St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-02-18
INTERESTING DEBATE IN HOUSE
OF COMMONS OVER THE VEN
EZUELAN EPISODE.
ARBITRATION is THE ISSUE.
MOTION MADE TO SUBMIT THE EN-
TIRE DISPUTE REGARDLESS
OF LIMITS.
THE AMENDMENT is WITHDRAWN
On the Suggestion That It's AdOp'
ton Would Probably Serve to
Defeat the End Desired.

LONDON, Feb. 1.-THE debate on
Che address In reply to the queens
speech was continued in the house of
commons today. Timothy Harrington,
Parnellite member for Dublin harbor,
moved an amendment to the effect
that amnesty be granted to the Irish
political prisoners. The motion was
supported by John Redmond Parnell-
lte), member for Waterford city; H.
c. Plunkett, member for the South di-
vision Of Dublin county; Prof. w. G.
Fl. Leckie Giberal UnionisD, member
for Dublin university, and others. Mr..
Balfour, the Conservative leader,
moved the cloture, which was carried
by a vote of 270 to 107 Mr.. Harring-
toms motion was then defeated by
vote of 279 to III.
Atherly Jones, Liberal member for
the North division of Durham, moved
the following amendment to the
queens address:
while we are glad to hear that her
majesty's relations with the foreign
powers continue to be friendly, we de-
plore that her majesty's speech does
not contain an assurance that all mat
ters of difference between this country
and the Republic of Venezuela, in re-
lation to the ILLUMINATION of the from
tier of that state and British Guiana,
be referred to arbitration, in accord
ance with the suggestion of the gov
eminent of the United States"
In moving the amendment, Mr.. Ath-
erly-Jones said he thought the govern
ment should be grateful for an oppor-
tunity to ascertain the opinion of the
house of commons upon the policy it
ought to pursue. In accepting the
ued, it would only be following the
example of President Cleveland, who
asked the opinion of congress upon
the message submitted to Great Brit
ain.
Mr.. Atherly-Jones then asked the
house to act in the spirit of the reso-
luton already adopted, that all dis
putes and differences between Great
Britain and the United States should
be settled by arbitration, failing any
other mode. While the speaker had a
high regard for the Marquis of Sails
bury, he insisted that the question in
volved such tremendous interests that
he believed he was expressing the
views of all persons of democratic ten
dency when he said they would not be
justified in leaving them in the hands
of two or three men, however able
they might be. The speaker also ar
gued that the arbitration of the pres
ant dispute was most in conSonance
with the honor, dignity and permanent
interests of Great Britain. 1t US
quite admitted that Great Britain had
the right to resent interference upon
the part of foreign state when such
Interference
SAVORED OF MENACE,
but he denied that this character at
sached to the course taken by the
United States. Continuing, Mr.. Ath-
arly-Jones remarked: "That state
would have been untrue to it's great
position as the protector of the repub-
Tics of America, if it had not responded
90 the entreaties of Venezuela
Mr.. Atherly-Jones said that since
1S41 England had seven times changed
the line marking the limit of
her claim. In face of these
facts, how could it be contended by
Great Britain that - the Schomburgk
line was outside the pale of arbitra-
ton?
Having expressed dissatisfaction at
Lord Granville'S treatment of the ques-
ton in 1871, Mr.. Atherly-Jones protest
ed against the assumption that the ac-
ton of the United States government
was only an election dodge. We ought
not to judge the action of the govern
ment, the speaker continued, by PreSi-
dent Cleveland's and Secretary Olneys
dispatches, but by the friendly repre-
sensations received subsequently.
Mr.. A. j. Balfour first lord of the
treasury and government leader, then
arose to reply, and said he desired to
appeal to the house that, in his opin-
ion, continue ton of the debate --ould
make an honorable arrangement a
matter of greater difficulty. He trust
ed that the house would not take a
premature opportunity of discussing
the policy which had been pursued or
which ought to be pursued.
John Dillon, anti-Parnellite thought
that the American people ought to
know that intense feeling existed in the
house of commons against any attempt
to bring on a war on this question. The
conduct of the American government
he said, had been patient and fair. 1t
was only after years delay and shut
fling on the part of Great Britain, fol-
lowed by an insulting dispatch from
Lord Salisbury, that the president had
sent his dispatch. 1t ought to be I'M
derstood in America that Lord Sails
bury's dispatch did not represent the
feelings of England or Ireland.
Sir William Vernon Harcourt, Liberal
leader in the house of commons, said
that Mr.. Atherly-Jones' amendment
had been moved in the interest of arbi-
tration, but 1t was couched in a form
which would censure the government,
and if division were taken upon it.
there would be a great majority against
1t and it would go forth to America and
to the world that the house of commons
had pronounced
AGAINST ARBITRATION.
He believed a great majority in the
house of commons and elsewhere were
in favor Of arbitration on a proper ba-
sis, and the main object should be how
best to give expression to this feeling.
He deplored the use of eXasperating
language. Nothing could be more in
furious and untrue, he said, than to saw
that the presidents message was an
election dodge. The United States had
been pressing the question for settle
ment for. ten years in the most concil-
latory manner. We should all endeavor
on both sides to remove the sources of
irritation and secure a speedy settle
ment He was strongly impressed. he
continued, with the evils and dangers
of delay in coming to some agreement.
He would be glad to know from the gov
eminent the cause for the delay in pre-
senting the British case. 1t was desir-
able that the public on both ides of the
Atlantic should be informed on this in
order to conciliate the differences be-
tween us. Many differences had al
ready been removed. Instead of resent
Ing, We should now, welcome the Good
Grafton of the United States.
So far as the question of arbitration
went, all We're agreed. That it was an
1mpossibflity in the present circun-
stances to lay down fixed boundary.
was substantially agreed. He also