umny, whatever any other government may slide into concession, and finally into the have done. imbroglio which we now see.

The British Government did not gag its press or manacle private sympathy. Some British citizens made a bad use of their liberty. The London Times poured upon the North in its hour of depression a stream of contumely and slander which more than any act of the Government led to the present bitterness; and some members of Parliament so far forgot themselves as to cheer the Alabama in the House of Commonsan offence only inferior in gravity to that committed by the American House of Representatives, when by a majority of 172 to 71, it voted, in the name of the people of the United States, an address of welcome to the Fenian patriots (30 Jan., 1871). No language, however held by any British journalist or speaker against the war and its authors, could possibly exceed in violence the language held by a large party among the people of the United States themselves. The most offensive things perhaps that appeared in the British press, were the letters of "Manhattan," published in the Standard, but written in New York.

An eminent Italian jurist, the professor of International Law in the University of Pavia, has pronounced the neutrality of Great Britain blameless in respect of both the contending parties, setting aside the case of the Alabama, which, misled by persistent and accumulated falsehood, he believes to have been armed and manned in England under the eye of the British Government, and to have brought her prizes into British ports. But what the North really demanded of Great Britain was not neutrality but participation in the war on the Federal side.

Good sense and regard for British honour required that in the case of the Alabama all doubt should at once be cleared up, and, if reparation appeared to be due, that it should be promptly made. But diplomacy chose first to repudiate all responsibility, then to

After much wrangling, the two Governments framed a convention for the mutual settlement of claims. This treaty, though signed in London, was virtually drawn up at Washington, for the British Government acceded to all the proposals of Mr. Seward, and when he wished to amend his original terms, acceded to his amendment also. The American ambassador dined too much in public and made too many friendly speeches, probably with a view to facilitate his negotiation. But this was not the fault of the British Government, nor could the British Government go behind his credentials and inquire whether he really represented the nation. His appointment had been unanimously confirmed by the Senate, including Mr. Sumner, who, it has been positively and repeatedly stated, specially commended Mr. Reverdy Johnson to Mr. Bright, and afterwards wrote to the same statesmen a letter which was equivalent to one of congratulation on the conclusion of the treaty.

Under these circumstances Great Britain was entitled at least to courtesy. But the treaty was flung out by the Senate with every mark of contumely. The rule of secrecy was suspended that the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations might publish an inflammatory libel against the British Government and nation. A torrent of unprovoked abuse and menace was poured forth against Great Britain by all the organs of American opinion, which, however, somewhat changed their tone when the effect of their language was perceived, and began to rally the British on their baseless fears, having no idea that a nation assailed with the most odious calumnies could feel wounded in its honour. The fact, indeed, is that some deduction ought probably to be made from the offensiveness of American charges on the ground of the habitual use of injurious imputations as ordinary wea pons of debate among American politicians.

and for all the calamities which followed to suppressed by Mr. Fish. One great difficulty themselves and to mankind.

in dealing with the people of the United States is that the facts do not reach them. They are fenced by their politicians and journalists against unwelcome truth, and thus they are led blindfold into the designs of men for whom they themselves profess no respect.

After another period of moral war, aggravated by ill-timed and humiliating demonstrations of cordiality on the part of Great Britain, negotiations were resumed and end

not only to settle all differences and restore halcyon days between the two nations, but to open a new era for humanity by introducing the great principle of international arbitration.

The prolongation of the war, which is the ground on which General Grant claims his consequential damages, and which he now imputes wholly to the attitude and conduct of Great Britain, was once imputed by the same authority to a very different agency. In a letter to Mr. Washburne, dated Aug. 16, 1864, and published for the purpose of influencing the then approaching Presidential Election, General Grant said, "I state to all citizens who visit me that all we wanted in the Treaty of Washington, which was now to ensure an early restoration of the Union is a determined unity of sentiment North. * * * * With this drain upon them (the rebels), the end is not far distant if we will only be true to ourselves. Their only hope, now, is in a divided North. * * * * I have no doubt but the enemy are exceedingly anxious to hold out until after the Presidential Election. They have many hopes from its effects. They hope a counter-revolution. They hope the election of a peace candidate. In fact, like Micawber, they hope for something to turn up." The letter, which may be seen in the Rebellion Record, contains not the faintest allusion to any Southern hopes fed by Great Britain, or by any allies or sympathizers other than the Democratic party at the the North. It would seem, therefore, that when damages for the prolongation of the war are levied, the Democratic party at the North should, at least, be called upon to contribute its share.

Mr. Sumner's charges were embodied by Mr. Fish in a despatch which Mr. Motley was directed to read to Lord Clarendon Lord Clarendon did not meet this attack on the honour of the country, nor have his successors met similar attacks with the dignity which sound policy as well as self-respect and regard for the national character required. But he sent an exhaustive and conclusive reply to Mr. Fish's statement. This reply was published in England, but in America it was

When the terms of the treaty were made known it became at once evident that the British negotiators by consenting to a retrospective modification of international law had compromised the rights and impaired the security of neutrals, whose interests are at least as deserving of protection as those of powers which involve the world in war Still the apology tendered on the part of Great Britain for the escape of the Alabame was well received; the feeling of the people in the United States appeared good; ard there was a general tendency among Englishmen to accept the treaty as the best practicable termination of the state of moral war.

Soon, however, it transpired that the British Commissioners had submitted to a peremptory refusal of the Americans to con sider the Fenian claims. It may safely l said that the failure to detain a single ves sel, furtively built by a foreign power, in time of war, and under all the difficulties incident to the maintenance of neutrality between passionate and unscrupulous be! ligerents, will bear no comparison in point of criminality with the deliberate permission and encouragement, through a series of years and in time of peace, of an organi

legal hand.

zation openly levying war against a neighOn the moral point and the bouring and friendly nation. If the mate- point of honour, there can scarcely be room rial damage done by the Fenians in Canada for doubt. The British Commissioners were was not great-though it included the kill-known to have entered into the negotiations ing of several Canadians and the wounding with the special object of excluding the inof more the Americans, as they professed, were seeking, not so much the payment of material damages, as the vindication of moral principles. In peremptorily refusing to consider the Fenian claims, they in effect declared that other nations should be answerable for their actions, but the American Republic should not. Here was an end at once of all the moral advantages which were to accrue to humanity from the treaty. Instead of being a signal example of the submission of great powers to the moral law, it became an almost unparallelled assertion, on the part of the United States, of immunity from moral obligations.

At length the "American case" was produced. Its character is best described in the words of the great organ of German opinion, the Allgemeine Zeitung. "The tribute," says that Journal, "which Germany draws from France, after a complete victory, is insignificant compared with the compensation that the American government demands, in virtue of a treaty which enthusiasts describe as the inauguration of a new era of peace and friendship. The most hostile and contemptuous despatches of Prince Bismarck to the French government are courteous and friendly in comparison with the indictment for which the President and his Cabinet are responsible. An idle attempt has been made to shift this responsibility by attributing the unexampled coarseness and malignity of the attack to the lawyers who drew it up. It may be true that the American negotiators have discredited themselves; but they have also discredited the character of their country." An auspicious opening of the new moral era of international arbitration!

On the vexed question of legal interpretation, we have given a paper drawn up by a

direct claims, and reducing the case to such a claim for specific damages as England might with safety and honour consent to submit to arbitration. The word "amicable," applied in the treaty to the settlement, would seem itself to shut out demands, which, it is obvious, could only be enforced by war. It was manifestly on this understanding that the British Commissioners had consented to retrospective modifications of international law, and had tendered an apology, the acceptance of which alone would be decisive against the resumption of a hostile attitude in the court of honour. In that belief they had been suffered to go through the negotiations. In that belief they had been suffered to depart. One of their number and Lord Granville had after? wards been allowed publicly to give this version of the treaty without being corrected. Then, Great Britain being, as it seemed, finally committed to the arbitration, the indirect claims were sprung.

It is suggested that these indirect claims. were merely foisted in by the lawyers who drew the case, and who, in a great international cause, used this pettifogging artifice of their trade to impose on the arbitrators and swell the damages. Those who walk in beaten paths, are not likely to be very successful in divining the motives of American politicians.

It is possible that it may have been thought desirable for political purposes to re-open a profitable quarrel. But the only thing which can be safely asserted, is that whatever was done, the paramount object was to influence the result of the approaching Presidential Election.

What is certain is, that if the British Ministers allow the indirect claims to be submitted in any form or under any disguise,