Punch (62.1872)

Vol. LXIL]

INTRODUCTION.

[January to Juke, 1872.

Parliamentary criticism. The Eectory of Ewelme, in Oxford-
shire, having become vacant, Me. Gladstone nominated
the Eev. Mr. Harvey to this living, which was in the gift
of the Crown. Now " the Statute provided that the Bector
of that Parish should be a Member of the Oxford Convoca-
tion [i.e., no doubt, a bond fide Graduate of Oxford], and
Mr. Harvey having been educated at Cambridge, was made
a Member of the Oxford Convocation in order to satisfy the
Statute." It was this "colourable qualification" which
formed the subject of discussion in Parliament, but no
division followed, and Mr. Harvey's appointment remained
undisturbed.

The Boyal Speech contained the following paragraph :—

" The Arbitrators appointed pursuant to the Treaty of Washington for
the purpose of amicably settling certain claims known as the Alabama
Claims, have held their first meeting at Geneva. Cases have been laid
before the Arbitrators on behalf of each party to the Treaty. In the case
so submitted on behalf of the United States, large claims have been in-
cluded which are understood on my part not to be within the province of
the Arbitrators. On this subject i have caused a friendly communication
to be made to the Government of the United States."

These " large claims "—to which the most uncompromis-
ing objection was taken alike by Government, Parliament,
and the country—were the so-called "indirect" claims on the
part of the United States for enormous pecuniary compensa-
tion, principally for "the natural loss incurred through the
transfer of much of the American Commercial Marine to
the British flag, the enhancement of insurance, the pro-
longation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to
the cost of the war, and the suppression of the rebellion "
(Annual Register)—all arising, as the Americans contended,
out of the acts of the Alabama and other Confederate
cruisers, for whose proceedings they held that England was
responsible. Communications passed between the Govern-
ments of the two countries, Earl Granville insisting
that we had never recognized the " indirect" claims; and
eventually the arbitrators, who met at Geneva on the loth
of June, rejected them altogether, and this decision having
been accepted by the President of the United States (at that

PAO*

time General Grant), these "indirect" claims were with-
drawn by the American Agent a t Geneva. The award of the
Arbitrators on the other claims, which both England and
the United States had agreed should be referred to their
decision, was made known later on in the year, and will be
noticed in the '' Introduction" to the next Volume. Mean-
while it may be mentioned that the Arbitrators were—Sir
Alexander J. E. Cockburn, Lord Chief Justice, England;
C. F. Adams, Esq., America; Count Sclopis, Italy (Presi-
dent) ; M. Jacques Staempeli, Switzerland ; and Viscount
d'Itajuba, Brazil.

Ireland was prosperous, and on the whole, free from
serious crime, but the agitation for Home Bule, i.e., for a
separate Parliament to sit in Dublin, and manage all Irish
affairs, increased.

The hearing of the great " Tichborne Case " was resumed
on the loth of January, when the Attorney-General (Sir
John Coleridge) opened the case for the defendants, the
trustees of the estate, and the infant heir. On the 4th of
March, on the conclusion of evidence given as to certain
"tattoo" marks which the real Boger Tichborne was
known to have borne on his person, the jury announced
that they did not require further evidence. Thereupon the
" Claimant's" counsel asked for an adjournment till the
6th, when, on the one hundred and third day of the trial,
the " Claimant's " case completely broke down, the jury
again making a statement, this time to the effect that
their decision (completely adverse to the " Claimant") was
based upon the entire evidence, as well as upon that which
related to the tattooing. The " Claimant's" counsel then
submitted to a nonsuit on his behalf, and the Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas, believing that he had been guilty of
perjury, directed him to be prosecuted at the Central
Criminal Court. He was committed to Newgate, but
afterwards released on bail. On the 9th of April the
Grand Jury at the Old Bailey found a true bill against him
for perjury and forgery, but his trial was removed to the
Court of Queen's Bench, and did not take place until a
subsequent period.