ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS. (Hansard, 14 June 1872)

§ LORD REDESDALE

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in the event of proceedings being opened before the Tribunal of Geneva, the decision of the Arbitrators will be first taken on the general principles which appear to render the American Claims inadmissible, and particularly on 1731 those set forth in the last paragraph in page 132 of the Counter Case presented on the part of Her Majesty's Government before any of the special Cases were entered upon? Both during the last Session and the present he had called attention to what he thought was an answer to the Claims put forward by the United States—namely, that the British Government could not be made answerable for injuries done by one part of the United States to the other—the two belligerents having since become united in one State. It now seemed that the principle for which he had contended was embodied in page 132 of the Counter Case presented on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The paragraph containing it was as follows:— If the relative positions of the Government of the Confederate States and its officers, to whose acts the losses in question are directly attributable, and of the British Government—whose neutrality they violated—towards the United States who now makes these claims, are justly estimated, the more difficult it will be to see how—upon the supposition of a want of due diligence on the part of Great Britain in guarding her own neutrality—any pecuniary compensation whatever can be claimed from Great Britain. The whole responsibility of the acts which caused these losses belonged, primarily, to the Confederate States; they were all done by them, beyond the jurisdiction and control of Great Britain; wrong was done by them to Great Britain, in the very infraction of her laws, which constitutes the foundation of the present claims. But from them no pecuniary reparation whatever for these losses has been, or is now, exacted by the conquerors; what has been condoned to the principals, is sought to be exacted from those who were at the most passively accessory to those losses, through a wrong done to them and against their will. The very States which did the wrong are part of the United States, who now seek to throw the pecuniary liability for that wrong solely and exclusively upon Great Britain, herself—so far at least as they are concerned—the injured party. They have been re-admitted to their former full participation in the rights and privileges of the Federal Constitution; they send their members to the Senate and the House of Representatives; they take part in the election of the President; they would share in any benefit which the public revenue of the United States might derive from whatever might be awarded by the Arbitrators to be paid by Great Britain. On what principle of International equity can a Federal Commonwealth so composed seek to throw upon a neutral, assumed at the most to have been guilty of some degree of 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 those citizens? The question was one of primary liability, and ought to be decided before any other 1732 matter was entered upon, because if ruled in our favour, all other inquiries would become unnecessary. If the other points were first determined and the verdict of the Arbitrators should be against us, a subsequent decision that this objection on principle was good, and that we were not liable to pay the damages we had been declared to have been justly subject to, would lead to very sore feeling against us in the United States. On the other hand, if the decision against the Claims was first given on the point he referred to, it would be some satisfaction to America to know that the reunion of their great Confederacy was the cause of their rejection.

§ EARL GRANVILLE

With regard to the argument brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) last year, and also in the present Session, I remember that on two occasions I said in answer to my noble Friend that while I gave no opinion either for or against the argument, I promised that it would be taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Government. The first duty of the Arbitrators would be to consider whether England had failed in the performance of her duties as a neutral by way of omission or commission, either under the three rules laid down by the Treaty of Washington or under the recognized principles of International Law. Supposing that they find that we have so failed in our duty in respect of any of the vessels, the Arbitrators may, if they think proper, proceed to award a lump sum in satisfaction of all claims, or not awarding a sum in gross, a Board of Assessors is to be appointed to ascertain the amount of liability in respect of each vessel indicated by the Arbitrators. In order to enable the Arbitrators to perform these duties, it was provided by the Treaty that each Government should present a case to the Tribunal. That has been done. The noble Lord (Lord Redesdale) seemed to complain that his views were not referred to in our Case, but the reason was that the document was confined to a statement of facts. Argument was reserved for the Counter Case. In our Counter Case, which was presented to the Arbitrators two months ago, the noble Lord will find that his argument is set forth, and I think he will also admit that it is stated in as clear a manner as it can be done. The next stage, if things had gone on perfectly smoothly, would have been for 1733 each party to present a Summary of the arguments on which it meant to rely. It was quite clear that he (Earl Granville) would be exceeding his duty if he were to state what was in that Summary, and still more so if he were to go further, and state the course which counsel would pursue—supposing that, after the Summary of points was put in, the Arbitrators should require an oral argument. He was, therefore, unable to answer in precise terms the Question which the noble Lord had put to him.