HL Deb 20 June 1871 vol 207 cc303-5
LORD CAIRNS

rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the date of the 9th April 1865, was inserted in the Washington Treaty as the limit of time for British claims; and what is to be done as to claims arising from occurrences after that date, and before the termination of the American Civil War. His Question had reference to claims other than the Alabama claims, to be made on the part of British subjects against the United States' Government. The limit of time within which they must have arisen was described in the Treaty in this way:—"The period between the 30th of April, 1861, and the 9th of April, 1865," and he wished to know why the latter date had been adopted. Several British subjects had communicated with him respecting the manner in which they were affected by the insertion of this date, and he would take as an example a British mercantile firm at New Orleans which closed their transactions at the beginning of the war and realized their funds. Owing to the inconvenience of remitting money in the ordinary way they invested their funds in cotton, to be shipped at the close of the war, which was the most convenient mode at that time of remitting money to this country. On the 11th of April, two days after the date fixed by the Treaty, their cotton was burnt; and they considered—whether rightly or wrongly he did not say—that they had a claim against the United States' Government which they would be entitled to make if it were not that they were precluded by the date named in the Treaty. He had vainly endeavoured to find out what could be the reason for fixing upon that date. The question arose, could it be that of the termination of the war?—but that could not be, because on the 26th of April, General Johnson, commanding the Confederate Army, entered into a convention with General Sherman, of the United States' Army, for the surrender, on certain conditions, of the Confederate forces; but these terms were repudiated by General Sherman's Government, and the consequence was the unconditional surrender of the Confederate Army. Therefore the operations of war were going on up to that date. There was no limit in point of time in reference to the Alabama claims, and we knew that, after the date mentioned, and after the surrender of the Confederate forces, ships in different parts of the world continued their operations, and it was suggested that they were guilty of piracy. At all events, every claim made in consequence of their acts might be put forward under this Treaty without limit. It seemed to him strange and unfair that British subjects should be limited to a date which was short of the conclusion of the war, and that, on the other hand, there should be no limit to the claims against us in respect of the Alabama. Under these circumstances, he should be glad to know how the limitation in the Treaty arose.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that the dates mentioned by the noble and learned Lord were fixed upon by his noble Friend (Earl De Grey and Ripon) and his brother Commissioners, and were approved by Her Majesty's Government, for these reasons. The Commissioners took the beginning of the war from the commencement of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and the conclusion of the war from the surrender of General Lee, which put an end to the Confederate Government, and which was considered the final act of the war. If the persons referred to by the noble and learned Lord, from whom also he had received letters, had their cotton burnt a few days after the date named, they were not debarred from making their claim against the American Government. He could hardly conceive that the American Government would refuse to meet a claim of this kind; indeed, he should think that it would be regarded as much stronger than if it had arisen during the war. With regard to these claims generally there was an advantage on our side, for there was no debarring clause whatever with respect to British claims; but American claims were strictly confined to those arising out of the war.

LORD CAIRNS

inquired whether any communication would be made to the United States' Government with regard to claims of this character?

EARL DE GREY AND RIPON

was understood to say that these claims, having arisen after the termination of the war, would fall under the ordinary conditions of peace; and as the Commission had decided in favour of such claims which arose during the war, and the United States' Government had agreed to the date taken as that of the termination of the war, he should think that these British subjects would be regarded as having a claim all the stronger because it had arisen after the termination of the war.

House adjourned at a quarter before Right o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.