HL Deb 23 July 1872 vol 212 cc1605-7
LORD REDESDALE

rose to call the attention of the House to the fact that in the Argument or Summary showing the points relied on by the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, in the 116th and 117th sections, it is stated that— The relation actually held towards the United States by the people of the Confederate States, who were the active agents in inflicting the losses complained of, and by whom, according to the reasoning of the States themselves, the neutrality of Great Britain was violated or eluded, is itself an argument against these demands. Those States are part of the Union, and would share in any benefit which would accrue to its public revenue from whatever the Arbitrators might award to be paid by Great Britain. On what principle of international equity can a Federal Government so composed seek to throw upon a neutral, assumed at most to have been guilty of some negligence, liabilities which belonged in the first degree to its own citizens, with whom it has now re-entered into relations of political unity, and from which it has wholly absolved these citizens; and in the Counter Case, after these objections had been stated to the American Claims on general principle, at page 133 were the following words:— The British Government, however, while deeming it right to present these considerations to the notice of the Arbitrators will not omit to deal with the ulterior questions which must arise in the event of the Arbitrators being of opinion that claims of this nature are not absolutely inadmissible, should the United States succeed in establishing any failure of duty sufficient to support them in the judgment of the Tribunal; He would therefore ask the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Why this preliminary objection to the Claims on general principle, which in the Counter Case is thus declared ought to be properly determined before the several Claims are investigated, and which, if admitted to be good by the Arbitrators would render a lengthy inquiry into these Claims unnecessary, is not so placed in "the Argument or Summary" lately presented to the Arbitators, and when and in what manner it would be brought before the Tribunal at Geneva? The noble Lord explained that he had on several occasions drawn attention to the subject, and that he did not receive much countenance from the Government at first, although they eventually dealt with the question in their Counter Case. The matter, however, was an important one, and he begged to put the Question of which he had given Notice.

EARL GRANVILLE

The noble Lord has certainly shown great constancy in regard to this particular argument, and he always refers to it in terms of reproach to the Government. He says that he received no encouragement from me when he first brought it forward last year. I believe that on that occasion I did what was perfectly right on my part; I gave him no encouragement and no discouragement. The noble Lord, however, must not think that he has a sole property in that argument. It has been considered by Her Majesty's Legal Advisers; and not only by them, for I have had letters from different persons—some of great authority, and some of no particular authority—suggesting the use of that very argument. But with regard to all, I have pursued the same course. I stated to my noble Friend the other day, that the reason why this argument did not appear in our Case, was that the Case was a mere statement of facts. Our Counter Case, however, was a statement of arguments, and that of my noble Friend formed part of it. In our Summary of Arguments it also finds a place; but it is not put at the commencement for this obvious reason—that the Treaty expressly provides that the Tribunal should begin by determining, with regard to each vessel, whether this country has been guilty of any act or omission contrary to the three rules laid down in the Treaty, or to any international law not inconsistent with those rules. The question of pecuniary reparation will thus only arise in case of a decision in regard to any vessel being given against Her Majesty's Government. That is the opinion of Sir Roundell Palmer, and therefore it was proper that the Argument should follow the course prescribed by the Treaty itself. I would rather not add anything to what I stated on previous occasions, beyond giving this sort of explanation to my noble Friend. The Tribunal at Geneva is now sitting. I cannot answer to the House for what they may think it discreet and wise to do; but I am sure there are two things that would be very inexpedient. On the one hand, it would be unwise for me to enter into any discussion as the comparative value of particular arguments, or as to the mode of conducting our case before the Arbitrators; and on the other hand, it would also be very unwise for me, unless under very exceptional circumstances indeed, to interfere with the conduct of a Case which has been committed to hands we think so thoroughly competent to deal with it.