It is, of course, impossible for us to summarise the
despatches which have passed between the Governments. Mr. Olney's main contention is that under the Monroe doctrine the Union has right of interference in the Venezuelan d'spute because we are, or rather may be, extending our dominion in America. He insists that any European dominion in America is "unnatural and inex- pedient," and that any extension of one must be resisted. Lord Salisbury in reply contends that British dominion in Canada, the West Indies, Guiana, and Honduras is both natural and expedient, and' while denying that Greaf Britain proposes to increase her territory in America, observes that the Monroe doctrine is no part of international law, and has indeed ceased to be suitable to the circumstances of the time, Spain having ceased to struggle to reconquer her pro- vinces. It is argued that the Premier need not have " extended the controversy" by mentioning the Monroe doctrine ; but that doctrine is the very pith of Mr. Olney's argument, and in discussing it Lord Salisbury is markedly temperate and calm. He fires up, and that but a little, only when told that any European dominion within America is " unnatural and inexpedient." It is Mr. Olney who says the strong things.
