Page images
PDF
EPUB

as arbiters. These two arbitrators shall then select an umpire to whom shall be referred any question upon which they disagree. To them all questions, save those affecting honour and integrity, may be referred. Britain and the United States bind themselves to accept their award as final, with the exception of questions involving the territory, territorial rights, sovereignty, or jurisdiction of either Power, or any pecuniary claim involving a larger sum than £100,000. The arbiters may deal with all such reserved questions, but only subject to a right of appeal within three months of their award, to a joint Court composed of three English and three American judges, any two of whom shall have the right to set the award on one side. If, however, it is approved by five to one, or if no protest is entered by either Power within the three months, then the award shall be final. All these arrangements are subject to the provision that while any question may, by special agreement, be referred to the arbitrators, no question which in the judgment of either Power materially affects its honour or the integrity of its territory, shall be referred to arbitration excepting by special agree

ment.

Suggestions.

Mr. Olney replied by accepting the Mr. Olney's general principle of the two permanent arbitrators with their umpire, who shall have absolute power to decide all questions, excepting those relating to the honour and integrity of the country; but he made one objection and one suggestion. The objection was to the somewhat extraordinary proposal of Lord Salisbury, that in all territorial cases any two judges of a joint Court of six should have the right to set aside the award of the arbiters. Mr. Olney's alternative was that, wherever the award was not unanimous, either of the parties should have the right to appeal to a joint Court composed of three American, three English, and three learned and impartial jurists, which, unanimously or by a majority vote, would either affirm the award or make another according as seemed good in their eyes. The vote of the three learned and impartial jurists is only to be taken in case the Court should be equally divided. The suggestion which Mr. Olney made was that the reservation of questions from the Tribunal, because they involved the honour of the nation or the integrity of its territory, should be vested, not in the executive Government, but in Congress on one side, and Parliament on the other.

Lord

Lord Salisbury replied by proposing that Salisbury's so much of the treaty as had been Practical agreed upon by both Powers should be Proposal. at once made effective without waiting for agreement upon other points. But to this Mr. Olney objected, as he was unwilling to agree except to questions materially affecting honour or integrity, unless the right of deciding what questions had such an efect was formally vested in Parliament on one side and Congress on the other. A further attempt was made to come to an agreement by Lord Salisbury, who proposed that a protested award should be allowed to stand, unless a tribunal of five Supreme Court Judges of the protesting country should set it aside. for some error of fact or some error in law. Mr. Olney replied to this by intimating his preference for Lord Salisbury's original proposal if it were modified, so that instead of the award falling to the ground unless it was proved by a majority of five to one, it should stand, unless it were condemned by a majority of five to one.

How to

Controversy.

This question of the Court of Appeal, Settle the its constitution, or the majority of members which may decide questions brought before it, is a matter of detail upon which it is impossible to doubt an agreement could speedily be arrived at, provided the one question which is constantly before Lord Salisbury's mind is satisfactorily removed from the jurisdiction of the Courts. Lord Salisbury dreads, and rightly dreads, the possibility of a foreign jurist being authorised to vote away here or there all round our coasts what we regard as inseparable portions of the patrimony of the Empire. Hence arise all the difficulties which he has made concerning the reference of territorial questions to the Tribunal. But Mr. Olney has given him an opening of which I hope he will be able to take prompt advantage. "What territorial controversies," he asks, "are likely to be raised between the United States and Great Britain?" With the exception of a small corner of Alaska, there are no territorial questions at issue between the two Governments; "the objection, therefore, is of a highly fanciful character." Now in the general Treaty of Arbitration drawn up between the United States and the Central and South American Republics, it is expressly stipulated that no question upon which a decision has already been arrived at should be raised before the Tribunal of Arbitration. For the avoidance of any misunderstanding and the deliverance of Lord Salisbury from the fear he entertains as to the raising of territorial questions,

would it not be a simple and practical solution of the difficulty to add a clause to the Arbitration Treaty, providing that neither Power shall raise before the Arbitral Tribunal any questions as to its right over the territories which at the time of the signing of the Treaty were recognised as their rightful possessions, as shown by maps annexed thereto? Each Power could thereupon secure from the other a definite and final recognition of its right to all the territory now under the Union Jack on the one side and the Stars and Stripes on the other, and the Arbitral Tribunal would be barred in advance from entertaining any question brought forward by either nation for the annexation or invasion of the territory of the other; unless, at least, that territory was acquired subsequently to the date of the signing of the Treaty. In view of many contingencies, it seems to me that the establishment of an international agreement between the two Powers as to the limits of their respective territories would be by no means the least part of the advantage resulting from the signing of such a Treaty.

Dr.

At home the chief interest has been Jameson's excited by the trial and sentence of Dr. Conviction. Jameson and his officers. The case was heard at bar by the Lord Chief Justice, Baron Pollock, and Mr. Justice Hawkins. It is almost the first opportunity that Lord Russell has had of showing that he has in him the capacity to be as great a judge as he had been an advocate. The Attorney-General prosecuted, Sir Edward Clarke defended. All the facts relating to the raid were fully gone into, all legal difficulties were brushed on one side, and after a trial which lasted seven days, the jury found what was equivalent to a verdict of guilty against all the defendants. The trial was Lord Russell's throughout, and in his summing-up he pressed the case against the prisoners with far more damning effect than the Attorney-General himself. The jury were shut up to " yes or "no" answers to four or five propositions, and by this means a verdict was secured against all the defendants. "Dr. Jim" was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment without hard labour, Sir John Willoughby to ten months, and the others to shorter terms of imprisonment.

First-class

[ocr errors]

The

the whole time of their incarceration, the privations of prison with the liberty which they had lost; but as they will now continually contrast the comparative luxury of their lot with the dismal privations" of Wormwood Scrubs, they may be congratulated upon the course taken by the authorities. whole trial, especially the austere impartiality and judicial severity of the Lord Chief Justice, has produced a momentary but salutary impression abroad. "Perfidious Albion" is felt to have vindicated the majesty of the law and meted out justice with an even hand. As for Dr. Jameson and his

friends, I can only wish them as happy and merry a time in Holloway as I passed in the same place eleven years ago.

The Parliamentary

Inquiry.

It is much to be desired, but hardly to be expected, that the result of the Parliamentary inquiry which Mr. Chamberlain in an evil hour was induced to promise at the beginning of this Session, and which now stands over for fulfilment at the beginning of next, will terminate in a fashion that redounds equally to the credit of the British name. Mr. Rhodes, who is still in the heart of rebellious Matabeleland, has offered to come home to take his trial if his prosecution should be deemed desirable. He will in any case have to come home to be examined by the Parliamentary Committee. As Dr. Harris and others will also be summoned before that tribunal, it is probable that the world at large will be enlightened, though not edified, by the public washing of the dirty linen of the Imperial factor. It is to be hoped that events in South Africa will have taken a course which will render such an inquiry less harmful than it would be if it were conducted at the present moment. In view of the position of things in Rhodesia and in South Africa, the childish persistence of the House of Commons in insisting upon inquiring into the origin and circumstances of the raid, is like nothing so much as that of a meddlesome trifler who will insist upon taking to pieces a Maxim gun, in order to see how it works, at the very moment when a Zulu impi is charging. down upon the square.

[blocks in formation]

Factor. Nothing in the world reconciles a man Mis- to being in prison as a first-class misdemeanants. demeanant so much as an experience of a few days in the ordinary cells as a criminal convict. Had the raiders been first-class misdemeanants from the beginning, they would have contrasted, during

absolutely conclusive that Mr. Rhodes, far from ordering the raid, when it took place was most confounded when he heard that Dr. Jim had gone off at half-cock. Seldom has there been a more dramatic scene sent by telegraph than the Schreiner-Rhodes interview. There is only one thing left to be cleared up now in connection with the raid, and that is how it came to pass that Imperialists as loyal and true as Mr. Rhodes and Dr. Jameson ventured to prepare such an enterprise, apparently without any thought as to how their action would be regarded at Downing Street. Hence the Parliamentary inquiry, which is to take place

[blocks in formation]
[graphic]

MATABELE MURDERERS AND SPIES AWAITING TRIAL AT FORT MANGWE.
Four were afterwards shot.

next year, will, of necessity, be directed not to the
action of the Chartered Company, but to the part
played by those, high and low, who represent the
Imperial factor in Africa and at home.

[blocks in formation]

and held several sittings for the purpose of discussing the best methods of inaugurating the Millennium on Socialist lines. As might be expected, when the most earnest and uncompromising idealists in Europe are gathered together under one roof for the purpose of deciding which was the shortest cut to Utopia, the proceedings were neither as quiet nor as orderly as a Quakers' meeting. Several free fights were fought over the question of credentials and the position of the Anarchists' delegates. When it came to the passing of resolutions, the British representatives were frequently outvoted. This was especially the case in regard to the agrarian question. The British minority proposed three approximately practical

resolutions, one of which was that an elementary knowledge of agriculture should be taught in all public schools, and that there should be universally established an efficient system of technical education in agriculture. This was rejected. A warm debate took place "as to whether the Labour party should act independently of all political parties." Ultimately the doctrine of independent action was approved of by a large majority. It is easy to exaggerate the significance of the disorder which takes place in such gatherings. This is but as the dust in the balance, compared with the getting men of all nationalities to come together to discuss as brethren the steps which they think should be taken towards "that far off divine event to which the whole creation moves."

The Powers

While the International Socialists are holding a stormy debate in London, the and Crete. International Concert of European Powers is beginning to discover that it will have to reconsider its attitude of abstention in Turkey. The Cretan insurrection refuses to die down, and the Powers are said to be in consultation for the establishment of a naval cordon around the revolted island. Rumours are rife as to a change in the attitude of Russia, which is hoped for, and which may not be unreasonably expected, owing to the ties that unite the Russian and British ruling families. very curious to note the disinclination of many Englishmen to take any action in Crete, on the ground that we are so suspected by foreign Powers. But this is the very argument that was brought forward by Russia to justify her inaction in Armenia.

It is

There are symptoms that the insurrectionary movement is spreading to Macedonia, and Austria is naturally becoming seriously alarmed. It is to be hoped that, despite the temptation to pay off Germany and Russia in their own coin, the British Government will energetically support every effort to compel the Sultan to abstain from harrying his unfortunate subjects in Crete or anywhere else.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

The Ministry Losing Ground.

of Canada and the United States, but that was his plain duty. Canada will yet be the meeting-ground on which Great Britain and the United States will recognise the identity of their interests and the necessity for unifying their external relations. While Mr. Laurier advocated the movement in favour of the establishment of a Colonial Zollverein, it has received a heavy blow in the declaration of Mr. G. H. Reid, the Prime Minister of New South Wales. Discussing Mr. Chamberlain's proposal, Mr. Reid declared that any successful attempt to found such an Imperial Zollverein would create an intolerable situation, in which the present loyalty would be frittered away by the clashing and selfish trade interests of the various parts of the Empire. The position of the Ministry at the close of its first Session is not so strong as it was when it opened. An impression has gained ground that it is unlucky. The Conservative papers, headed by the Times, have displayed an extraordinary freedom of criticism the Administrato the shortcomings of tion. The House of Commons has realised as it never did before how easy-going, not to say happygo-lucky, a leader it has in Mr. Balfour, and byeelections have indicated the turning of the tide. Liberals are in good spirits, and if they would but agree to unite on a vigorous campaign in the recess, in favour of improving the education of our people, they would have a much better position next year than they have had this. In the interests of the Government itself, as Mr. Balfour frankly admitted, it is much to be desired that the Opposition should be stronger than it was left at the close of the last general election.

as

Land Bill.

In Parliament there was little doing The Irish last month excepting the Irish Land Bill. This measure, which more than once was in imminent danger of perishing under the amendments of its authors and the opposition of its friends, has weathered the storm, and will probably figure in the Queen's Speech as one of the few measures which have escaped destruction. Ministers suffered somewhat in prestige owing to the frequent changes of front on this question; changes necessitated by the varying degrees of pressure which were brought to bear on them by the Irish landlords in the first place, and Mr. T. W. Russell, on behalf of the Ulster tenants, on the other. Ultimately, after one impressive scene in Parliament, in which Mr. Balfour succeeded in rehabilitating his somewhat damaged reputation as a leader by the genuine fervour of his

reply to Mr. Carson, the Bill got through, and at the moment of writing is awaiting its mutilation in the House of Landlords,

Revival of Rural

The The Light Railway Bill and the measure legalising the use of motor carriages England. on highways, both of which will be passed into law this month, are two measures which will probably have much greater influence upon the prosperity of our rural districts than the Agricultural Rating Bill. Severe as are the sufferings of many of the landlords and farmers from falling prices and foreign competition, there is one thing more needful than any relief from rates, and that is to give the children in our country districts an education which will enable them to hold their own in the struggle of life. The condition of education in rural England is deplorable indeed, and unfortunately the natural leaders of the people in the English counties have by no means entirely

India's

Africa.

lost the idea that a dame's school which would teach the A B C and the Church Catechism, is quite good enough for the children of the labourers. The conduct of the Ministry in insisting Responsi- that India should contribute £35,000 a bility for year to the cost of the Sepoys now garri soned at Suakim for the Egyptian Government, was roundly assailed in both Houses of Parliament. India is becoming more and more the most convenient base from which we can operate on the East African littoral. It is quite possible that as Nyassaland is policed by Sikhs from Northern India, so Rhodesia may come to regard Bombay rather than Cape Town as its commercial capital. Hence the need for great vigilance in protecting the Indian Exchequer from the risk of having to finance military expeditions which will be necessary time and again for the maintenance of British authority in Eastern Africa.

ANGLO-AMERICAN ARBITRATION.

BY THE RIGHT HON. JOHN MORLEY.

MR. MORLEY Contributes to the Nineteenth Century for August, a carefully considered examination of the negotiations which have taken place between the British and American Governments on the subject of Anglo-American Arbitration. The article is political rather than literary, and the following sentence is almost the only passage in which John Morley's skill as a penman reveals itself:

Lord Salisbury sometimes argues as if he were debating with Kant, or Saint-Pierre, or any of those other grand utopians whose noble and benignant speculations have been the light of a world "swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night." Mr. Olney is no Kant, but an acute lawyer. He is as far removed as possible from being a disputant of the utopian stamp. The Olney dispatches are not altogether in the key of the Olney hymns. He has made up his mind that the end desired by English and American alike is attainable, and he makes for it with a directness of vision and will that always marks the way in which great things are done.

THE VENEZUELAN FRONTIER.

The negotiations are twofold. There is first the question of the Venezuela frontier; secondly, the proposal to establish a permanent tribunal for arbitrating all future matters of dispute. Dealing first with the Venezuela question, Mr. Morley says:

The more diligently one endeavours to master this entangled mass, the clearer does it become that the whole field of the controversy, settled lands and all, presents matters with two sides to them, and claims for all of which something is to be said, and that if ever there was in the world a set of

circumstances proper for arbitration, and if ever arbitration is to be good for any case, this is such a case.

A VERY NARROW DIFFERENCE.

He then points out how very closely Mr. Olney and Lord Salisbury have come to an agreement even on the question of arbitrating the settled districts. The case, he says, now stands thus:

"I will not accept an unrestricted arbitration about the settled districts," says Lord Salisbury, "but I shall not complain if the Tribunal should choose to make an unrestricted award even about the settled districts; and, between ourselves, I may tell you in confidence that unless the award about the settled districts were manifestly unfair, I should find it impossible to resist." In other words, broken careers and ruined fortunes or not, Lord Salisbury admits that the decision of the Tribunal against the title of the British occupiers would raise so strong a presumption that it would not be much less difficult to resist than if it were a definite award. That is where Lord Salisbury stands. How is the presence of elements of honour and integrity to be discovered and decided? This is the central pivot of the discussion.

What Lord Salisbury desires, and rightly desires, is, as ho says, to protect certain British colonists from having their careers broken and their fortunes possibly ruined. Mr. Olney is willing to direct the arbitrators to give such weight and effect to the position of these colonists as reason, justice, law, and the equities of the particular case may seem to require. But reason, justice, and the equities of the case would manifestly forbid the breaking of the careers and the ruin of the fortunes of men who had settled in the territory which they had every ground for believing to be British. Nobody who will take the trouble to scrutinise the difference between these two positions, and to realise how narrow it is-narrower, I think, than Lord Salisbury's speech would lead us to suppose-will

« PreviousContinue »