NOTICES. ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE. (Hansard, 22 April 1872)

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
I beg to give Notice that to-morrow evening, before the Orders of the Day, I will put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It will be, Whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give the House an assurance that further proceedings in the Arbitration of Geneva will be suspended unless the claims termed "the Indirect Claims" be abandoned or withdrawn by the Government of the United States?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I doubt whether it will be in Order to put such a Question before the Orders of the Day.

§ LORD CAIRNS
It will be quite in Order if it is not intended to raise a debate.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
It is not my intention to raise a debate. I wish merely to put the Question to my noble Friend.

§ LORD BUCKHURST
gave Notice that to-morrow he would ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there would be any objection to laying upon the Table of the House a copy of the Instructions sent to Queenstown and Nassau relative to the Alabama, referred to in the despatch of Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, dated the 22nd of September, 1862, and also a copy of similar Instructions sent to the various places referred to in page 118 of the first Case presented to the Tribunal of Arbitration by Her Majesty's Government?

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE
rose to move an Address to Her Majesty for copies of Correspondence or other Papers relative to the Arbitration at Geneva. The noble Lord said, it was not his intention to do anything that should embarrass Her Majesty's Government in the present critical position of the negotiations, but he submitted to the House that it was most unsatisfactory, and might be most disastrous, to leave the matter in the present state of indecision, and that an expression of the opinion of the House would give much strength to Her Majesty's Government in their correspondence with the United States. So confused and unintelligible a correspondence as that on this subject had never, he believed, been laid before any deliberative 1620 Assembly. He felt it his duty to commence with the first letter of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Sir Edward Thornton, our Minister at Washington. The noble Lord then proceeded to read the correspondence between Earl Granville and Mr. Thornton. He was sure that the interpretation put by the noble Earl on a letter written by General Schenck, which latter document did not appear in the Papers laid before Parliament, was a bonâ fide one so far as the noble Earl was concerned; but there had been so many misunderstandings between our Government and that of the United States, that it would be very much more satisfactory to have General Schenck's letter than the noble Earl's interpretation of it. We could not tell where vacillation and apparent want of purpose might land us. He could imagine that the Government of the United States had great difficulty in answering letters which they could scarcely have understood. The correspondence seemed to him one of those things "that no fellah could understand," and the only result could be fresh misunderstanding with the United States' Government. He thought that nothing could have been more humiliating or degrading to this country than the course taken by our Government in asking the permission of the American Government to send in the Counter Case without prejudice. He thought that if the matter was to be settled in a manner consistent with the honour and dignity of this country, it was desirable that Parliament should no longer leave the Government in doubt as to the course the nation desired them to pursue.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
My Lords, I beg in the first place to observe that the noble Lord gave no Notice of any Motion, but only that he would put a Question. I may say that the Question of the noble Lord when the Notice of it 1621 was first put upon your Lordships' Minutes appeared to me to be a very reasonable and rational Question. I think it would still have been so, if it had been put before the House was in possession of information which it has since received; but since the noble Lord gave his Notice, your Lordships have been put in possession of the official record of this Correspondence. [North America, No. 5 (1872.)] I do not think there is anything in the Notice which requires an answer from me. The noble Lord has not, however, confined himself to his Question. I do not know if your Lordships were able to follow very clearly the noble Lord's statement of his reasons; but, according to his own account, the result is that his own state of mind is in a state resembling that of Lord Dundreary. In order to make matters more clear to him, I will give, very shortly, an answer to the specific charges which he has made against us. One of them is that the vacillation of Her Majesty's Government has been degrading to the country, and that the final humiliation of the country was reached in the fact that we did not venture to take a certain step before obtaining the permission of the Government of the United States. With regard to the letters which passed between General Schenck and myself, I should not have the slightest personal objection to produce them, if it is necessary to do so, and I should think that General Schenck would on his part consent; but there is an obvious inconvenience, unless there is a necessity for doing so, in producing letters of a private character, General Schenck's letters having been marked "Private" in the first place, though he afterwards gave me permission to take off the confidential character from the communications which had passed between us, and make use of them as official documents. Now, as to the vacillation which we are said to have shown, it is perfectly true that Her Majesty's Government did not finally decide whether they would present a Counter Case until the 9th of this month; but that did not arise from any vacillation. It was deliberately done, and for very obvious reasons. We could not tell until the last moment what might be the circumstances in which we might find ourselves at the time when the decision must be taken. The circumstances might 1622 have been such as to make it difficult, if not impossible, to present a Counter Case at all. On the other hand, the circumstances might have rendered it totally unnecessary to accompany the Counter Case with any Declaration on our own part. As it happened, the circumstances at the last moment were such as in our opinion to justify the course which has been taken of presenting a Counter Case, accompanied by the Declaration of which your Lordships have knowledge. And here I may just mention, in regard to the presentation of the Counter Case, that there is a technical error in the statement made by Mr. Fisk to General Schenck, because we were not bound by the Treaty to present a Counter Case. Even if there had been no misunderstanding at all, it would have been perfectly open to either Government, or to both Governments, if they had thought it prudent, not to present a Counter Case at all. It appears to me, however, to be almost obvious that unless the presentation of a Counter Case would have affected the position we were maintaining, it was eminently desirable that we should take the course of presenting one. If the Arbitration is to continue, it would have been madness if, after having presented our Case, we had not laid before the Arbitrators the arguments by which it was to be supported and enforced. If, on the other hand, the Arbitration is not to go on, I think it will be a great advantage, with regard to the formation of sound public opinion both in Europe and still more in the United States, that an authoritative document, of which we are not ashamed, should be before the public. The whole question and the whole difficulty with respect to the presentation of the Counter Case, was, whether it would affect the position we had taken up and and are maintaining. The noble Lord says it is perfectly humiliating that we should have asked the permission of the Government of the United States before we took this step. Now, I must say that I disagree from the noble Lord. There might have been inconvenience, but I do not see that there could have been the slightest humiliation, even if I had said to General Schenck—"We should like to know whether your Government would consider that we prejudiced the position we are maintaining if we present a Connter Case." On the contrary, I say 1623 that might have been a prudent thing to do. But, in point of fact, I asked him no such question; and our action has not been dependent on the permission of the Government of the United States. In a conversation, which we both agreed should be confidential, between General Schenck and myself, General Schenck—and it is a proof of his sincere desire to remove obstacles—spontaneously expressed his opinion that we could present a Counter Case without prejudice to our position, and he said he believed his Government would accede to that view. The only question I asked of him was, whether I might divest that communication of its confidential character. So far from that question being a humiliation, I think that as a gentleman and a man of honour I should be unworthy of the position I hold as the representative of this country, if I had not asked that permission before making any official use of a confidential communication. I have seen General Schenck since the publication of my report of what took place, and he has not made the slightest objection to its accuracy. As to the reservation of the rights of the American Government which was put in at Geneva by Mr. Bancroft Davis, it is impossible for me to give any explanation. I am bound to take it as it stands, namely—that Mr. Bancroft Davis, as the agent of the United States Government, not having received instructions from his Government to meet the case of our putting in a Declaration with our Counter Case, thought it necessary to reserve the American rights, as we had reserved the English rights in this matter. I do not know that I have any further answer to give the noble Lord; for I think it is perfectly idle to talk about the "degradation" and "humiliation" of the country by the steps we have taken in regard to the Counter Case.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I wish to ask the noble Earl whether there is any objection to the production of the American Counter Case, which I have seen in one of the morning papers?

§ EARL GRANVILLE
On Thursday or Friday last I asked General Schenck whether he had any objection to our laying the American Counter Case before Parliament. General Schenck hesitated, and said that he should prefer to telegraph to his Government for instructions 1624 before giving an answer. We have not yet heard further from him on the subject.