THE INDIRECT CLAIMS. (Hansard, 6 June 1872)

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
My Lords, before the Order of the Day is called on, I may be allowed to trespass on your Lordships' attention for one moment. I have received, since the debate of the night before last, a letter from my right hon. Friend Sir Stafford Northcote, one of the Commissioners who negotiated the Treaty of Washington, which, as it involves a matter of personal explanation respecting a statement which had been made by him and referred to in this House, I have been requested to read to your Lordships. It is as follows:— 86, Harley Street, W., June 5, 1872 Dear Lord Derby,—I observe that in your speech in the House of Lords last night you referred to a recent statement of mine with regard to the negotiations at Washington in a manner which shows me that you, as well as many other persons, have misunderstood my meaning. It has been supposed—and you seem to have supposed—that I said that an understanding existed between the British and the American negotiators that the claims for Indirect Losses should not be brought forward; and it has been inferred from this that we, relying upon that understanding, were less careful in framing the Treaty than we should otherwise have been. This is incorrect. What I said was, that we had represented to our Government that we understood a promise to have been given that no claims for Indirect Losses should be brought forward. In so saying, I referred to the statement voluntarily and formally made by the American Commissioners at the opening of the Conference of the 8th of March, which I, for one, understood to amount to an engagement that the claims in question should not be put forward in the event of a Treaty being agreed on. I will not enter into a discussion of the grounds upon which I came to that conclusion; but will simply say that we never for a moment thought of relying upon it, or upon any other matter outside of the Treaty itself. We thought, as I still think, that the language of the Treaty was sufficient, according to the ordinary rules of interpretation, to exclude the claims for Indirect Losses. At all events, we certainly meant to make it so. I remain, yours very faithfully, STAFFORD H. NORTHCOTE. The Earl of Derby. Perhaps you will kindly read this in the House of Lords to-morrow.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on Monday evening I made a statement as to the position of the negotiations between Her 1263 Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States. It was to this effect—that we were in active communication with the American Government, but that there was one portion of the Supplemental Article—of which your Lordships were already somewhat irregularly in possession—as to which there was no difference of opinion, and that the only difference which existed was with regard to the wording of the engagement which would bind the two parties in the future. During the debate on Tuesday that portion of the discussion which had reference to the misunderstanding involved in the statements made in the American Case turned in a very great degree on that part of the Supplemental Article which it was thought by many of your Lordships—though quite contrary to the opinion of Her Majesty's Government—to be insufficient for the purpose. That being the case, I cannot help feeling, though entirely disagreeing from noble Lords, that some of them spoke with so much authority as would necessarily excite some anxiety on the part of the public of this country. I therefore took the opportunity of a conversation with the American Minister to ask him whether he still retained the opinion which he and I had always had as to the effect and sufficiency of this particular part of the Article. I am glad to find that he agrees with me: but I am perfectly aware that, though your Lordships might be perfectly satisfied with my report of an incidental conversation with the United States Minister, he might not be supposed himself to have sufficient authority to make any explanation on the subject. I am, therefore, very glad indeed to have received a letter from him, which, with your Lordships' permission, I will now read— Legation of the United States, London, June 6, 1872. My Lord,—In the conversation we had yesterday, and which was resumed this morning, you stated to me that Her Majesty's Government have always thought the language proposed by them in the draft Article as it stands sufficient for the purpose of removing and putting an end to all demands on the part of the United States in respect to those Indirect Claims which they put forth in their Case at Geneva, and to the admissibility of which Her Majesty's Government have objected; but that there were those who doubted whether the terms used were explicit enough to make that perfectly clear, and to prevent those same claims from being put forward again, I 1264 concurred with you in your view as to the sufficiency of the language used in that clause of the proposed Article, and which the Government of the United States had accepted; and I repelled the idea that anybody should think it possible that the Government of the United States, if they should yield those claims for a consideration in a settlement between the two countries, would seek to bring them up in the future, or would insist that they were still before the Arbitrators for their consideration. I am now authorized in a telegraphic despatch received to-day from Mr. Fish to say that the Government of the United States regards the new rule contained in the proposed Article as the consideration for and to be accepted as a final settlement of the three classes of the Indirect Claims put forth in the Case of the United States to which the Government of Great Britain have objected.—I have, &c, ROBERT C. SCHENCK. Right Hon. Earl Granville. My Lords, I read this letter for the purpose of giving satisfaction to those of your Lordships who were disquieted as to the sufficiency of the Article. I think it shows also that we have not been such dupes as some had supposed; and, further, I think it is an honourable testimony to the straightforward manner in which the United States are conducting these negotiations. I beg at the same time to say that it is not an Article yet agreed upon; it is proposed—but it is impossible for me, under the difficulty of the present circumstances, to give any positive assurance as to the manner in which the negotiations may still tend.
Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Earl Russell's motion, viz., That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give instructions that all proceedings on behalf of Her Majesty before the arbitrators appointed to meet at Geneva pursuant to the Treaty of Washington be suspended until the claims included in the Case submitted on behalf of the United States and understood on the part of Her Majesty not to be within the province of the arbitrators have been withdrawn, read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
rose, and was about to resume the debate, when—

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
My Lords, I rise to a point of Order. I think, after the announcement that has been made by the noble Earl the representative of the Government in this House, although, on the one hand, matters seem undoubtedly to have a satisfactory appearance, and I sincerely hope that appearance may be borne out by the results, still, 1265 on the other hand, it is an announcement which places us in a position of some difficulty; because it calls upon us practically to decide the question whether we desire this debate to be continued and the opinion of the House to be taken on the matter in dispute:—it calls upon us practically to decide that question at a moment's notice, and upon the faith of an announcement which we have only heard read, and which we have not had an opportunity of deliberately considering. At the same time, I do not hesitate to say that, in my own view and that of my friends, the statement which has been made by the American Minister, and made, as I understand, by the express authorization of his Government, does place the matter in a position considerably different from that which it occupied on the last occasion of our meeting. I confess, for my own part, that I think—and I believe this is the feeling of many on both sides of the House—that there is strong reason to doubt whether the Supplemental Article would have the effect which, I cannot doubt, it is the intention of the Government it should have—namely, to withdraw, put an end to, and set at rest those Indirect Claims. The matter has now passed into a new stage, and although it is for the noble Earl who originated this Resolution (Earl Russell) to say what course he intends to take with regard to it, still I think it a very grave question whether, under these altered circumstances, it would be advisable to go to a division. If we did, it might give an appearance of disunion and difference of opinion upon a matter where obviously it is the interest of this House and the country—and I am sure that it is the desire of all of us—that we should, if possible, be united. If, as appears probable, this debate is not followed up to a division—if the matter rests where it now stands—we, of course, do not in any way waive our right to weigh, examine, and criticize with that care which is eminently necessary in a matter of so grave importance the language of the Supplemental Article.

EARL GREY
My Lords, I think we are placed in rather difficult circumstances. In the absence of my noble Friend who made the Motion (Earl Russell), I am not aware that any of us possesses authority to take any positive course in the matter. I cannot help 1266 thinking that in the absence of my noble Friend the best course would be to adjourn this debate. ["Hear, hear!"] I certainly concur in the opinion expressed by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), that a great change has been brought about in the position of affairs by the announcement which has just been made by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I wish to point out that we only have the assurance in the language of a Note not yet before the House, and which, therefore, I will not attempt to criticize, of one half the Executive of the United States. It must, therefore, be understood that in any course we may take we reserve to ourselves full power of action in case the other half of the treaty-making power does not prove to be in full accord with what now appears to be the opinion of Mr. Fish.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
Of course in that event the Supplemental Article would be useless.
In the meanwhile Earl RUSSELL had entered the House, and Earl GRANVILLE handed to him the Letter of the United States Minister. Having perused the Letter, and after conference with Lord CAIRNS—

§ EARL RUSSELL said
My Lords, I am very glad the Minister of the United States has made the declaration of which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has given me a copy. I think the Indirect Claims are withdrawn by it. ["No, no!"] I therefore propose that your Lordships should not continue the debate on the Motion I have made: but of course I reserve to myself the right of bringing it forward again, if necessary, on a future occasion.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
My Lords, I wish to express my acknowledgments to my noble Friend: but, at the same time, in order to avoid misconception, to say that the Indirect Claims are not withdrawn, because that portion of the Article is conditional on the rest of the Article being agreed to.

§ LORD CAIRNS
My Lords, I think the understanding of your Lordships is that the Government of the United States, or Mr. Fish, and Her Majesty's Government are quite in accord on this point—that if the other questions which 1267 are pending with respect to this Article are adjusted, the Article is to be taken as a final and complete settlement of the three classes of Indirect Claims, which are no more in any shape or at any time to appear. Of course, when the matter comes to be put in the shape of an elaborate Treaty before the Senate, that body may express dissatisfaction or dissent from that form. Then would be the time to assert the right which the noble Earl reserves to himself to express—an opinion as to whether the final Treaty has a less complete effect than has been stated.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Will the noble Earl (Earl Granville) tell us what are the three classes of Indirect Claims that are referred to in the letter of General Schenck? In the American Case they stand as follows:—First, for loss by the transfer of the mercantile marine to the English flag; second, for the enhanced premiums for marine insurance; third, for the prolongation of the war; fourth, for the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
The last two are taken as one.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
My Lords, I think it would be better to adjourn the debate till to-morrow or Monday rather than finally to withdraw the Motion. I do not see what possible objection there can be to the course I propose.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
My Lords, I venture to say that I entirely differ from my noble Friend who has just made his suggestion. There is one reason—one cogent reason I think—why it is better to accept that proposition of the noble Earl whose Motion is before us, and it is this—that if the debate were only adjourned we should not have the advantage, were it ever resumed, of again hearing the noble Lords who have already spoken.

§ EARL GRANVILLE
I entirely agree with my noble Friend the noble Duke; but I think it is possible that the readiness of noble Lords opposite to accede to the withdrawal of the Resolution may be attributed to the fact that they have had the advantage of the long legal speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cairns), and of some remarks, mixed up with kind and useful advice to the Government, from another noble and learned Lord (Lord Westbury), while both of those noble and learned 1268 Lords are unanswered by my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack.