No. 35.
Earl Granville to Sir E.
Thornton.
[From British Blue Book “North America,” No. 9, (1872,) p. 8.]
General Schenck called on me to-day, and read to me a telegraphic message from Mr. Fish, of which he did not give me a copy, but the substance of which was to the following effect:
An agreement to bind for the future would seem to require the assent of the Senate, but if the Arbitrators were to give a decision on the case which is now before them it would be settling the question for the future.
If, under these circumstances, the British Government want to open negotiations for defining the extent of liability for consequential damages resulting from a failure of observance of neutral obligations, the President would consider carefully any proposal in that direction.
I told General Schenck that the only meaning I could attribute to the message was, that Mr. Fish maintained the position to which General Schenck was aware Her Majesty’s Government could not assent.
General Schenck then proceeded to read me a draught of a message which he had sent.
The message described what had passed in the House of Lords on the 6th instant correctly up to a certain point, but made some statements as to the assurances of the Government which were not accurate. He stated that the motion of Lord Russell had only been deferred on the assurance of the Government that we would not appear before the Tribunal of Arbitration unless some settlement was previously made.
It went on to declare his conviction that we should adhere to this resolve; that Lord Russell’s motion would be carried nearly unanimously. And he further declared, while recapitulating the reasons why the matter should be referred to arbitration, viz, in order to have the matter finally settled, and that it was certain that the Arbitrators would decide [Page 493] against the indirect claims, yet the English Government would never allow the indirect claims to be submitted to Arbitration.
He stated he believed his message was correct. I said that I had no objection to tell him that the statement of what had passed in the House of Lords was not historically accurate, as I had only given the assurance that I had nothing to withdraw or retract from what I had said last year or this in Parliament.
As to his view of the course which Her Majesty’s Government were likely to take, he was aware that while I had avoided anything which might be quoted as an official menace, he had himself frequently told me that he was perfectly aware, from the tone of my language, of the resolution of Her Majesty’s Government to refuse to submit the indirect claims to Arbitration, and that I had therefore no wish to object to his giving his own opinion to his Government.