The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-06-06
1Ae BrstfAh RRxftAnAent, afa the ,Hash.
81 fnkton Treaty. savage BpcecIlo Earl
s. Ru8Nola-..Tst,sxY fsrxanviSIe,s Rey,lv . -

II 6n0 1sksIhAn NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. S, H0Gn,
fnkton Trcaty. savage pcecIlof Earl
Russels---I ord GranvisIe,s Reply.
4 LoaDos, June 4 In the House Of Lords
/ tiis evening there was q full attendance 81
peers. and the galleries were crowded.
Earl Russell moved his long-impendine
address TO the Green, praying her Majesty
to cause instructions to be given 70 her repre-.
sentatiScs TO retire from the Board OF Ari,i.
tration ut Geneva If the claims for Indirect
damages are not withdrawn .y the Govern:
ment Of the United States. Earl Russell
| spoke at great length inn support Of the
motion. ~ ,1astaffySaE
He reviewed the events, Of the. war in the
United States, and the circumstances of the
escape Of the Aiaiasna, and discussed tbessnb.
seqtlent negot fations.: The Government, he
said, should remember that England never
admitted the justice of the indirect claims.
| What was the meaning or this delay, this
mystery, this hesitations The nation was in
the same state of uncertainty as when the
| treaty was ratified. The honor Of the Gov
eminent required that it should speak plain
| ~. III should say to the United States,
Withdraw the indirect claims, or no arbi.
tratioH." There was no form of extrnya-
garce which, was not to be. found In the
American case. aHe held the English nego-
tiators responsible. @s'+ 3s:t. t:.L ,f.' tste r.
+. He contrasted the conduct Of the British
Government in re'inqnishing her Fenian
claims with that Of the United States Gov
ernmcnt in advancing its indirect claims
This country must feel hpmiiated by the
manner in which, the. uesotiators had mis-
managed the Business. He, complili.ented
the: Canadians on the loyal spirit. in which
| they had acted on Tile treaty, and CONCLUDED
rs follows" The. nation Must show, ID i.
bus before, that it Is. jealous OF til. honor o
tho British Crown. at must treat tic Unitatl
States as it treated item IN the Trrl. ,tisse.'
(Cheers.] ,..f u, ,.l1 80, j. T.. 81 ~
Earl Grtnville followed. lie defrrde,l tlu
right OF the. American Government 10 4aace
its own construction Oh the treaty OF w nsii.
ington and to introduce the Indirect c!aisns
The only way to escape from the eosl6e-
quences Of the opposite Interpretations put
upon the treaty by the two Governments
was through,a supplemental article, anll OF
this the Government had availed itself,
Therefore Earl Russcll's proposition did moi
touch the point at ISSUE ,a.s ...atr -,
| He defended the commissioners who nes6
tiated the treaty, those OF the United St;ltes
IA well us those of Great Britain. 1t was all
very we'll to pick holes in the treaty, which
when first published, was generally .up
proved. The British commissioners believed
the Indirect claims would be withdrawn, and
they believed the American commissioner,
had so admitted. The aspelsions on tn,
Government and commissioners were I'M
| founded and Unjust. lie rebuked Earl Rus
| sell for his alItIsion TO the Trent affair.", de-
claring it would be the cailSG Of incalculablt
| ill-frclng. Should the treaty Of Washington
| fail, an event 10y no means certain, England
| would stand the better Tor having exhausted
| the means OF removing the misunderstood
| ing. The Government had been legally act
yised that the supplemental article was ain
| ply sufficient. l..,''
If their lortlships arrogafed to themselves
treaty-making power, they would have al
cnormotis responsibility. If they required
the President of the United States to do tina
| which Mr.. Dislaeli said in his Manchester
speech was impossible for him to do, the,
would destroy all chances Of settlement. ii,
warned their lOrdships that there was M
good, but much harm, in Irritating expires
sioms and resolutions.
Earl Grey remarked that if the negotiation
proceeded us ut present, the country woult
he committed to any mistake the Government
made. .t. ~.
Lord Denman thought that their lordship
were necdlessly alarmed. Even if the in
direct claims were passed, he doubtet
whether the Commons would pay the bill.
The Earl Of Derby diSclaincd party feel
ing OH this question. lie had been told tina
he should be careful not TO offend the Ancri
cans. lie could conceive Of no poorer com
plilnenC to the Americans than the appre
henslon that Il frank, plain statement Nigh
I've cause OF offence. Cheers. lie did no
want TO quarrel or break or The negotiations
lie wanted to know where they stood. TIN
negotators were either unable to see wlrl
was plain to everybody, or lEld determined
to make The treaty with their eyes shut. |
the understanding il clear that the indirec
claims are excluded, why are they not OK
Guided in plain terms? [Cheers.]
+ The Earl Of Kimberly regretted that Lore
, Granville had constituted himself an Amcri
can advocate. He seemed to be under tin
impression that the House had determined
the treaty should fail, and the real object ant
spirit of his speech WIS its defence. III
must know that words whereby the indircc
claims would he directly withdrawn cola'
j be inserted in the treaty with the consent q
; the United States Government.
| The Marquis of Salisbury regretted tina
Lord Granville should throw the rssponsi
biity on the joint high commissioners. III
particularly alluded to the selection the Gov
eminent had made Of commissioners TO
Great Britain, and limited that they had beel
hayerlnatched by the as!ulc Yankees. III
fCOnfcsscd that he had noa ike regard for tn
treaty, and declared his uniritigatcd hostilit.
to the indirect claims. lie riliculed the ide
that the Americans, il they felt they ollsh
to Withdraw the indirect claims, would no
plainly do so.
The debate was continued by the Earl O
n Malnesbnry i'm favor Of the motion, and tn
Marquis OF RipOn against il.
The House adjourned, a! Il late hour, unit
Thursday.
A Slight Retrospect of "Thc Los
Cause
Messrs. Editors Of Mp Lynchburg Republ
can: The undersigned found occasion t.
publish some days ago Il couple Of paragraph
ON what he called " the easy art of lnisrepre
sentation," remrklng how readily its bat
wolk might be done by merely corruptin:
an apparently little distinction or qllalilyin!
| circumstance, bnt such as really gave Signiti
canoe and color to the whole matter in con
troyorsy. The allusion or application thel
was to some Of Mr.. Voorhees, speecle
against Horace Greeley. The writer thel
hcsitated to distract his argument by per
sonal allsion, or to burden it with any cN
planation peculiar to himself. Yet, what III
i is to say, here and now, may be useful is II
additional and striking illustration ofshoN
the most innocent may suffer greatly II