Year: 1868

ernment beyond the Immediate point at issue he
should very much reg the fact Of any such failure
for this had been the first serious principle OF arbra
ti0n, which II acteS upon in this case WOud doubt
less be extended 70 disputes OF still greater import
arbitration 1t Vas but due to the noble lord to
remember the difficulties OF his position Originally
% when me-. Seward offered to arbtrate the war was
still proceeding, and It was for the interests OF the
American government that the questions should be
referred; but when in 1867 the noble lord made
interest to terminate the controversy But the po-
sltion Of the American government had changed
they fell back nom their position Of advocates Of
neutral Power, and advocates accordingly OF the
privileges OF neutrals Hence the noble lord was
cordance with our own interests which the British
government had refused when made by the Ameri-
cans in accordance with their interests 1t the mo-
ment. lie did not for q moment SympathiZe with the
complaint of the American government In what they
called our premature recognition OF the beligerent
ground now broken by that government was
the one stated by the noble lord. He
did not believe they expected anything absurd as
that We should state there no civil war raging
at the time Of the recognition. The American gov
ernment did not allege that there no civil war
there was no war raging at sea- They said it was
not your business to act upon assumption of what
DTa yVS ad baS ~ D
and which, for aught you know, might have be-
gun. He thought that was an unsound opinion but
II was one held by man In America OF very great
intelligence He might here observe that though Mr.
Adams had protested against the recognition. and
M & Sev, mad reierred to the
the American government, written In April 1885,


In that despatch was stated that the dispute between
Ing acknowledged the C0nfederates as belligerents
on the sea before they had single vessel OF their
own. He thought there was good reason for bellev-
ing that the American government were mistaken
in the position they took. He was not ashamed to
confess that during the struggle he was partisan,


in consequence OF his views on the slavery question:
On the eth of May, 1851, he put question to the
government the subject aud In reply the late Sir
g. O Lewis stated tnat the proclamation would be
proclamation appeared to himself and other friends
Of the North as not an nnfriendy act on the part of
States. (Hear, hear Therefore, he could not agree
In the opinion which Mr.. Seward had formed Of that
proceeding But as the point was one which warmly
Interested the North, before the publication Of the
Queens proclamation he had heard that letters Of
marque were about to be issued in this country by Mr.
Davis, acting for the COnederates and he had been
anxious to ascertain the light In which British vessels
sailing under such letters would be regarded He had
been informed that the crews Of such vessels would
be looked upon as pirates, and he believed there
no doubt that would have been the fifty years ago.
He thought the noble lord, the Secretary of State
Seward. In his despatch Of November 20, 1867,
Mr.. Seward said the United States government was
distinctly informed by Lord Stanley that they must
altogether waive their conviction that the proca-
nation was not justified He distinctly understood
Mr.. Seward to complain that as preliminary to an
arbitration on the Alabama claims the noble lord,
the Secretary Of Foreign Affairs, required OF him
waive his conviction that proclamation was pre-
mature and contrary to international law In effect
the noble lord said to Mr.. Seward, will not refer the
other matters to arbitration, but you acknowledge
Yourself wrong on the grounds that you have con-
premature and contrary to international law.


Lord SHANLEY.-I did not require that; only said
objected to have that question before the arbitrator.


Mr.. W. +. FORSTER woudfnfer from the noble lords
own despatch that he went further than that and he
believed that Mr.. Seward had arrived at the same
conclusion. Again. as to not referring the question
to arbitration, while he thought we had the cearest
case on the point ITSELF he could not see why we
should object to make that before an arbitration.
There might be an objection to such course II arbi
tlation was merely meant to be mode OF making
confession where we knew we were wrong; but he
believed that the parties to the treaty Of Paris in
tended that arbitration should in future be regarded
as means Of deciding disputes between two nations
by the Intervention of third party without war
threat of war. In that line he trusted arbitration
would henceforth be regarded, and therefore he could
not that the fact of our thinking ourselves right
was any reason why should decline
bitration as between ourselves and another
opposite view. However, Mr.. Seward did not ask
for much. He thought Mr.. Seward's last despatch
admitted OF dllerenI interpretation ai rom that
He appeared to require there should be arbitration
on the question OF the proclamation ~ well as that
that the noble lords arguments on the subject OF re-
cognition must have had their effect on Mr. Seward.
In his last despatch he either changed his ground
defined IL SO as to admit OF different interpretion
being given to his demand from that which the
wording Of his first despatch seemed to require In


his last despatch he only claimed to make use OF his
opinion the recognition bearing on the of
the vessels. His impression was that II the noble
lord had replied, to the effect that although could
our sovereign power to recognize the Con-
federate states, and that we did not think
the departure Of the Alabama, yet Mr.. Seward
might state his opinion on the subject as
although in our judgmen. il was not sound one
III he had made such reply there could be little
doubt that the representative of the United states at
the arbitration would have felt that Mr. Seward's
argument was an unsound one, and in that event we
should have heard no more about IL. But as Mr..
Seward stood committed to his opinion, ii was hardly
possible that he would abandon IL nc the bidding Of
the noble lord. After all this was only hitch, and
he believed some mode OF surmounting the difficulty
might be devised Everybody In England wished to
have the difficulty amicably arranged, rs did every
party In the United States with the exception of the
Fenians. The noble lord was himself most anxious
to settle, and II his suppositions were cor
rect, that all the United States government
wanted was to make use of certain arguments,
he hoped the noble lord would not allow the nego-
tiaions to break or on that ground, but would re-
serve TO himself the right OF dlsprovlng these agu
ments We are also to consider whether this matter
could be settled otherwise than by arbitration (car,
hear.) lie thought that II statesman OF high posi-


i0n were sent to America with power from the noble


lord the matters In dispute might be arranged. or
course II was not for him TO point out the exact
mode In which this to be DONE but he trusted the
noble lord woud take the question into considera-
tion. QIear, hear.)


Sir q. BOWER and Mr.. SANFORD then addressed
the House.


Mr. MIL while acknowledging the good feel
Ing displayed towards America by the honorable
member for Maiden (Sir. Sanford) thought he and
other speakers had quite overlooked the fundamental
qteston-namely the distinction between 1.-The ship
ping OF c0ntraband articles and the Of neutral
country as the basis Of military naval operations.
licar hoar.) 10 was quite true that vessel might
have been sent to OF the beligerents Just mill
tary stores we're sent TO another without any VIOLA
ton Of international law but there was this condi


ton that the ship should direct 10 the port OF the
belDgerent before commencing hostilites. Now In
The case OF the Alabama this country was used for
the Hitting out OF naval expedition against the
lnerce OF The North. The honorable member RON
Dundak tsir q. Bowyerl appeared to think this would
be inirn both parties enjoyed the same advantages but
In point OF fact only side enjoyed the benefit OF It,


neutral power ought not to permit its territory to
be used for the fitting out OF hostile expedition. If
the Alabama had been fitted out i'm a Confederate
port the North, receiving the intelligence Of It,
might have intercepted the departare or have bonn
barded the harbor, but being fitted out in this coun-
try they had no opportunity OF getting at It. Had
we permitted this wfuy II would have clearly been
q breach OF neutrality. llear hearl The honorable
member for Maiden had blamed the noble lord for
consentng to refer to arbitration the question OF the
violation OF our municipal law, with which a foreign