§ LORD REDESDALEasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the question whether the United States can, according to the principles of International Law, persevere in what are known as the Alabama Claims, since the reconciliation of the Southern with the Northern States, has been brought before the Joint Commission, or will be before those who are finally to determine those Claims? His intention in putting this Question was to raise an important point of International Law, and which it was desirable should receive full consideration—which he believed had not yet been the case—before this matter was settled. The Southern States built and fitted out the Alabama. They ordered and paid for the ship—their agents took her out of the Mersey and equipped her in a foreign port, and the injury to the trade of the North was committed by their officers and the crews under their command. The Southern States having thus committed an injury to the trade of the Northern States, a claim was made upon us by the United States Government for compensation. But the Southern States are now included in the United States, represented by General Grant's Government; and thus we have the anomalous state of things that Virginia and the other Southern States are asking us to give them an indemnity for the injury committed by themselves. Now this seemed so unjust that he thought it right that the question should be brought before the Joint Commission, or those appointed to arbitrate, to be determined according to sound principles of International Law. He contended that the Government of 699 the United States were barred by the course they had taken towards the Southern States from prosecuting the claim. Had the contest terminated differently, and had the South achieved its independence, and had the claim of the North against this country been substantiated, we should certainly have asked the South to reimburse us for the damages awarded, the injury having been committed by and for the advantage of the South. When the Southern States became reconciled to the North, there was full power to make it a condition that the South should have some separate imposition placed upon them to make good the damage done. Nothing of the sort was in fact done, and the North forgave the South the damage which had been done by this vessel; and, when the principal had been forgiven, the agent had surely been forgiven also. If a man received a sound thrashing he could not forgive his assailant, and proceed against the man who lent that assailant the stick. He did not think any such action would lie. This case was necessarily of very rare occurrence; indeed, he was not aware of any other that stood upon precisely the same footing. It was therefore of great importance that it should receive a careful consideration and decision, and not be left without inquiry, to become a precedent affecting the Law of Nations. The Southern States were treated not as rebels, but as belligerents by the North, and so far as warlike operations were concerned they were clearly an independent country. They had, therefore, all the responsibilities of that position. If A ordered B to do something whereby he was benefited, but which exposed B to a severe penalty, it would be thought very unhandsome for A to file an information against his own agent in order to obtain the penalty he had incurred by serving him; and the case was little altered if A, while not bringing the action himself, allowed his brother or partner to do so. Now, the Law of Nations ought to agree with the law as between man and man, and he could not see how a claim could fairly be preferred under such peculiar circumstances as existed in this case.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, he believed that the United States had not a shadow of just claim against us. If during the Crimean War the Americans 700 had sold Alabamas to Russia, it would not have entered the head of any British statesman to demand damages; and even if it had, our friends over the water would only have laughed at us. It might not be generally known that during the Crimean War the Americans allowed a ship to be fitted out in one of their ports with guns and warlike stores, which vessel rounded Cape Horn, reached Valparaiso, and by a little trickery escaped the examination of an English vessel of war lying there, so that it proceeded to San Francisco, where a Russian agent went on board, and was taken to a Russian port, and when we attacked the place he believed she took part in the defence as a Russian man-of-war. The vessel was taken out by an American officer of the Navy, who afterwards went overland to St. Petersburgh and was presented to the Emperor, who gave him the usual snuffbox studded with diamonds. He believed these statements to be perfectly accurate. He hoped we should hold our own in this matter, but he feared that before long we should be saddled with a considerable bill.
§ EARL GRANVILLEthought that, as the question was likely to be referred to arbitrators, the noble and gallant Earl would understand that it would not become him to enter into any argument in favour of the American claims and against the noble Earl's views of the British position, at this stage of the proceedings. The same feeling would influence his reply to the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale), who had raised a point which had not, that he was aware, been previously raised. It certainly had not suggested itself to the legal advisers of the successive Governments which had had to deal with the question, and it had not formed a portion of the instructions given to our Commissioners. Whether it was a good or a bad one he would not say; and would not have been a matter to be determined by the Joint High Commission, whose office it was to settle not the questions in dispute, but the mode in which they should be adjusted. Without giving any opinion on the matter, he would only add that when the case of this country came to be prepared, it would be the duty of the Government to consider every possible point which could honourably and fairly be urged against the claims of the United States. The noble 701 Lord (Lord Redesdale) had implied that this country had recognized the Southern States as an independent country. Now, as a matter of fact that was not so—the only recognition they received from us, and the recognition of which the North complained, was that of belligerents. At that early stage of the contest, as far as the Government of that day was concerned, the question of recognizing their independence was never even entertained.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYinquired when the House would be put in possession of the treaty—which he understood had been concluded by the Commissioners? It was not desirable that the public should form their judgment of the treaty from the fragmentary statements which, appeared from day to day in the newspapers?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl, and deprecated any discussion of such a grave and important subject before Parliament was in possession of the whole case. The amount of telegraphic communication between the Government and the Commissioners had been immense, but it clearly would not be right to lay those communications alone before Parliament. The whole treaty—part of which, referring to the Alabama claims, was given with general accuracy in The Times of this morning—left Washington the day before yesterday by the usual means, and would probably arrive at the end of next week. There were some technical difficulties, but the Government were anxious that Parliament should not be without information any longer than was necessary.
§ LORD REDESDALEexplained, with reference to the point he had raised, that, in his view, to recognize parties at war with another State as belligerents was to acknowledge their independence in all matters connected with warlike operations, and vested them with the responsibilities of an independent State.