The New York herald., 1869-06-18
r U r o p e
ENGLAND.
The Alabama Claims Correspondence-The
Mysteries of Diplomacy.

within the past week through Tue oIncal puDiicdiou
OF the correspondence and conversations tnat passed
between the ministers OF the two countries while the
negotiations for a settlement OF the international
complications were pending The English journals
from their standpoint regard this remarkable docu-
ment as connrmatory OF the alleged desire OF the
British government to make extraordinary conces-
sions TO the United States for the purpose OF
ing the difficulties arising out OF England's hostile
position during the rebellion, and they affect to dis
cover In 1t fresh evidence OF the bad faith Of America
in all the propositions that have been hitherto made
for settlement.
In the first OF these views at least Lord Clarendon
concurs, and his remarks last evening IN the House
of Lords were calculated to convey the impression
that the rejected treaty in fact the production OF
the American government and conceded every point
that had been insisted upon at Washington up TO the
time of the signing OF the convention. There will
be few readers OF this correspondence on the other
side OF the Atlantic, however who Will fail TO find
1t ample Justification Of the action Of the Senate,
IT, indeed, any needed in refusing to raiify the
treaty to which it led.
The whole spirit OF the negotiation is exposed In
the letter OF Lord Stanley TO Mr.. Thornton, dated
October 2l 1865 and numbered fourteen in the off,
cia documents. AT this time Reverdy Johnson had
arrived in England as the representative OF the
American government and had made the first OF those
remarkable speeches. which were then hailed by the
English press as model addresses, but which now
sneered at meaningless twaddle. The negotiations
that had been pending between Lord Stanley and Mr..
Adams for settlement of the Alabama controversy
had been broken or but were at once renewed, and
Lord Stanley lets into the secret of the OF
their discontnuance and OF the manner IN which it
was hoped TO bring tnem to q successful termlna
tion. The stumbling block had been that very claim
OF the United states government which is now
treated by the English press as new demand, dis
covered SINCE the rejection of the ClarendonJohn-
treaty and raised by sumner in order to defeat
the settlement OF the pending difficulties Lord
Stanley. after detailing the conversation between
himself and Mr. johnson In regard TO the question
OF the Alabama claims, writes TO the British Minister
at Washington as follows:-"In this conversation
little was sad as 10 the point on which the former
negotiations broke of-namely, the claim made 6g
he United States gouerrent TO raise 6eore hearot-
te'' ne question Of ne alleged premature
the Corlrederates as 6ellge1ents :" and he
informs MIR. Thornton OF the reason why this lmpor
tant item was so readily disposed OF. al stated to
Mr.. Reverdy Johnson" says the British Minister,
"that we could not on this p6lnt depart from the po
stlon which we had taken up, but saw no impos-
sbllity framing the reference as that, by mu-
tual consent, either tact express, the difficulty
might be avolded.n 1t is seldom that English d.
plomacy Is clothed in language so PLAIN as this. 1t
bears but one Interpretation. The claim OF the
United States tnat England must answer not alone
for the damage done TO the property OF American
citizens by the depredatlons OF the Anglo Confede-
rate pirates, but also Ior the injury inflicted upon
the United States through the premature re-
cogninon. OF southern beliigerency.. had been
the point on which the negotiations for a
settlement between the two countries had
broken OF, and this obstacle must be first removed
before they could De removed How does Lord
Stanley propose TO meet the dlfflcutyS 1--WE, the
Ministry OF England" ne says ''cannot depart from
the position we have taken up: we cannot risk the
loss OF popularity that must Inevitably follow such
backing down on our part; but by tacit under
standing between ourselves we can so frame the
reference that the difficulty may be avoided" In
other words we can by mutual consent and q tacit
understanding so frame the reference as TO deceive
aud hoodwink our several people; we BY persuading
Engllshmen that no reference Of the right of Eng.
land TO concede belllqerent rights 10 the Southern
rebels IS intended; you by proving to Americans
that EDgand's premature recognition OF Southern
belllgerency is one OF the points referred. great
deal has been said about the tricky and undignihed
character OF American diplomacy: but II IS ques-
tionable whether Mr.. Stewards official history
can AFFORD more striking instance OF Machlavellan
against himself
IL may be urged that the convention framed by
Lord stanley and Reyerdy Johnson upon the basis
OF this convenient laclt understanding was not the
one that was eventually placed before and rejected
by The American Senate. But IL must be remem-
bered that the subsequent treaty drawn by Lord
Clarendon. and signed by him ana Nj. johnson, was,
as the former says as closely as possible copy OF
the STANLEY y-Johpson convention. However this NAV
be- 1t appears that the English Minister was shrewd
enough 10 make the "tacIt understanding lean
more to his side OF the question than to that OF
the American Minister for after the last treaty had
been executed and forwarded to Washington, and
While 1t was yet pending in the senate. we ind Mr..
Johnson, IN a nurry of excitement, rushing or to
the British Foreign ONCE on March 22 and exhortlng
Lord Clarendon 10 consent 10 an additional article,
winch should In pam terms cover tue 'tact under-
standing point by providing that ''al claims OF the
government OF the United states against the gov
ernment Of Her Britannic Majesty" instead OF ''al
claims OF citizens OF the United States,n should be
the matters referred to the arbiIer.
. Just here occurs an incident which at least places
the conduct OF those who were engaged in these ne
EQUATIONS IN very curious light. II appears that
Lord Clarendon remarked 10 Mr.. Johnson that his
proposal would Introduce an entirely new feature
into the convention, and he coud only suppose that
tie object was TO favor the introduction OF some
claim by the government Of the United states for in
Jury sustained on account OF the policy pursued by
her Maesty's government. In his letter 10 Mr.
Thornton, dated March ~, 1862 Lord Clarendon goes
on to state how this remark was received by the
American Minister
'Mr Reverdy object TO this Interpretation
OF his amendment writes Lord CArendon but said that
British go eminent Of the besersns rights Of the Confeae
states hs % y s o . er Ss 19e s
ward claims TO compensation for damages done British
were not begerents illegally enforced against them"
1t will certainly appear singular that the Ameri-
can Minister should have deemed II to be within the
line OF his DUTY 10 endeayor TO obtain the OF
the English Minister 10 his proposition by reminding
him that 1t might be the means OF opening the doors
part Of England against the United states. IL IL
well known that both the British and American re-
presentatives were eager for settlement Of this
question. but Mr.. Johnson, In his anxiety for the
success Of his work, appears to have been singu-
larry regardless as to which nation should suffer
most IN the squaring up OF accounts
throughout the whole transaction there appears
TO have been lamentabe lack OF direct honesty OF
purpose. Mr.. Thornton, az appears from his de-
spatch to Lord Stanley OF November 30. 1865 OBJ
serves tnat he gathered from Mr. Seward- that the
administration at Washington would not object 10
sovereign or head OF q state beng named as umpire
between the two countries; but that dificulty was
In the senate, which body would probably object TO
such an arrangement Say nothing about it In
the treaty, however; leave the question open
by one OF Lord Stanleys "tacit Understandings
and all might be wei. III even believe,r writes Mr.
Thornton In confidence TO his chief that n the COM
mission were actually installed here before the pre-
sent administration should leave ONCE the President
might be induced to instruct the United States Com.
mssioners TO consent 10 the choice OF the King OF
Prussia umpire, should he be proposed by the
English Commissioners.n In view OF these secret
advlces 10 Is not TO be wondered at that Lord Car
endon In hls eagerness to push matters TO a conclu-
sion should have pressed Thornton TO prompt ac-
tlon IN Washington. II the enclosed draft OF the con-
vention Is accepted by Mr. seward, he writes 70 bis
envoy on December "a, 1868 Mr.. Johnson might
be authorized by telegraph 70 sign IT, In which case
II might be returned 10 Washington so as TO admit
OF Its being laid before the Senate by the middle OF
January and pronounced upon by that body before