(Frost "Tar, Econouast.")
The presentation of papers and the speeches of Lord Cranborne and Mr. Balfour on Monday have put the country in possession of the facts which the King's Ministers think sufficient for the justification of their action in Venezuela. Undoubtedly the evidence thus brought forward does answer some of the questions which suggested themselves last week. But there are others which it does not answer at all. The delay in the production of the papers remains unaccounted for. Lord Cranborne, indeed, assured the House of Commons that no time has been lost in their preparation. It would be interesting to hear Messrs. Harrison's opinion on this point. he latest dispatch in these papers is dated Tuesday, December 2nd, Endif the printers had kept abreast of their work, it is hard to see why the final document might not have been in type and ready to be laid on the table by the following Monday, instead of being delayed for another week.
must be admitted that the papers, though they are somewhat belated, do disclose a strong case against the Venezuelan Government. The opening memo-random set out seven cases in which British subjects have been subjected outrages and indignities for which reparation has been refused The Venezuelan method of treating the subjects of a friendly Power closely resembles the marooning which was so much in favour with the Buccaneers. Thus, in the case of certain bouts trading between Port of Spain and Veuezueli, half of the passengers and crews, among wont were some British subjects, were driven to take refuge in the woods on the island of Patos, "where they were left without food, water, or moans of leaving the island." In the case of the Sea Hors:, a boat he-longing to a British subject was seized by a Venezuelan coastguard, and the crew left on the same island without food or water. The Maria Theresa, the property of a British subject, was set on fire and com-plately destroyed." The In Time, another irish vessel, was "boarded, and broken up." The Queen, also a British ship, was "stripped of her sails and papers," and finally confiscated, the crew being put on shore and left destitute." "These cases afford ample ground for Lord Lansdowne's statement that "the liberty and perty of British subjects have been interfered with in a wholly unwarrantable manner by the Venezuclin Government." On July 29th last the English Minister at Caracas was instructed to tell the President that the King's Govern: could not tolerate a continuance of thix conduct, and that unless they receive! explicit assurances that incidents of this nature should not recur, followed by prompt payment of com: pensation where the British Government are in a position to prove that it is justly due, force would be resorted to. The Venezuelan Government refused the demand, and took no notice of the threat. Thereupon, on August 8th, Lord Lans-dunne communicated the facts to the Admiralty, and asked for their opinion as to "the must effectual and convenient manner of putting pressure upon the Venezuelan Government." In reply, the Admiralty advised the blockade of certain Venezuslan ports, but advised that the measure should be deferred till November, when the unhealthy season would he over. For some reason which is not given Lord Lansdowne thought a blockade open to! some objection, and preferred the seizure of the Venezuelan gun By this time, however, we had been Taly 23rd the German Ambassador had joined by another claimant. As early as called at.the Foreign Office, and been informed by the Secretary of State that. the British Government would be quite willing to confer with the German Government, with a view to joint action on the part of the two Powers, This suggestion ripened during the late summer, and on the 11th of last month th- German Ambassador had a very important interview with Lord Lansdowne, in which he explained his view of the position. The German Government, he said, approved of the suggestion that the first step in the process of obtaining redress should be the seizure of the Venezuelan gunboats. The Ambassador then went on to say that there was "a sharp distinction between the British and German first line' claims." Unfortunately, only a part of the dispatch giving an account of this into: view is published, so we are left in doubt whether the nature of this sharp distinction was or was not explained to Lord Lansdowne. To all appearance, however, the conversation at one from the differences between the claims to the extent to which they should be jointly enforced. Count Metternich was of opinion that the claims of the two countries "ought to stand or fall: together," and that the possibility of settlement between Venezuela and one of the two Powers without an equally satisfac tory settlement in the case of the other," should be expressly excluded. Unless Lord Lansdowne has information about the German claims which is not given in these papers, his answer to this proposal seems extraordinary What we should have expected him to say is that lefor- he could either accept or decline Count Mvitern ch's Herman fiat line " demands were. All, reposal, he must know precisely what the however, that we learn from the dispatch is, that Lord Lansdowne thought it only reasonable that, f we agreed to act. together in applying coercion, we should also agree that' "teach should' support. the other's demands, and should not desist from doing so, except by agreement " But would it not have been more reasonable still if, before agreeing to act together in applying coercion, the Foreign Secretary had ascertained the exact nature of the German! demands, and to what extent they resemble the British demands? For example, there is good reason to believe that the German claims include arrears of unpaid interest on the bonds of the great Venezuelan Railway. What are the views of the English Government as to the kind of ection to be afforded bondholders Mr;
us iv no doubt upon this point look, four', speech on Monday happily left he said, upon such international action"—international action undertaken in order to protect the interests of bondholders—" with the gravest doubt and suspicion. Tdoubt whether we have in the past ever gone to war fur those of our countrymen who have leit money to a foreign Government, and I confess I should be very sort. to sce that made a practice in this country." We are very viad that. we have this assurance from the Prime Min'ster, words on the san they would hi less satisfactory. "Tu my view," he said, " the bondholders have conferred very great benefits in South America, and are entitled to protection by their own fellow-countrymen." To protection of life and gods if they happen to be living in the country to which they hare lent money—yes. To the use of a gunboat whenever the country to which they have lent money makes default in of interest—n¢ American securities ely prefers the certain undertaking to collec: gunboats and blue. subsidizing the foreign bondholder at the. jackets it, is simply cost. of the holder of home bonds.
We know from what the Prime Minister said later in the +vening that Lord Cranborne did not mean this—he only said it. But, in all probability, the German Government does mean this, and if it does, the position in which we are landed is rather an absurd one. We ought not to goto war, and we do not go to war, for our own bondholders. But we may to war, and we are going to war, for the eft of German bondholders. Unless it should turn out that these bondholders are not in the German " first line" claims, this, and nothing short of this, is what we are doing. It is not at all likely, however, that the bondholders are excluded, for why, but for this, should Count Metternich have so emphasised the difference between the German first line" claims and the British What we may look forward to as possibility, therefore, is the continuance of hostilities with Venezuela after our own claims on her have been satisfied. in con-land and Germany should support each formity with our undertaking that Eng-other's demands, and should not desist from doing so, except by agreement."—It may, conceivably, be some time before the German Government are prepared to come any such agreement. 'There isone more thing in these papers which calls for a passing remark, and that is, a curious difference between Mr. Balfour and Lord Lansdowne's language on this subject. Mr. Balfour's view of the bondholders' claims we have just quoted, but, in a dispatch to Mr. Buchanan, dated November 17th, Lord Lansdowne speaks of these claims as coming third in the classification, adds that the King's Government do not. desire to draw a distinction between the various categories," since to advance any one class of claims would diminish the chances of scouring in all caves the et ion which they considered to be justly due" This looks as though, after all, we did mean the bondholders' to benefit by the "ar, although we should not have undertaken iron their behalf. Mr, Balfour no doubt meant to exclude this interpretation, but, unfortunately, in Germany a written dispatch of the' Foreign Secretary will be Fegarted as of more authority than the spoken words of the Prime Minister.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.