HL Deb 04 August 1873 vol 217 cc1510-2

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Earl Granville.)

LORD REDESDALE

said, this was the only opportunity afforded to him of referring to the payment of £3,200,000 the amount of the Indemnity awarded to the United States by the Geneva Arbitration for what were called the Alabama Claims, and expressed his regret that the argument brought forward by himself on previous occasions—namely, that the re-united States could not be entitled to damages for acts committed by a section of those States—was not urged by the Government. High legal authorities had approved the argument, and had it been urged at the proper time the Indemnity would have been set aside.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

remarked that the objection, had it been urged at all, must have been preferred before the reference of the Claims to Arbitration. The United States would clearly not have consented to a reference to be met by the preliminary objection that there ought to be no reference, and when the two Powers agreed to the Arbitration the argument was ipso facto excluded. It was a question of policy whether England should agree to refer the Claims or not, and the country was very urgent with the Government that the matter should be settled, while this was the only mode of settling it.

LORD REDESDALE

said, if the argument was excluded when Arbitration was agreed to, why was it urged in our Counter Case and repeated in our Summary? Objection founded on International Law to each separate claim was expressly reserved in the Treaty, and this was a question of International Law.

LORD DENMAN

said, that it would be very unfortunate if it were supposed that this country had submitted to an unjust claim. He believed that, after our authorities had too late endeavoured to stop the Alabama, that they had confessed they were in the fault, and it was only a question of amount of damages. He considered that if a bystander were to see two persons fairly fighting, and were to hand a knife to one of them, by which he wounded the other, that both the assailant and the sufferer would be entitled to compensation from the abetter—he considered also that it would be contrary to law to re-open the arbitration.

Bill read 2a accordingly; Committee negatived: Then Standing Orders Nos. 37. and 38. considered (according to Order) and dispensed with: Bill read 3a, and passed.