§ THE PRIME MINISTER (The MARQUESS of SALISBURY)I am laying Papers on the Table with respect to the correspondence which has taken place on the matter of arbitration with the United States. I venture to say a few words, which is unusual, because I am taking an unusual course with respect to the Papers. The negotiation is not complete. It is usual to wait until the negotiation is complete, but with the assent of the American Government we have thought it better to lay the Papers now. The Recess has begun in America, and I hope it will, before very long, begin in England, and I think it would be inconvenient that Parliament should separate without knowing what has been 2 going on in respect to this very important question. Therefore, I have departed from the usual practice by laying Papers intermediately. The negotiation, as I have said, is not complete, but I think, considering the great importance of some of the issues that are at stake, it has been advancing in a favourable manner, and certainly with entire friendliness on the part of both Governments. It has taken two courses. In the first place there is the smaller question of Venezuela, in respect of which the United States has assumed the attitude of the friend of Venezuela, and we have been rather glad to negotiate with the United States rather than with Venezuela. But in respect to that, as I have said, we have not come to a conclusion. The difficulty lies in the fact that Venezuela embraces a very large proportion, I think two-thirds, of the colony of British Guiana, including a considerable quantity of territory that is settled, and that has been settled for a number of years. We have never thought, and we do not now think, that 3 the ownership of that territory is a matter which ought to be submitted to arbitration. At the same time, with respect to the unsettled territory, we have always been willing that that should be submitted to arbitration, but it is necessary, of course, to distinguish between the two. Our view has been that at this stage arbitration is not a suitable remedy; that the first thing that has to be ascertained is the real state of the facts in respect to the past history of Venezuela, and of Spain, and of Holland in those countries, and, when the facts are fully ascertained by a Commission in which both countries have confidence, I do not myself believe that the diplomatic question that will follow will be one that will be very difficult of adjustment. When once we know what the facts are, I do not think there will be much difficulty in coming to an agreement as to their result. But even if there is, that would then be the time for applying the principle of arbitration. In order that arbitration may be satisfactory, the issue presented to it should be clean, clear, and simple, and, when we know enough of the facts to be able to say what are the precise points on which the two Governments differ on the question of boundaries, I think then the question of arbitration will probably be dealt with without difficulty and without involving—what we deprecate—exposing to the hazard of a tribunal which is comparatively untried, the long-inherited and long-possessed rights of British colonies. But the real truth is, with respect to Venezuela, it has been impossible that we should go faster than we have done, because we have not yet obtained the whole of the facts that are necessary for a decision of the case. The labour has been enormous. I shall lay another Blue-book of documents upon the Table in a few days, and I think your Lordships will see, from the Blue-book that has gone before, that the labour it has been necessary to expend in ascertaining the facts that are concealed in all these archives is so large that it could not be accomplished in a briefer time. The Commission has been pursuing its investigations, and we have offered every facility to enable them to be pursued to a satisfactory result. When, as I say, the facts have been ascertained, it will probably be easy to 4 settle the matter by diplomacy; if not, to settle the particular issues that arise by an appeal to an arbitrator. But, my Lords, at the same time, concurrently with these negotiations, we have also raised again the negotiation which was commenced in the time of the noble Lord opposite on the subject of a general system of arbitration between the United States and Great Britain. It was terminated partly owing to the lamented death of one of the negotiators, and partly owing to a difficulty which has not yet been surmounted—the difficulty of dealing with these cases, which are so large, and which involve interests of so vital a character that Statesmen shrink from submitting them to what may be the hazards of arbitration. We have had much discussion with the United States on that point. I think the tendency of the United States Government is to desire a rapid and summary decision of this question. In our view the principle of obligatory arbitration is applied for the first time, and it is attended with considerable hazards and doubts, and we are of opinion that a circumspect and careful method of procedure is desirable. ["Hear, hear!"] We think that such machinery as an appeal or protest should be provided in one form or another, that will prevent the miscarriage of justice to the great detriment of, it may be, a large population of English colonists through any error on the part of the arbitrator who may be selected. I do not wish now to dwell on the difficulties of arbitration: it would be out of place. There are difficulties with respect to the tribunal and with respect to the law which is to be administered, but one of the difficulties which pressed upon us the most is that, the system being untried, we do not know how far an obligatory system of arbitration may not produce speculative claims—that is to say, a Government might claim that which it really had no great hope of obtaining by way of gaining popularity, or exercising pressure upon the Government which was negotiating. You might say that such claims would be dealt with by the arbitrator. Yes; but our experience is that arbitrations last sometimes for a considerable number of years. We are interested in an arbitration now in Africa which has lasted seven or eight years, and during 5 the whole of that time any part of the frontier which is affected by the claim of a neighbouring State comes very much into the position in which, in our youth, properties that were in Chancery used to be found—namely, that the title to them was uncertain, and there was no agency which could be trusted for maintaining that property and guarding it from danger. My Lords, Mr. Olney, on behalf of the United States Government, has answered that such questions are not likely to arise between the United States and Great Britain, and, no doubt, to a great extent, that is true; but it must not be forgotten that of late years the United States has shown a disposition to adopt as its own questions affecting many Republics in South America. I do not in the least quarrel with that disposition; it is what we have done ourselves. We ourselves take an interest in the frontiers of Sweden, of Holland, of Belgium, and of Portugal. These things are matters of importance to us, and I do not deny that the United States has some right, as we have, to show an interest in the welfare of a neighbouring people; but, of course, the fact brings with it the possibility that the claims of such Powers will become a matter of arbitration, and you must regard your prospects, under an obligatory system of arbitration, as depending rather upon the average disposition of various States over the continent of America, than upon the disposition of the United States itself, which, I have no doubt, would be much more moderate. For these reasons we have exhibited very considerable caution and circumspection in these negotiations. Still, the various questions at issue are still the subject of discussion. We have been reproached for delay, but, we feel that this matter is one of such supreme importance, that an error which you may commie may affect your national interests for a long period of time, and may affect not only your own frontiers, but the frontiers of the colonies which are intrusted to your charge. These considerations have made us very anxious to be careful in every step we have taken, and we have felt that we would rather incur the charge of unnecessary delay than, by precipitation, involve ourselves in difficulties 6 which would affect interests that ought to be so very dear to us. [Cheers.] For these reasons, my Lords, we have maintained these negotiations with the care and circumspection of which I have spoken, and it is also for these reasons that we have done what I mentioned at the beginning of my observations—namely, laid the Dispatches on the Table while the negotiations have been going on. We have need to know what is the trend of public opinion on these matters. We desire, in a question which is certainly not one of Party, that the best intellects that we have on both sides should apply themselves to a matter that affects the welfare of the human race in a singular degree, and especially the good relations of a State with which we so desire to be on good terms as the United States of America. Therefore we have laid the Papers on the Table, and we hope to derive, from such attention as noble Lords on both sides of the House may devote to them, much guidance with respect to the subsequent conduct of the negotiations that we have to pursue. [Cheers.]