CARNEGIE INSTITUTE. (Hansard, 22 April 1907)

§ LORD LEITH OF FYVIE
rose to move for any correspondence which had taken place between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America respecting the international celebrations held at Pittsburg, United States of America, in connection with the opening of the Carnegie Institute; and to ask why His Majesty's Ambassador was not present or represented on that international occasion.

The noble Lord said
My Lords, the Question I have placed upon the Paper requires an answer in some form, and I have no doubt it will be one which will remove the feeling that there has been indifference on the part of our Ambassador in America to affairs going on there. The institute to which I refer, the Carnegie Institute, has been growing for many years and is regarded by the people of the United States as a national institution. It is really the expression of an enormous evolution and development in the arts of iron and steel, especially in that centre of industry, Pittsburg, and therefore invitations were 1365 sent by the Committee to all nations to take part in the celebration of inauguration. Our Ambassador at Washington was invited, together with the representatives of all other foreign nations. His Majesty the Emperor William was not only represented by his Ambassador but he specially requested that a Commission, representing him, of the highest arts and sciences of his country, should be allowed to visit Pittsburg at the time and take part in the inauguration.
France, Italy, and other countries as well were represented by their highest minds in science and art, but in this international gathering England apparently was not represented. Our Ambassador declined the invitation, stating inability to attend, and he also declined on the part of the members of the Embassy to allow them to attend a meeting at which the representatives of all nations were taking part in doing honour to a very great evolution—a world evolution. England alone stood aloof in the inauguration of this institute. Those who have worked in the United States and in connection with the people of America are aware how sensitive they are, and how often it is that little things of this kind affect the public mind and grow from an acorn into an enormous tree of public opinion.
It will be a great disappointment to those who have been connected with the United States if they see that the great work done by the patient endeavours of the late Lord Pauncefote in establishing the entente between the two countries is in any way endangered by an act of indifference which might be construed into something rather stronger; and I think it is desirable that the matter should be mot at once and the American people told that there was no intention of any indifference. Our own people were represented largely by the Colonies and representatives of arts and letters, but when it came to the question of the Government, England was silent. Surely England should have taken the lead in a matter of this kind to congratulate the country on this great institution which constitutes an immense development of the technical and scientific education of the nation.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for any 1366 correspondence which has taken place between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America respecting the international celebrations held at Pittsburg, United States of America, in connection with the opening of the Carnegie Institute.—(Lord Leith of Fyvie.)

LORD FITZMAURICE
My Lords, there is no correspondence which, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, could be usefully laid respecting the celebrations held at Pittsburg in connection with the opening of the Carnegie Institute. I hope, however, that I shall be able to give a reply which will be satisfactory to the noble Lord. I make no complaint of his asking the Question. On the contrary, statements have been made in the Press in regard to this gathering which, if uncontradicted, might possibly leave a mistaken impression. I therefore think it desirable that they should be contradicted, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given me this opportunity of doing so.
I wish, in the first place, to say that the invitations which were issued to the heads of foreign Missions, were not issued to them as such, or in any official capacity. I have been in communication with His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington since the noble Lord placed his Question on the Paper, and the statement I am making is based on information received from him. His Majesty's Ambassador had only just returned from an official visit to Canada, and had important business to transact at Washington, which made it impossible for him to absent himself again so soon, especially as he was due to attend the National Arbitration and Peace Congress Conference at New York and a conference at Philadelphia during the following week. It was, as I have said, impossible for Mr. Bryce to attend the opening of the Carnegie Institute owing to the multifarious character of the duties which awaited him immediately on his arrival at Washington from Canada, whither he had gone for high reasons of State, and he selected those engagements which he could attend with the greatest facility consistently with the discharge of his other duties at Washington. Neither the Gorman, Austro- 1367 Hungarian, French nor Russian Embassies were represented at Pittsburg; therefore there was nothing in the absence of Mr. Bryce to call attention in any marked way by contrast to any discrepancy between the position of the British Embassy and the Embassies I have mentioned. There were important representatives of those great interests, educational and other, to which the Pittsburg Institute so much appeals in the presence at the celebrations of delegates from our great and ancient Universities as well our more modern Universities, and I believe the Government of the United States and the people of America fully recognised in the presence of those deputations the outward sign of the respect and sympathy which the Government and people of this country felt in that great gathering and the proceedings connected with it. If there has been any misunderstanding such as the noble Lord seems to think has arisen, I am exceedingly glad of the opportunity publicly to state how much His Majesty's Government and our Ambassador at Washington appreciated the importance of that occasion, and how much Mr. Bryce himself regretted that he was prevented from attending; and I need not remind the House that there is hardly any man in the whole of our diplomatic service to whom a great educational occasion of this kind would appeal more than to Mr. Bryce.