notion is to use salt water in the boilers. The House will perhaps now understand why the German sailors thought it better to sink them. What we want to know from the Government is, what are they going to do? It is perfectly certain that the seizure of the Venezuelan fleet will have no effect at all on the mind of the Venezuelans. Between ourselves and the German Government a claim has been put forward amounting to about a million and a quarter. But how are you going to get it? I do not believe that, in the best of times, the Venezuelan customs ever yielded a million a year, and I do not think that you would be able to collect a million and a quarter in two years, and I even doubt whether you would be able to collect it in three years. Then there is no mention of the fact that the President of Venezuela will, I imagine, call Congress together and abolish the Customs duties. In that case, if the Government can induce any one to pay Customs duties to it, it will be exceptionally lucky. The President is reported to have asked for arbitration. I hope the Government will agree to it. They have had some little experience of arbitration with Venezuela. They should remember the dispute over the boundaries. For years and years Venezuela was asking for arbitration, but Lord Salisbury refused it over and over again. Then America asked for it, and we granted it next day. We ate dirt. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is it not eating dirt to refuse a thing to a weak man and grant it next day to a strong man? I should like to point out that when Mr. Haggard presented something very like an ultimatum to the Venezuelan Minister, the Minister's final remark was that "they were used to these communications." In other words, they had seen so much of the British Government that they did not take it seriously. If you are really going to hold these ports and collect the Customs, you cannot collect the full amount of our claims for two years, and probably not for three years; and remember that all that time the claim will be increasing, because the debt will continue. The best thing to be done is to accept arbitration of any kind you can get. Do you believe that the United States, however quietly it may now appear to regard the situation, is going to sit down and allow our Government and the German Government to occupy the Venezuelan Custom Houses for three or four years?

I want to press one thing most strongly on the Government. I do beg that, whatever the Germans may do, our Government will not commit themselves to any expeditions into the interior of the country. One thing is certain from the history of the Venezuelans; they will fight. There has never been a nation with Spanish blood in it that would not fight when the pinch came. In Venezuela they have been steadily fighting among themselves during the greater part of the last seven or eight years; in fact, outsiders might say that every man who was not a first-rate fighting man must have been killed off already, that only the creme de la cremecan have survived, and they are the people you will have to meet if you go into the interior. We have heard of this Government of ours conducting warlike operations without maps. I hope they will consult a large scale map before they embark on any expedition, even with the help of the Germans, into the interior of Venezuela. On a small map it looks an easy thing to march up to the capital and seize Caracas, which is only seven miles from the coast. The Government may be encouraged to seize Caracas by the fact that Drake seized it before them. But I do not think you have a Drake sitting on the Treasury Bench, although I have no doubt the Secretary of State for War would consider himself fully competent to take his place. At any rate, I am convinced that the march to Caracas would be no child's play. Caracas is only seven miles from the sea, but the mountains in between are 8,000 feet high, and are covered with wood, and even the railway route over the passes, which, naturally, is the shortest possible, is twenty-three miles long. Even if Caracas be seized, it must be remembered that it is a large town with 70,000 inhabitants, who will have to be fed; it is commanded all round by mountains; and a large army would be required to keep up the communication with the coast, short though the distance is. I do not know what the Government are going to tell us, but I hope they will say most decidedly that their operations are to be limited to the coast, and that they do not intend to go into the interior on any wild goose expeditions. My belief is that the Government have embarked on one of the rashest operations that this country has ever undertaken; I hope they will stop while there is time, and take any kind of arbitration that is held out to them, for I believe that any sort of settlement they are likely to get by peace will prove more honourable to them, and a great deal better for the British bondholders, than anything they are likely to obtain by war.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Schwann.)

*(10.0.) LORD CRANBORNE

I am not quite certain how I ought to treat the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I will not dwell on the questions he has asked with reference to the bombardment reported in the evening papers; in the absence of further information it would be unwise to comment upon it. Nor will I take much notice of the observations he thought fit to make on the attitude of our representative in Venezuela, and the course of conduct pursued by him at the critical moment of the presentation of the ultimatum. For my part I observe nothing in the least undignified in his proceedings; he acted in precise conformity with the instructions he had received from the Foreign Office. He was ordered by the Foreign Office to give the Venezuelan Government every opportunity to avoid the crisis to which we have reluctantly been driven; he gave them twentyfour hours notice at Caracas, and another twenty-four hours when he got to La Guaira, and I consider that he carried out his instruction absolutely, and showed our desire to avoid, if at all possible, the unfortunate arbitrament to which in the end we have been obliged to appeal. I was more attracted by the earlier part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which, as far as I could make out, he tried to show that we ought to go to war with every South American Republic. He began by saying that he thought not only the more important parts, but every part of our casus belli was good, and that it applied to every South American Republic. That observation was undoubtedly extravagant, but I can hardly reckon the hon. Gentleman, after the early and more serious portion of his speech, as an opponent of the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Now I turn to the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Manchester, who complained that the Papers on the situation had been long delayed, and were meagre in substance. I can assure the hon. Member that these Papers, which are but summaries of the voluminous Papers which will be presented later on, have been prepared with the least possible delay, in order to give the House and the country a full knowledge of the situation in Venezuela. These Papers were undoubtedly delayed, but I would ask the House to consider how very difficult it is for a Department engaged in most critical negotiations, involving immense labour, to give the additional time necessary to get Papers together for presentation to Parliament. I can assure the House that no time has been unnecessarily lost in their preparation. Besides, it should be remembered that the Papers could not be presented until the actual crisis had come, for up fill the last moment His Majesty's Government hoped that the Venezuelan Government would take a reasonable view of the situation and accede to our demands; and the House will recognise that no course could be more unfortunate than to publish the causes of our quarrel with the Venezuelan Government while there was still a chance that peace might be preserved. It was only when the forty-eight hours' notice had expired, and all hope of an amicable solution had to be abandoned, that the Papers could be got together and presented. Very few days have since elapsed, and I really do not think there is any great cause of complaint in that respect.

As I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for North Manchester, I wondered in what capacity the hon. Gentleman spoke. Was it as a British Member of Parliament? The hon. Gentleman strained every point which could be made against His Majesty's Government in this issue. He was like a third-rate attorney. [OPPOSITION cries of "No,"] The Leader of the Opposition says "No," but the right hon. Gentleman was not present during the whole of the speech; he did not come in, I think, until the hon. Gentleman had nearly finished.