Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-06-05
WAR CLOUD.
Lord John Russell Looms Up Again
and Grows Very BeIlicOse-He Goes
for Jonathan Sharp.
He Wants to Treat us as in the Trent
AfRair-The Result Of Grants Cow
ardly, TempOrising Policy.

LONDON, June Am the House of
Lords, this evening, there was full at
tendance of the peers and the galleries
were crowded. Earl Russell moved a
long impending address to the Queen,
PRAYING that her Majesty cause instruc-
lions to be given her representatives to
retire from the Board of Arbitration at
Geneva if the claims for indirect dam
ages are not withdrawn by the Govern
ment of the United States.
Lord Russell spoke at great length in
support Of his motion. He reviewed
the events of the war in the United
States, and the circumstances of the
escape of the Alabama, and discussed
the subsequent negotiations of the gov
ernment. He said we should remember
that England has never admitted
the Justice of the indirect claims.
What was the meaning of this
delay, this mystery, this hesitation.
The nation was in the same state OF un-
certainty as when the treaty was rati-
fed. The honor Of the government re-
quired that it should speak plainly. 1t
should say to the United States: with
draw indirect claims, or no arbitration" :"
There is no form of eXtravagance which
is not to be found in the American case.
He held the English negotiators respon-
sible. He eontrasted the conduct of the
British government in relinquishing
Fenian claims with that of the Ameri-
can government in advancing its indi-
rect claims. This country must feel
humiliated by the manner in which the
negotiators had mismanaged the busl-
ness. He complimented the Canadians
on the loyal spirit in which they had
acted on the treaty, and concluded as
follows: "The nation must show, as it
has before, that it is jealous of the honor
of the British crown. 1t must treat the
United States as it treated them in the
Trent case" ICheers.
Granville followed. He defended the
right of the American Government to
place its own construction on the Treaty
of Washington, and to introduce indi-
rect claims. The only way to escape
from the consequences of the opposite
interpretations put on the treaty by the
two governments was through supple
mental articles, and of this the govern
ment had availed itself; therefore Earl
RusseIl's proposition did not touch the
point at issue. He defended the COM
missioners who negotiated the treaty
those who acted for the United States as
well as those who acted for Great Brit
ain. 1t was all very well to pick holes
in a treaty which, when first published,
was generally approved. The British
Commissioners believed that the indirect
claims would be withdrawn, and they
believed that the American Commits
sioners had so admitted. The aspersiOns
on the government and the commits
sioners were unfounded and unjust. He
rebuked Russell for his allusion to the
Trent affair, declaring that it would
be the cause of incalculable i'll feeling
should the Treaty Of Washington fail
an event by no means certain. England
would stand better for having exhausted
the means for removing the misunder-
standing. The government had been
legally advised that the supplemental
article was amply sufficient; if their
lordships arrogated to themselves the
treaty-making pow er, they would have
an enormous responsibility. If they re-
quired the President of the United States
to do that which D'Israeli said in his
Manchester speech was impossible for
him to do, they would destroy all
chances of settlement. He warned their
lordships that there was no good, but
much harm, in irritating expressions
and resolutions.
Earl of Grey remarked that if negotia-
tions proceeded as at present, the cOun-
try viii be committed to any mistake
the government made.
Lord DENIM thought their lordships
were needlessly alarmed. Even if the
indirect claims were passed, he doubted
Il
bill.
Earl of Derby disclaimed any party
feelings on the question. He had been
told that he should be careful lest he
should offend the Americans. He could
conceive of no poorer compliment to
Americans than the apprehension that
frank, plain statement might be the
cause of Offense. Cheers He did not
want to quarrel or break off negotia-
tions; he wanted to know where they
stood. The negotiatOrs were either unable
TO see what was plain to everybody, or
had determined to make q treaty with
their eyes shut, If the understanding
is clear that indirect claims were ex-
cluded, why not exclude them in plain
terms? CCheers.1
The Earl of Kimberly regretted that
Granville had constituted himself the
American advocate. He seemed to be
under the impression that the House
had determined that the treaty should
fail, and the real object of his speech
was its defense. He must know that
the words whereby the indirect claims
could be directly withdrawn could be
inserted In the treaty with the con-
sent Of the American Government.
The Marquis of Salisbury regret
ted that Granville should throw
the responsibility on the Joint
High Commissioners. He particularly
alluded 10 the selection the government
had made of Commissioners for Great
Britain, and hinted that they had been
overmatehed by the astute Yankees.
He confessed that he had no very active
regard for the treaty and declared his
unmitigated hostility to the indirect
claims. He ridiculed the idea that the
Americans, if they felt they ought to
withdraw the indirect claims, would not
plainly do so.
The debate was continued by Earl
AIalmesbUry in favor of the motion and
Marquis RipOn against it.
Lord Wetsbury announced that he
would vote with the government, be
cause if the motion of Earl Russell pre-
vailed it would kill the supplemental
article and destroy all that had been
done.
The Earl of ROsebury said he should
follow the example of Lord Wetsbury,
believing that the motion would crush
any tendency on the part of the United
States to give way.
Lord Cairnes supported the motion.
He did not think it would endanger the
cordial relations with America, and as
sailed with bitterness the treaty, the ne
gOtiations, and the government. He
was repeatedly interrupted by Lords
Gransville and Argyle. The debate be-
came quite exciting, and there were
so,,, q IiIyalxy coouaS