THE INDIRECT CLAIMS. (Hansard, 6 June 1872)

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
I wish to put a Question to the noble Viscount (Viscount Bury), of which I have given him private Notice—namely, as to what course he intends to pursue to-morrow with reference to the Notice of Motion he has 1280 given for that day relative to the Treaty of Washington?

VISCOUNT BURY
I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for West Kent for giving me an opportunity of stating the course which I propose to adopt with regard to my Motion which stands on the Paper for to-morrow; and especially after the announcement that has just been made by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I terminated my answer with a Motion. The right hon. Gentleman himself can hardly be surprised at that course, because the Motion which I have on the Paper is identical with that which is now being debated in "another place," and that Motion has been declared by the Leader of the House of Lords to be a Vote of Censure. It was not my intention—and I said so at the time—to convey any censure on Her Majesty's Government by my Motion; and I feel satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman himself does not view it in that light, for if he did it would have been in accordance with Parliamentary precedent, and I am sure in accordance also with his own feeling, to hasten to give a day for its discussion. But, as such has not been the case, I can only conclude that he accepts the construction which I myself put on that Motion, and does not regard it as a Vote of Censure. But the question arises whether or not it would be advisable to discuss the matter at this time; and I firmly believe that it would be for the advantage and the dignity of this House to enter upon that discussion. However, it is perfectly true that a private Member finds it very difficult to bring on a Motion like that which stands in my name for to-morrow unless it is facilitated by the Government, which the Prime Minister finds it quite impossible to do. As the Motion, from its position on the Paper, cannot come on to-morrow, I shall reserve to myself the right of acting according to circumstances, and of bringing it on at some other time, if the House considers it necessary that it should be done. But will the House allow me to ask the right hon. Gentleman for a little additional explanation of the statement which he just now made to us? I understood him to say that the acceptance by the American Government of the Supplemental Article in 1281 satisfaction of the Indirect Claims was contingent upon something else that we were to do. I would ask the House to remember for a moment the position in which we now stand. All the voluminous Papers that are on the Table of this House are so much waste paper save for the purpose of reference, except the Supplemental Treaty lately laid before us. This country, we are all agreed, has decided that the Indirect Claims shall not be urged at Geneva, and the only question that we have to decide is, whether the Supplemental Treaty that is now before the House does or does not bar those Claims. We must revert to the last time when we touched firm ground in this discussion. That was on the 3rd of February, 1872, when Earl Granville addressed to General Schenck a communication, in which he said that, under no circumstances, would we discuss the Indirect Claims. Mr. Fish immediately replied that if he had known that the Indirect Claims were barred, the President would not have entered at all into the negotiation.

§ MR. SPEAKER
called the noble Lord to Order. It was not consistent with the Rules of the House for the noble Lord to discuss a Motion which stood on the Paper in his name for to-morrow.

VISCOUNT BURY
I will entirely desist from making the remarks which I was about to offer, and shall conclude by moving that the House do now adjourn; but, in doing so, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to state whether we are to depend upon the text of the Supplemental Article, or are to depend upon some gloss outside of that Article for our security that the Indirect Claims will not be pressed at Geneva. If we are to depend upon something outside of the Treaty, then it will affect the course which I, for one, shall feel it my duty to take on the Resolution that I have placed on the Notice Paper.

§ MR. OSBORNE
I do not rise to take any advantage of the Motion for the adjournment of the House, because I look upon the answer given by the Prime Minister as being, as far as it went, satisfactory. But I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman this question—whether, in accordance with his answer, 1282 there will be any postponement of the meeting of the Arbitrators, fixed for the 15th instant; and, if so, to what date?

MR. GLADSTONE
It is only necessary for me to say a very few words, after the becoming and considerate manner in which the noble Lord has contracted the course and scope of his remarks. I would just make one observation on what the noble Lord said about the construction to be put on his Motion, because I do not wish to be held bound even by silence to the doctrine that every Motion to be made in this House which the Government may regard as involving a Vote of Censure is therefore to receive precedence of all other business, and is to be made the subject of immediate discussion. There are various qualifications to be attached to that doctrine—qualifications according to the circumstances of the case; qualifications according, also, to the intention of the Member by whom the Motion is made; qualifications according to the support which that Motion receives from large portions of the House; and, finally, let me add, qualifications according to the bearing of the Motion upon the public interests at the time. Because it is perfectly conceivable that a vote might be moved, not like that of my noble Friend, to which he disclaims attaching the character of a Vote of Censure, but one intentionally carrying the character of a Vote of Censure, and which might receive considerable support, but for the immediate discussion of which, nevertheless, it might be contrary to the duty of the Government to give extraordinary means, if in their conviction and knowledge it was likely to be injurious to great public interests. But I will answer the question of my noble Friend in a manner as distinct as possible. He asks, are we to depend for the exclusion or the extinction of the Indirect Claims—although I do not dwell on any word, that is, perhaps, as good a word as one could find—are we to depend for the extinction of the Indirect Claims upon the words of the Supplemental Article, or upon some gloss extraneous to the Article itself, and put upon it by the parties? Our answer to that is as follows:—Always bearing in mind that the Supplemental Treaty is not yet adopted or decided on in all its parts, the words of the Supplemental Article—I mean 1283 those words in the closing clause which bear on the treatment of the Indirect Claims—are in our view perfectly sufficient for their purpose. We are supported in that view by those upon whom we are accustomed to rely for the construction of legal and formal documents. But as there have been some who have thought that they were not sufficient for the purpose—it was material, while we are considering the matter, that we should apprise the House that the very same view is taken by the other party in the case as is taken by us with regard to the effect of those words. In speaking on a former occasion, wishing to observe the rules of caution, and on no account to lead the House on to ground that might not be perfectly safe, we spoke of what we had reason to believe. I can now go beyond that. We know, and are assured from the highest authority, not merely from the representative of the American Government in this country, but from the American Government itself, that such is the case in the words which I have referred to; and these words being perfectly clear it is not necessary that I should repeat them. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) has likewise asked me whether the postponement of the meeting of the Arbitrators from the 15th of June has been agreed upon, and if so, to what date? I am not able to say, at this moment, that such a postponement has been agreed upon; and with reference to the 15th of June, all I will venture to say is—and I trust it will be sufficient to satisfy the just expectation of the House—that we hold ourselves absolutely bound to this effect—that neither on the 15th of June, nor on any other day, shall there occur at Geneva anything that, according to our best judgment, is inconsistent with the honour and credit of this country, or with the explicit declarations which, from time to time, it has been our duty to make on the subject of the bearing of the Treaty of Washington on the Arbitration at Geneva.