UNITED STATES CONSULATE (NEWCASTLE). (Hansard, 7 March 1923)

§ Mr. ADAMS

In accordance with the Notice which I gave a week ago, I desire to draw the attention of the House to a matter of very considerable public importance, which indeed has assumed an international complexion, namely, the closing by the Foreign Office, on 1st September last., of the -United States Con- 677 sulate at Newcastle-on-Tyne. Six months have passed, and very material damage has been done to the trade and commerce of that great centre of population. The grounds upon which the Government took this extraordinary step were that the Consul or Vice-Consul at Newcastle-on-Tyne had been guilty of displaying an undue preference for American shipping lines. It was alleged that, before granting visas on the passports of intending travellers, they had made it a stipulation that such travellers should travel, not by the usual and, perhaps, more common routes of the English lines of steamers, but by American-owned vessels. The situation was that towards the end of July, or early in August, the American Government were notified that we would in 30 days withdraw the exequater of the Consul and Vice-Consul of Neweastle-on-Tyne. The American Government intimated to the Foreign Office that, as that was the first they had beard of these charges, they would prefer the status quo to continue while they made an investigation. In the absence of any further statement from the Foreign Office to America, that inquiry took place. Upon the 1st September, without any further warning, the Consulate was closed by the withdrawal of this authority from the Consul and Vice-Consul. Steamers which were awaiting the necessary permit were held up ill the river, a considerable number of emigrants also requiring authority were unable to proceed, and general dislocation and chaos ensued.

The course pursued by the Foreign Office is altogether unprecedented in the history of this country. Lord Curzon has endeavoured to show by the correspond-once that was published a dab or two ago that there was some parallel between this case and what took place during the Crimean War. The offences charged against the British Consuls in the United States at that lime was that they were engaged in recruiting men front States which were not at war with the Powers with which Britain was in conflict. A totally different situation prevailed. The conviction it presented in the States and at Newcastle-on-Tyne—and I think the opinion of all the business men concerned—is that this was as high-handed as it was unprecedented on the part of the Foreign Office. This action, no doubt, was suitable to our Eastern Dependency, but it is considered in the North totally 678 unsuitable treatment towards the great and friendly Republic of the West. I have asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs to justify, if he can, the conduct of the Foreign Office or some underling there. America, as I have observed from a visit there and from a perusal of the Press of that country, is convinced that great injustice was done to both Consul and Vice-Consul. I have it On the authority of persons on the spot that the Foreign Office, in order to bolster up a case against these men, sent men to the Newcastle Consulate who attempted again and again as bonâ fide travellers to inveigle both Consul and Vice-Consul into saying, "Well, you must travel by American lines before we grant you the necessary visas." In every case, according to the evidence which I have obtained, they were unable so to persuade either Consul or Vice-Consul.

I desire to say, as a member of the commercial community of Newcastle, and so speaking, as I do on this occasion, as the Sheriff of that great industrial centre, that there was no more popular, urbane, W. inure willing member of that community than the Consul of the United States at. Newcastle-on-Tyne. The American Government asked very properly for the whole of the information upon which these charges were based. The Foreign Office refused that request. Eventually, the Government sent to the United States documents so emasculated as to names, occupations, addresses, and data, as to be valueless to the United States Commissioners for cross-examining the persons who alleged that visas has been refused to them. Naturally, that, great country was placed at a disadvantage and disability. However, America has caused three separate and independent investigations to be made. His Excellency the American Ambassador held the first and obtained local knowledge from individual traders and travellers both in America and in Britain. The next investigation was held by the Consul-General located in London. Not satisfied with this the United States Government sent a special Commission from Washington charged to obtain all the information possible upon this subject, and to take the necessary steps to deal with the officials concerned, if proved to be guilty. It is, nevertheless, a fact that although these Com- 679 Missions with all the evidence before them came to the conclusion that there was no justification for the charges which had been urged against their servants. I desire to say that the United States in this matter has acted with most commendable toleration. The proper method for the Foreign Office to have adopted was not to have arbitrarily closed the Consulate, but to have requested the United States to take the necessary steps to deal with these servants themselves.

A Consul or Vice-Consul is not prohibited from giving advice. I am a traveller myself, and abroad I frequently go to our Consul who advises as to how to travel, what are the best railways, etc., and any other information required. British Consuls are certainly permitted to engage in other operations besides acting as Consuls for this country. Our local Press has, with considerable authority, stated with regard to this subject that Mr. Hughes deliberately withheld the publication of the documents which have recently appeared in the Press because he felt that if they were published before the negotiations regarding the funding of the debt to the United States had been completed there might have been considerable difficulty in completing such negotiations. I desire to give the Under-Secretary an opportunity of replying, but I wish to say that in Newcastle we cannot sit any longer in this intolerable position. Many thousands of pounds have already been lost to the city of Newcastle, much trade has been lost. People requiring visas have now to travel additional 200 miles. A leader of the Northumberland miners told me that he could not raise the money for his men to undertake a long journey of that wasteful kind. The Foreign Office has culpably blundered in this matter. The Foreign Office is the servant of this House, or it ought to be, and if we have an excellent case as we are advised, let the light of day be shed upon it. I have asked for the Papers to be laid on the Table of the House, but that has been refused.

The longer we permit this impasse the worse it is for us. It is not an injury to the United States, it is an injury to our traders, our people, our travellers, and to all associated with the immense volume of trade which passes from the North of England to the United States. 680 We are the sufferers, and I say that: this state of affairs which ought never to have arisen—because even if the charges are accurate, it casts a grave reflection on the methods and conduct of the Foreign Office—should he ended at the earliest possible moment. I had a letter from an American trader the other day, who is very anxious that this matter should be brought to an end, and as it is rather in the vernacular it may be interesting— It is a great pity to have so much trouble over such a little matter, especially between two nations who are allied and are supposed to act together like brothers in the rehabilitation of the world's peace. It is, I think, an inopportune time for anyone to rock the boat now. This little affair should never have reached such proportions, and it cannot be settled too soon. I ask the Foreign Office to take the necessary steps to satisfy the United States and the North of England, and have the Consulate opened forthwith.

§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill)

I am very glad indeed that the hon. Members have brought this matter forward, because I quite realise the feelings which they represent—very reasonable feelings—as I think I can assure them that the dissatisfaction which they say exists in the North of England is fully shared by the Government. The hon. Member who brought up the question, if I may say so, gave a rather coloured version, which I do not think is really borne out by the true facts of the case. I regret he should have allowed himself to use such a sneer against; the Secretary of State as to say that his conduct in this matter might have been proper if directed against one of our Eastern dependencies, but that it was out of place in dealing with a friendly nation and a great Ally. That is not the spirit in which this matter 681 should be approached. I think the hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. He spoke, for example, of the Foreign Office having closed the Consulate and having done so in a very peremptory and high-handed manner. The Foreign Office never closed the Consulate. In fact they would have no power to close it, oven had they desired to do so. What they (lid de I will endeavour in a few words. to explain to the House. The hon. Member was quite correct in his statement as to the original cause of this difficulty. A complaint reached the Foreign Office from the Board of Trade. Of course, the Foreign Office itself would not have had cognisance of a matter of this sort. The trading community made representations to the Board of Trade and the Board of Trade passed them on to the Foreign Office, asking the Secretary of State to take such action as he could in order to prevent what was believed to be an improper use of the American Consulate to promote the interests of American, in opposition to and competition with British, shipping.

The Foreign Office, of course, on that, felt it their duty to look into the matter, and they took such evidence as they could obtain, not by any means in the fashion ascribed by the hon. Gentleman, as if they had gone about fishing for evidence in a hole-and-corner way. As a matter of fact they had no difficulty in obtaining statements, some of which were sworn and some were not; but there is one unfortunate circumstance connected with the matter, I agree, and that is that the persons who gave the evidence did so only on the distinct assurance that their names would not be divulged. That evidence, being in the possession of the Foreign Office, left them in no doubt whatever, and I do not think that the House will have any doubt, that the consul—of whom I wish to speak with every possible courtesy, and whom I believe the hon. Member was justified in describing as, personally, most popular and agreeable, but that hardly affects the point—did use his position in order to promote, in opposition to British shipping, the interests of his own country.

When that evidence was in the hands of the Foreign Office they, of course, communicated at once, with the British Ambassador in Washington, with whom they have acted throughout in complete 682 consultation, and the British Ambassador was instructed to make representations to the American Government. He did so. I am sorry that I have not more time than I have to go more fully into this matter, but it is not correct, as the hon. Gentleman stated, and, no doubt, thought, that the Government have refused information to the American Government. Quite the contrary. They placed in the hands of the American Government the evidence which was at their disposal, while, of course, in accordance with their pledge, withholding the names of the persons who had given it. As a matter of fact, that was a matter of very small consequence, because it could not possibly matter to the American Government whether documents of that sort were sinned by John Smith or Tom Jones. That was immaterial. The representative of the American Government was in this country and had an interview with one of the officials at the Foreign Office and we thoroughly believed an amicable compromise had been arrived at, because on 19th October, after the conversations that were held, a note was addressed to the United States Embassy enclosing a draft of identical instructions drawn up by these two gentlemen in agreement, which it: was proposed to issue to Consular officers in both countries in order to prevent a recurrence of similar incidents.

It was agreed on behalf of both sides that if this course were adopted and these heist ructions were given to prevent it occurring again, we for our part would immediately drop, without prejudice to the principle, the charges which had been made against the American Consul and on the other hand, the United States Government would re-open the Consulate because it was the United States Government and not the Foreign Office that closed the Consulate. We thought that compromise had been happily arrived at but for reasons which I have never been able to find out, on the 9th November the United States Embassy presented a Note in which they refused to admit this suggested compromise, and took up the position that they would not reopen the Consulate unless we not merely consented to drop the charges, but withdrew them absolutely, and admitted that they had not been substantiated. That was a course which it was impossible for the Govern- 683 ment to take. We could not possibly have admitted that they were not substantiated, because, in our judgment, they were, and I do not see that the investigation which the American Government made really had very much to do with the case. Obviously the evidence they obtained in that way could only, so far as I see, have been negative evidence. Whatever evidence they obtained was to show 684 apparently that these gentlemen had not exceeded the rights of their position. But how does that affect the matter when we have in our possession conclusive evidence to show that they did?