RESOLUTION.

HC Deb 02 June 1874 vol 219 cc857-67

MR. ANDERSON

rose to call the attention of the House to losses sustained by British subjects not compensated under the Washington Treaty, and damages done to British subjects by the "Alabama," and to move— That, in the opinion of this House, it is wrong in principle that individual subjects should be left to suffer severe loss through a national wrong, and therefore, seeing Great Britain has been adjudicated to have been in the wrong in permitting the escape of the 'Alabama,' and has compensated American subjects for all the consequences of that wrong, British subjects who have similarly suffered from the 'Alabama' should be similarly compensated. The hon. Gentleman said, he could not but express some regret at the lateness at which this Motion had come before the House, and he could not help feeling that to many hon. Members the subject would only be disagreeable, and they would rather forget it, and let it pass out of sight altogether. But circumstances over which he had no control prevented his bringing it forward last Session; and he still felt that, in justice to certain parties, he was bound to proceed with it even at this late stage. In doing so, he did not wish to attack the policy of the Alabama Treaty, nor in any way to blame the late Government for having made it; on the contrary, he thought that in making it we set a noble example to the world of two great nations undertaking to settle their differences by the arbitrament of reason rather than by that of the sword. It was a great example, which would yet bear good fruit. He did not think even that the fact that England had made such concessions during the negotiations was a thing to be regretted; the concessions, no doubt, were uniformly made by England, but it showed great magnanimity for us to do so, because it sometimes required greater courage to make concessions than to fight against them. It was a course which only a great nation, conscious of its own power, could venture to take. But he did blame the late Government, to a certain extent, for not allowing that Treaty to be discussed by this House before it was ratified. Parliament was sitting at the time, and an appeal was made to the late Government to allow an opportunity to discuss it; but they refused that appeal in a somewhat high-handed manner. In consequence, the discussion that afterwards took place was little better than a hollow sham, which could have no interest to the House. In this way had arisen one of those mistakes he would have to point out, which might have been corrected had it been discovered before the ratification. The claims which he wished to bring before the House were of three classes, and were totally distinct, although his Resolution referred to only one of them. The first were very large claims, and consisted of those of all those British subjects who held property in the Confederate States before the war. They held that property trusting to the protection of the laws and institutions of the United States, and they had their property destroyed solely because of the temporary inability of the Government of the United States to maintain its own laws and institutions. Under these circumstances the United States Government ought to have compensated British subjects for those losses; because, had such a thing occurred in this country, he was quite sure we should have made compensation. The more the United States Government claimed that the war was not a Civil War, and was only a rebellion, the more they were bound to recognize this right. In the course of the negotiations this matter ought to have been kept in view; but in all probability it could not have been successfully carried, because he was bound to admit that the United States had consistently refused to compensate their own loyal subjects for damage done to them by the Confederates. A few months ago, however, when at "Washington, he learnt that there was a great change taking place in the feelings of the people of the United States on this subject, and there was a probability that before long the Legislature would take into consideration the question of the Government compensating loyal subjects for acts done during the rebellion by the Confederates. All he had to say on this part of the subject was that he hoped the English Government would watch the progress of events in America, and if the United States should at any time undertake to compensate their own citizens, that our Government should insist on their compensating British subjects also. The second class of claims was that of British subjects who had property destroyed by the Federal armies, but whose property was so destroyed after the 9th of April, 1865, when General Lee surrendered, that day having been fixed—erroneously in his opinion—as the end of the war, and beyond which no British claims should be valid. The claims of which he was speaking would have been good, but that the date of April 9th was fixed. He should like to refer to some of the dates connected with this question. General Lee surrendered on the 9th April, 1865. President Lincoln was assassinated on the 14th of April. General Johnston surrendered his Confederate army on the 26th of April. General Taylor surrendered his on the 4th of May. Jefferson Davis capitulated on the 10th of May, and General Kirby Smith surrendered the last of the Confederate armies on the 26th of May, 1865. The United States Court, in litigation between the citizens of the United States, recognized the termination of the war as the 20th of August, 1866; and he was therefore at a loss to understand how, in the face of that fact, our negotiators could consent to the date of the surrender of General Lee as the termination of the war. The capture of Jefferson Davis, or the surrender of the last of the Confederate armies, would have been better dates upon which to have fixed. On this point the Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of our negotiators, had admitted, in his place in Parliament, that a "mistake" had been made. He said he believed that both parties really meant honestly to include all damage done to British subjects during the whole period of the war; but the English negotiators persisted in calling it a Civil War, whereas the United States negotiators would not admit of any term but rebellion; and, as the Treaty was likely to fall through, it was agreed that neither term should be used, but that dates should be substituted. These dates were suggested by the Americans, and the English negotiators assented, without its having ever occurred to them to consider how far they really coincided with the beginning or end of the war. If a mere "mistake" had occurred, why, when pointed out, was it not rectified? The dates of the Treaty had been most rigidly insisted on; and many claims were barred by that circumstance. In one instance a British subject had been imprisoned for 107 days, only 22 of which were within the Treaty. The 22 were compensated, and the remainder were to be uncompensated, although the imprisonment was one continuous act. There was the case of a British subject whose mills in Georgia were burned down on the 17th of April, only a few days after the date fixed by the Treaty, and yet the claim was entirely debarred from compensation. The United States had already acknowledged that a wrong had been done, and shown a disposition to repair it. General Grant, in his Presidential Address of December, 1866, admitted that although the claims of British subjects were limited to injuries sustained before the 9th of April, 1865, there were many more outside that date, and it was desirable to have them examined and disposed of. In fact, when in Washington he (Mr. Anderson) was told that there would very likely be a Supplemental Commission appointed to look into such cases, and he asked our Government to use their influence to ensure its being a genuine and honest Commission which should deal fairly with the matter, and afford our fellow-subjects a chance of receiving that compensation to which they were entitled. He now came to the third class of claims to which alone his Resolution applied—the class of British merchants who had British goods in American ships destroyed by the Alabama. In many cases we had actually paid the American shipowner for his ship and the American merchant for the goods he had in it; but the unfortunate British merchant who had goods in the same vessel was left to bear his own loss. The number of the last class of cases was very small—he believed only three or four; but they were very important to the sufferers. One of them was that of a firm of British merchants—Messrs. Athya and Co.—who had shipped about £4,500 worth of grain and flour in an American vessel, the Crenshaw. Before doing so they went to the British Consul and asked his advice, whether it was necessary to insure against war risks, and the Consul told them it was not, as Great Britain was not at war with any Power at that time; and that his endorsement of the bill of lading, with the Consular seal attached, would be a sufficient protection to British goods even in an American ship. The firm took his advice and the result was that the ship was met by the Alabama, and though the bill of lading was shown to Captain Semmes he did not care a straw about the goods being British, but sent the ship to the bottom. Another case was that of Messrs. Hamilton and Co., of Belfast, who shipped £6,000 worth of grain in the Lafayette which was also destroyed by the Alabama. We had paid the American owners for the ship and the American merchants for a part of the cargo, and it was only the part of the property which belonged to the Messrs. Hamilton for which compensation was not given. The question involved related to what was right in justice and equity. It was admitted by our own Advocates that we were wrong in the case of the Alabama; and having been in the wrong, it was submitted we ought to pay for the wrong, whether it was in the case of the Americans or of English subjects. He was aware that it might be said that it was not a wrong in the abstract, but only a wrong constituted by Treaty, and that as the British Government made the Treaty only with the Americans, they were bound to pay only subjects of the United States for their losses; but while that was admitted, surely, upon principles of justice, they were also bound to pay their own subjects for the losses they had suffered. He thought it could hardly be contended that there was a legal obligation to pay every British subject who claimed for the losses he had sustained; but, on the other hand, he thought that everyone—even those who were opposed to his views on this subject—would admit that there was great hardship suffered by those whose losses had not been compensated, and that it was deserving of the consideration of Parliament. The hon. Member concluded by moving his Resolution.

COLONEL MURE

, in seconding the Resolution, said, he would not now enter into the unhappy struggle that had taken place between the United States Government and their subjects, and the Correspondence that had taken place between the American Government and the Government of this country respecting the Alabama. The parties aggrieved admitted they had not got a distinctly legal position; but it was one of the great prerogatives of the House—in dealing with such a matter as this, not to look at it in a purely legal sense—but in accordance with the principles of simple and natural justice. There could be no doubt that there had been want of caution, by which the Alabama had escaped from English waters; and, according to the judgment of the Geneva Tribunal, England was compelled to pay a large sum of money for the losses suffered by the proceedings of that ship. But surely, having paid the Americans for their losses, the Government of this country ought also to pay British subjects for their losses. He had no hesitation in saying that the British Consul in New York had acted unwisely in the counsel which he gave and the opinions he expressed to British shipowners at the time in question in reference to insurance. He would not now enter into the question of the proceedings of the Alabama; but he asked the House to treat the question involved in the Re-solution on principles of equity.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, in the opinion of this House, it is wrong in principle that individual subjects should be left to suffer severe loss through a national wrong, and therefore, seeing Great Britain has been adjudicated to have been in the wrong in permitting the escape of the 'Alabama,' and has compensated American subjects for all the consequences of that wrong, British subjects who have similarly suffered from the 'Alabama' should be similarly compensated."—(Mr. Anderson.)

MR. BOURKE

said, it was not his intention to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) into his criticism either upon the Washington Treaty itself or upon the conduct of the late Government in not submitting that Treaty to the House before its ratification. The hon. Member had divided his Motion very properly into three distinct branches—namely, first, the losses sustained by British subjects in the Confederate States; next, other losses of British subjects; and, lastly, losses connected with the Alabama Claims. As to the losses arising in the Confederate States, they had been brought before the Commission and adjudicated upon by it; and the reason why the Commission did not think they came within the terms of the Treaty was because the Commissioners were of opinion that— The United States could not be held liable for injuries caused by the acts of rebels over which they could exercise no control and which they had no power to prevent. That was a judicial decision given by the Commissioners, and of course it would be perfectly useless now for us to repudiate one of the most important provisions in the Treaty which was carried out by the Commissioners, and upon which that decision was founded. With regard to the losses sustained by British subjects under the Treaty, they were confined to two dates—the 13th of April, 1861, when the first gun was fired from Fort Sumter, and the 9th of April, 1865, the date of the surrender of General Lee's army. It was believed by everyone that no claims could arise that were not included within those two dates. Since the signature of the Treaty, however, other claims had, no doubt, come to the knowledge of the Foreign Office. All these were submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and some were submitted to the Government of the United States through the British Minister at Washington. The stipulations of the Treaty of Washington were not intended to cover all such claims, and it was understood that if there were other claims not included within the two dates in question they might be brought forward at some other time. That was not only the opinion of the British Law Officers, but also of those of the United States, and these claims, therefore, remained to be settled. President Grant, in a recent Message, said— I recommend legislation to create a special Court to consist of three Judges, who shall be empowered to hear and determine all claims of aliens upon the United States arising out of acts committed against their persons or property during the insurrection. The recent reference under the Treaty of Washington was confined to claims of British subjects arising during the period named in the Treaty; but it is understood that there are other British claims of a similar nature arising after the 9th of April, 1865, and it is known that other claims of a like nature are advanced by citizens or subjects of other Powers. It is desirable to have these claims also examined and disposed of. Since that Message had been sent a Bill had been introduced into Congress establishing a Court before which the claims of British subjects, as well as those of other Powers, could be heard and determined. Another Bill, having the same object, was also before Congress, and, if either passed, peremptory instructions had been sent to Sir Edward Thornton that all claims made by British subjects outside the dates mentioned should be preferred before that Court as soon as it should be constituted. Even if this Court should not be established, these claims, like all claims which one civilized nation might have upon another, would remain, and it would be the duty of our diplomatic representatives to bring them under the notice of the United States Government. He could have no difficulty whatever in assuring the hon. Member for Glasgow that Her Majesty's Government would take care that everything that was just and reasonable which could be urged in support of those claims should be urged by our representatives on the attention of the United States. As this was the first occasion on which the transaction of the business of claims made before the Commission had been mentioned in that House, he trusted he should not overstep his duty if he offered his humble tribute of admiration to his right hon. and learned Friend the Recorder of London (Mr. Russell Gurney) for the admirable manner in which he had performed the functions intrusted to him. There might be differences of opinion as to the policy of the Treaty of Washington; but he did not think there would ever be two opinions with regard to the mode in which his right hon. and learned Friend had discharged his functions in the matter. They were functions of a difficult and onerous character, requiring great tact, great patience, great legal ability, great experience, and great authority. The qualities he had brought to bear wore, indeed, the rarest and most eminent qualities of the judicial mind. The House would, he trusted, pardon him if he availed himself of this opportunity of expressing his belief that the services of his right hon. and learned Friend were regarded with gratitude and respect by his countrymen. Now, he came to the most important part of the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and he could not help thinking that that Motion was founded entirely on a misconception of the character of the circumstances of the case. It was assumed that Great Britain had been adjudicated in the wrong. That was not the case. Great Britain had been adjudicated liable to pay; and why? Because she had undertaken to be judged for this purpose by Three Rules which had not before been in existence. Even if it were assumed, for the sake of argument, that Great Britain had been adjudicated to be in the wrong, it might be asked, "Between whom?" She had been adjudicated to be in the wrong between herself and the United States, but never between herself and her own subjects. The principle upon which she had been adjudicated liable to pay were solely applicable to international disputes, and in no sense applicable to questions arising between Great Britain and her own subjects. All such disputes must be settled by the municipal law of the country. It might be asked—"Of what did the alleged wrong consist?" It consisted in our allowing a ship which was hostile and injurious to the commerce of the United States to escape from our shores. The injury complained of was an international injury, and the national wrong, if any, was committed by Great Britain against the United States. Upon what principles could Great Britain be adjudged liable to pay? As these disputes must be settled by municipal law, Great Britain could not be adjudged in the wrong between herself and her own subjects. No Government was liable for the assumed negligence of its officers. If the hon. Member's Motion were carried, and if a Government were liable for the negligence of its own officers, every pirate that had ever gone forth from this country, and committed depredations on British commerce, would furnish a case for coming to Parliament, and asking that a grant should be made to recoup individuals who had suffered by such depreciations. That was a principle which could not be entertained for a moment. Take the case of robbers and burglars. Every robbery and burglary committed in this country might possibly be attributed to alleged negligence on the part of the police; and if the principle contended for by the hon. Member for Glasgow was correct, then the Government could be called upon to pay for every such robbery and burglary. Again, if we were to pay our own merchants for the losses they sustained by shipping their goods in American bottoms, it must be recollected that there were other merchants of other nations who had suffered similar losses, and who might urge claims that would no less demand attention than those brought forward by the hon. Member for Glasgow. They must all regret the losses of these British merchants; but he could not help remarking that those losses would not have been sustained if they had taken the ordinary precautions well known to business men. The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) gave the House to understand that the British Consul at New York endorsed the bills of lading of certain merchants, and thus gave, he alleged, a guarantee that their goods would not be captured. He should like, he confessed, to hear Mr. Archibald's account of that transaction. He was one of the best men of business in either country, and he thought there must be some mistake. He could quite understand some of these merchants going to the British Consul, and asking him to tell them whether, if he endorsed these bills of lading, that would not show that they were the goods of British subjects; but that had nothing to do with the question at issue. If the United States or the Confederate States had been parties to the declaration of the Treaty of Paris that a neutral flag should cover an enemy's goods, there would have been some use in such an endorsement. The United States and the Confederate States had, however, never been parties to that declaration, and the war was carried on totally irrespective of the Treaty of Paris. Considering that these gentlemen were well aware that the Alabama was at sea, and that a great many other cruisers, legitimately commissioned, wore roving about the sea, and knowing also that their goods were liable to capture if they were sent to sea in American bottoms, it would have been supposed that, as men of business, they would have taken the obvious precaution either of insuring their goods against war risks or of shipping them in English bottoms. He trusted he had satisfied the House that the Motion of the hon. Member for Glasgow was one which ought not to be adopted, resting as it did on what he conceived to be entirely unsound and fallacious grounds, and pledging the House as it did to an expenditure of public money unlimited, undefined, and wholly unjustifiable.

Question put, and negatived.