and you will make known to them their gratitude in such a manner as you may deem most becoming, and best calculated to assure them how deeply it is felt. I am, &c, FRANCIS CLARE FORD, Esq., &c., &c., &c. STANLEY. Mr. Seward to Mr. Ford. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington November 2, 1867. MY DEAR MR. FORD: I have read with profound sensibility a copy which you have placed in my hands of Lord Stanley's instructions to you on the occasion of the death of the lamented Sir Frederick Bruce, and I have lost no time in laying the paper before the President. The President will expect a visit from you in connection with the painful subject of the despatch on Tuesday next at half past eleven o'clock. In compliance with your very proper request, I will transmit the other copies of the despatch which you have furnished me to Governor Gilpin, to the honorable Mr. Sumner, to his excellency the governor of Massachusetts, and to his honor the mayor of Boston, with your request that the sentiments expressed by her Majesty's government may be made known to the other distinguished persons in that city and to the physicians, clergy and others who did honor to the remains of our departed friend. I remain, my dear sir, very faithfully yours, FRANCIS CLARE FORD, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Mr. Ford to Mr. Seward. WASHINGTON, November 9, 1867. SIR: I have the honor to inform you that a representation has recently been made by the Egyptian government to that of her Majesty having for its object to obtain the consent of foreign powers holding commercial intercourse with Egypt to an alteration in the system of judicial procedure as affecting foreigners in Egypt in their relations toward the authorities and natives of the country. In view of a representation of a similar nature being made to the government of the United States, and as it will doubtlessly be desirous of being made acquainted with the views of her Majesty's government on the subject, I am authorized by my government to communicate herewith to you a copy of a despatch which has been addressed by Lord Stanley, her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, to her Majesty's agent and consul-general in Egypt, as the reply of the British government to the representation which has been made to it on behalf of the viceroy of Egypt. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most obedient, humble servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, &c., &c., &c. FRANCIS CLARE FORD. Lord Stanley to Colonel Stanton. No. 40.] I had previously received from Mr. Fane a copy of the memorandum on the subject which Nubar Pasha had laid before the viceroy, and Nubar Pasha during his stay in this country had entered upon it with me. Her Majesty's government cannot doubt that the system which now prevails in Egypt in regard to suits in which foreigners on the one hand, and the government and people of Egypt on the other, are concerned, is as injurious to the interests of all parties as it is certainly without warrant of any treaty engagement. Her Majesty's government are perfectly willing, therefore, to lend their aid to the Egyptian government in an attempt to establish a better system, and if the Egyptian government succeed in obtaining the concurrence of other powers for the same purpose, you may assure Nubar Pasha that the cordial co-operation of Great Britain will not be withheld from so salutary work. You will, say, however, that her Majesty's government consider that practical results, even though they may fall short of theoretical perfection, are principally to be aimed at, and that accordingly it might be advantageous, at all events in the beginning, not to attempt to frame a new code of law or procedure, but to apply, as far as altered circumstances may admit, an improved system of procedure to the law as it at present stands, amended in any necessary particulars by the legislation of foreign governments in similar matters; and I do not hesitate to say that in the application of this principle her Majesty's government would not be disposed to insist on the embodiment in the new arrangement of the maxims of British law in contradistinction to those of the law of any foreign country; they would look rather to the requirements of natural justice, and to the means, from whatever source derived, by which those requirements could best be provided for. It appears to her Majesty's government that the basis on which proceedings should be initiated might with the greater safety, and with the view to more early results, be the adaptation to altered circumstances of the principles laid down in the ancient capitulations, the departure from which has led in a great measure to the evils so justly felt. Those capitulations, indeed, were established under a very different state of things from that which now exists, and their object was to secure foreigners from arbitrary violence and exactions on the part of the local authorities. But still, although reserving for extra territorial tribunals exclusively the settlement of questions, whether of a civil or criminal nature, in which foreigners were alone concerned, the capitulations did not pretend to deprive the local government of jurisdiction over foreigners in matters, whether criminal or civil, in which they were brought into collision with the laws of the territorial sovereign. They reserved, however, as a protection to foreigners against the arbitrary local will of tribunals, a certain right of concurrence or supervision, which might act as a check against abuse. In process. of time this check, especially in Egypt, has become the great abuse, and by degrees the authority of the local tribunals has been usurped or set aside by the encroachments of an extra territorial jurisdiction. This is the state of things which the Egyptian government desire to remedy, and they cannot be more disposed to make the attempt than are her Majesty's government to second them in it. Her Majesty's government have no fondness for an extra-territorial jurisdiction, even if limited by the strict letter of the capitulations. They would hail with the utmost satisfaction such an improvement in the judicial system of the Ottoman empire, and specifically of Egypt, which is so important a part of it, as would justify them in altogether renouncing any judicial action in that country, and leaving the disputes of their subjects, and the crimes which they may commit, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the local government, as is the case in other countries.. With such feelings, her Majesty's government are certainly not inclined to hold out for a jurisdiction to which they have no treaty right, which they admit to be an usurpation though brought about by force of circumstances, and which is as injurious to British interests as it is derogatory to the character and well-being of the Egyptian administration. But her Majesty's government consider, and they are glad to perceive that such is the ground on which the application of the Egyptian government is founded, that foreign powers have a right to expect that any new system which may be inaugurated in Egypt should afford ample security to the foreigner that in pleading before an Egyptian tribunal he will have nothing to apprehend from the venality, the ignorance, or the fanaticism of his judges; that the law to be applied to his case, whether as plaintiff or defendant, shall be clear and patent to all; and that the forms of procedure, and more especially in matters of testimony, shall be well defined, and not admit of being in any point arbitrarily departed from on any ground whatever. Her Majesty's government consider that the course which the Egyptian government propose to adopt for arriving at the end in view is that most likely to lead to a good result, if, as I said before, the inquiry is to be directed to what is really practicable, rather than what may be desirable in the abstract. Her Majesty's government will readily take part in any inquiry which may be set on foot for this purpose; and when the Egyptian government shall have made known to them that they have secured the consent of the other principal powers to be represented by commissioners in a preliminary inquiry designed to result in an improved judicial system in Egypt, her Majesty's government will at once name one or more commissioners to assist on their part in the business. If, as will naturally be the case, the commission is to sit in Egypt, her Majesty's government are disposed to think that instead of limiting the character of the commissioners to that of persons possessing legal knowledge, it would be desirable that the chief political representative of each nation should also take part in the commission, inasmuch as political considerations are to a certain extent involved in the inquiry, and so, by such an intermixture of character among the commissioners, predilections in favor of technicalities which might be expected to prevail in an assembly of purely legal commissioners would in a great measure be neutralized. You may furnish Nubar Pasha with a copy of this despatch, as containing the answer of her Majesty's government to the proposal which he has laid before them on behalf of the viceroy; and you will inform his excellency, at the same time, that her Majesty's ambassader at Constantinople will, as a mark of respect due to the Sultan, be instructed to communicate it to the Porte; while her Majesty's representatives at other courts will in like manner be authorized to communicate it to the governments to which they are accredited, as an exposition of the manner in which the proposal of the Egyptian government has been received by that of her Majesty. I am, &c., Mr. Seward to Mr. Ford. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, STANLEY. Washington, November 9, 1867. SIR: I have received your note of this date, together with a copy thereunto annexed of a confidential despatch of Lord Stanley to her Majesty's agent and consul-general in Egypt, on the subject of a proposed modification of the form of judicial proceedings affecting foreigners in that country. I beg you to return to Lord Stanley my thanks for that interesting paper. I shall with pleasure recur to it, if the questions it discusses shall hereafter come under consideration in the United States. I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your obedient servant, FRANCIS CLARE FORD, Esq., &c., &c., &c. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. Lord Stanley to Mr. Ford. FOREIGN OFFICE, November 16, 1867. SIR: In my despatch to Sir Frederick Bruce, No. 191, of the 10th of September, I confined myself to a mere statement of the substance of a despatch from Mr. Seward, which Mr. Adams had communicated to me, in reply to my despatch, No. 117, of the 24th of May, respecting the claims arising on either side out of the events of the late civil war in the United States. Her Majesty's government having, since the date of my despatch, fully considered the terms of Mr. Seward's despatch, I will no longer delay in acquainting you, for communication to that minister, with the impression which it has made upon them. Her Majesty's government observe that the President of the United States considers the terms used in my despatch, with reference to the so-called “ Alabama" claims, to be at once comprehensive and sufficiently precise to include all the claims of American citizens for depredations upon their commerce during the late rebellion, which have been the subject of complaint upon the part of the government of the United States, those terms being, to quote the precise words of my despatch of the 24th of May, applicable to this class of claims, and which, in substance, repeats those used by me in my despatch of the 9th of March, that the question on which Great Britain was ready to go to arbitration was "whether, in the matters connected with the vessels out of whose depredations the claims of American citizens have arisen, the course pursued by the British government, and by those who acted upon its authority, was such as would involve a moral responsibility on the part of the British government to make good, either in whole or in part, the losses of American citizens." In the same, and in previous despatches, it will befound that, whilst agreeing to this limited reference as regards the so-called "Alabama" claims, I have repeatedly stated that her Majesty's government could not consent to refer to a foreign power to determine whether the policy of her Majesty's government, in recognizing the Confederate States as belligerents, was or was not suitable to the circumstances of the time when the recognition took place. After referring, however, to the terms of my despatch of the 24th of May, Mr. Seward goes on to say that, in the view taken by the United States government, that govern ment would deem itself at liberty to insist before the arbiter that the actual proceedings and relations of the British government, its officers, agents, and subjects, towards the United States, in regard to the rebellion and the rebels, as they occurred during that rebellion, are among the matters which are connected with the vessels whose depredations are complained of, just as in the case of the general claims alluded to by me the actual proceedings and relations of her Majesty's government, its officers, agents, and subjects, in regard to the United States, in regard to the rebellion and the rebels, are necessarily connected with the transactions out of which those general claims arise. The language thus used by Mr. Seward appears to her Majesty's government to be open to the construction that it is the desire of the United States government that any tribunal to be agreed upon in dealing either with the so-called "Alabama" claims, or with the "general claims," might enter into the question whether the act or policy of her Majesty's government in recognizing the Confederate States as a belligerent power, was or was not suitable to the circumstances of the time when the recognition was made, a construction which, after the distinct and repeated avowal of her Majesty's government that they could not consent to a reference of such a question, her Majesty's government can hardly suppose that it was intended by Mr. Seward that the passage in his despatch should bear. 66 But to prevent any misapprehension on this subject, her Majesty's government think it necessary distinctly to say, both as regards the so-called " Alabama" claims brought forward by citizens of the United States, and as regards the general claims, that they cannot depart, either directly or indirectly, from their refusal to "refer to a foreign power to determine whether the policy of recognizing the Confederate States as a belligerent power was or was not suitable to the circumstances of the time when the recognition was made." 66 As regards the so-called Alabama" claims, the only point which her Majesty's government can consent to refer to the decision of an arbiter, is the question of the moral resposibility of her Majesty's government, on the assumption that an actual state of war existed between the government of the United States and the Confederate States; and on that assumption it would be for the arbiter to determine whether there had been any such failure on the part of the British government, as a neutral, in the observance, legally or morally, of any duties or relations towards the government of the United States, as could be deemed to involve a moral responsibility on the part of the British government to make good the losses of American citizens caused by the "Alabama" and other vessels of the same class. As regards the general claims, the question of moral responsibility on the part of her Majesty's government does not and cannot come into dispute at all. Mr. Seward rightly supposes that her Majesty's government contemplate two tribunals for the adjudication-one of the "Alabama" claims, the other of the general claims; the one being in the first instance at all events, the tribunal of an arbiter who would be called upon to pronounce on the principle of the moral responsibility of the British government, and on the nature of whose decision would depend the question of the appointment of a mixed commission for the examination, in detail, of the several claims of citizens of the United States to which that decision applied, namely: those arising out of the depredations of the "Alabama" and other similar vessels, and the adjudications of the sums payable in each case; the other, in its commencement and to its close, a purely mixed commission for the examination of the general claims of the subjects and eitizens of both countries, arising out of the war, and the adjudication of the sums payable by either country in each case. The distinction between the two classes of claims is clear; the one may never come before a mixed commission, and, therefore, may not require the assistance of an arbiter to decide differences of detail arising between the commissioners; the other, though originally brought before a mixed commission, may possibly require the intervention of an arbiter, in case of a difference of opinion among the members of the commission which could not be otherwise reconciled, and for which case provision would be made in the ordinary way in the convention for the settlement of the mixed claims, by the insertion of articles in regard to the selection of an arbiter. The functions of such an arbiter, as well as of an arbiter for a like purpose in the other mixed commission, for which provision would have to be made to meet the contingency of the so-called "Alabama" claims coming eventually under the cognizance of a mixed commission, would have nothing in common with the functions of the arbiter to whom the question of principle involved in the last-mentioned class of claims would be referred. Her Majesty's government cannot but apprehend that if Mr. Seward really requires unrestricted arbitration as applicable to both classes of claims, and that the tribunal in both classes of cases should proceed upon the same principles, and be clothed with the same powers, he has not fully considered the wide and inevitable distinction which exists between the classes; and in directing you to submit to the consideration of Mr. Seward the explanations and observations contained in this despatch, I have to instruct you to express the earnest hope of her Majesty's government that the government of the United States will, on further reflection, accept, without hesitation, the proposal made in my despatch to Sir Frederick Bruce, No. 54, of the 9th of Marchi, and No. 117, of the 24th of May, both of this year, namely: "limited reference to arbitration in regard to the so-called Alabama' claims, and adjudication, by means of a mixed commission, of general claims." You will furnish Mr. Seward with a copy of this despatch. I am, &c., FRANCIS CLARE FORD, Esq., &c., &c., &c. STANLEY.. |