national disaster, and a blot on the page of history, if a few hasty and ill-considered expressions, falling from an individual in the position of Minister of State, should be allowed to imperil the friendly relations between two powerful and leading States: but it would seem not unlikely to prove the case.

66

At length, on the 10th May, Lord Granville took occasion to flatter himself that he had got clear of the difficulty, and achieved a master stroke of policy, in a form of declaration, which he forwarded through Sir Edward Thornton, for submission to the President at Washington. This document, which is entitled a Supplemental Article," and is intended to be embodied as a "fourth Rule" established by the Treaty, and which is rather confusedly worded, and strangely inverted in construction, may be summarized as follows:-After reciting the objections of Her Majesty's Government to the indirect claims, on the ground, firstly, "that they were not included in the Treaty of Washington," and secondly, that they "should not be admitted in principle as growing out, etc.," of the acts of the escaped cruisers, and that the said government "has also declared that the principles involved in the second of the contentions herein before set forth will guide their conduct in future;" and that "the President of the United States, while adhering to his contention that the said claims were included in the Treaty, adopts for the future the principle contained in the second of the said contentions" as operative between the two countries-it is declared that "in consideration thereof, the President of the

K

United States, by and with the advice of the Senate thereof, consents that he will make no claim on the part of the United States in respect of indirect losses as aforesaid before the Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva.”

Carefully worded as this document obviously has been, there are two points which cannot fail to be remarked in it, as tending to uncertainty of action. In the first place, though the President is made to consent that "he will make no claim in respect of indirect damages aforesaid," there is no mention of claims already made, nor even of "the Case" in which they are made,—and no withdrawal of the claims so made therein. Secondly, there is no stipulation to bring the agreement to the knowledge of the Arbitration Tribunal, which will thus remain "seized" of the claims as stated in that Case, with the necessity of coming to a decision upon them; which is the very thing the British Government wishes to avoid. Indeed it appears that this is the deliberate intention of the United States Government; what they propose to consent to, under the operation of this new Article, being to abstain from claiming any pecuniary damages which might possibly be awarded to them for indirect losses, but not to obviate the making of the award.

But this Supplementary Article is not yet adopted. The Senate, to whom the President referred it for their "advice beforehand," have voted in approval of his entering into negociations upon the basis of it, after making some "verbal alterations" in the article itself, with a view of rendering it more palatable

to the American people. What those verbal alterations amounted to, was for a long time kept secret, but it was generally believed that they were objected to by the British Government, as tending not to withdraw the indirect claims with sufficient distinctness; and also as introducing some general principle of international obligations which might be highly prejudicial to this country on any future occasion of belligerency. In this awkward predicament negociations were renewed with greater activity than ever, by means of the Atlantic Cable; the night bells" of the Foreign Office, and at the American Embassy were in constant agitation; and the outer world looked on in mute suspense, whilst Diplomacy was straining every resource "to save the Treaty."*

Meantime this question began to arise in the minds of practical men,-"Was the Treaty worth saving, at the expense of all this fuss and fret, and humiliation?" To judge of this requires a consideration of its other important provisions, which have hitherto been too much overlooked.

BRITISH CLAIMS-THE FENIAN RAIDS, ETC.

LORD Granville, in his Instructions to the British Commissioners, declared in emphatic language that throughout the negociations on the 'Alabama, Shenandoah,' etc., claims, Her Majesty's Govern

*We shall note the progress and result of these negociations in our concluding observations, at the end of the work.

ment have always urged that any satisfactory settlement of those claims must be accompanied by a simultaneous settlement of the claims of British subjects arising out of the civil war, and provision was made for this purpose in the Claims Convention." His Lordship suggested the establishment of a mixed commission to adjudicate upon these claims; and especially recommended to notice "a claim on the part of the people of the Dominion of Canada for losses of life and property, and expenditure, occasioned by the filibustering raids on the Canadian frontier, carried on from the territory of the United States in the years 1866 and 1870." Thus instructed, the British Commissioners, on the 26th April, after previous unsuccessful attempts to be heard on the subject, announced "that they were instructed to present these claims (those in regard to the Fenian raids), and to state that they were regarded by Her Majesty's Government as coming within the class of subjects indicated by Sir Edward Thornton in his letter of January 26, as subjects for the consideration of the Joint High Commission." The American Commissioners replied "that they were instructed to say that the Government of the United States did not regard these claims as coming within the class of subjects referred to;" that they were "without any authority to consider them," and "therefore declined to do so." Upon this the British Commissioners referred home for instructions, in conformity with which they, on the 3rd May, expressed" the regret" of the British Govern

وو

ment that the American Commissioners were "without authority" in this matter, and " inquired whether that was still the case. "" The American Commissioners declined to "vary the reply formerly given to this proposal," and the British Commissioners thereupon incontinently stated "that under these circumstances they would not urge further" in the matter, "and that they had the less difficulty in doing so [query not doing so?], as a portion of the claims were of a constructive and inferential character; "words which, not very intelligible in themselves, would seem to imply an admission on the part of the British Government that they had put forward a claim, which in their own minds they knew to be in great part weak and untenable. But whatever our opinion of the disingenuous and undignified conduct of the Ministry in this affair, what are we to consider of the statement volunteered by Mr. Montague Bernard, the Professor of International Law, at Oxford, and one of the High Commissioners from this country, in the course of a lecture recently delivered before a large audience in the above-mentioned University, which shows that he was diametrically opposed to the instructions under which he acted in that capacity? "I think otherwise, however," said this learned gentleman, "because I long ago formed an opinion, that although these attacks on the people of a friendly State were such as amply to justify grave remonstrance and complaint, and although, according to the conception of international liabilities contended for by the United States, they might have supported