The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-06-06
The Warrington Treaty I'm the House
or Lords-Thc Speech OF Earl Russell.

somewhat IN euenSO, the prlnclpL speeches
delivered in the House of Lords on the
occasion of the debate which took place on
Tuesday evening on the Washington Treaty
Our readers have had time to digest the
speeches and arrive at their own conclusions
OF course, we have arrived at ours; and we
have no hesitation in saying that the debate in
the British House of Lords has begotten feel
ing which is general all over the Union-a
feeling which amounts to this-that the Wash
ington Treaty should be abandoned, and
abandoned at once. At last the snobbish
spirit of the British aristocracy has found
expression, and, as our course has been made
clear, our action should be decisive.
We have but little cause of complaint with
the Gladstone Ministry. From first to last
it seems to have been the desire of MIR. Glad
stone, Lord Granville and the others to make
an end of the Anglo-American trouble. 1t was
most desirable thing to accomplish;
it was a gigantic work to undertake;
and the carrying out satisfactorily the princi-
pies of the Washington Treaty, and the Sc
curing thereby of the amicable relations of the
two great English-speaking peoples, would
have secured for the Gladstone administration
undying fame. We dare not say, however,
that Mr.. Gladstone and Lord Granville, with
their associates in power have absolutely done
the thing which was right The opposition has
been strong; it has also been vigilant and
determined. and it is not wonderful that men
now in power, and above all things anxious
to retain that power, should be fearful of
making slip. The love Of place and power
has damaged and made crooked policy
originally noble and well intontioned. The
tories, however, led by Mr.. Disraeli, have been
less offensive than certain disappointed wings.
Mr.. Horsman in the House of Commons and
Earl Russell in the House of Lords,
both of them liberals, but both of them
disappointed politicians, have in this par
ticular matter more annoyed the British
government than the entire ranks of toryism.
In comparison with Earl Russell Lord Stan
ley and Lord Salisbury have been mild, and in
comparison with Mr.. Horsman and Mr. Bou-
verre Mr. Disraeli has been lenient. Sore
headism finds place in England quite as
much as in America and it will not be at all
wonderful if the soreheads make necessary the
abandonment of the Washington Treaty and
accomplish the ruin of the Gladstone Ministry.
In these things however, We are but little
interested. Whether the British people wish
or do not wish Mr.. Gladstone to rule over
them is no affair of ours Mr.. Disraeli, at the
head of affairs in Great Britain, might be as
useful to us as Mr.. Gladstone. Aside alto
gether from the character and disposition of
political parties we must look facts in the
face; and, looking facts in the face, we have
no choice but to regard as Of prime import
ance, in this international question, the debate
which took place in the House Of Lords on the
night of Tuesday last and the feeling, appar-
emily national, which that debate elected.
We had not forgotten the remarks made by
Earl Russell on q former occasion, when he
spoke of us as nation Of pickpockets and
swindlers. That was bad enough, certainly,
and sufficient to justify President Grant to put
down his foot and say-'Enough; pick
pockets and gentlemen cannot do business
together" The offence committed by Earl
Russell on that occasion, bad as it was, was
slight in comparison with the offence which
he committed on Tuesday last, when he said
'sThe 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" The Trent case ]!
The Trent easel Was ever insolence so
magnificent? Was ever insolence SO often
sve? A slap in the face Earl Russell in
tended. A slap in the face Earl Russell most
certainly gave. We know Lord John Russell.
We know his antecedents 1t is the misfor-
tune Of Earl Russell that he cannot forget that
his father was Duke of Bedford that
he himself was author of the first
English Reform bill that he has been Prime
Minister of Great Britain; that he was at one
time Foreign Secretary; that for thirty years
he was one of the recognized leaders of the
whig party, and that in the most powerful lib
eral administration which Great Britain has
ever known he has not been deemed worthy of
n place. Than Earl Russell there is no such
old fogy in England. He is one of the Eng
lish statesmen who has refused to learn and
benefit by experience. 1t has ever been his
belief that the Reform bill Of 1882 was per-
feet work and that all further reform was revo-
lutionary ''Finality John" was once q
familiar name The world moves on, but oc-
togenarian John remains what he was forty
years ago, his sole occupation being to mourn
over the degenerate times which he has lived
to see. For this mans opinion, for this man
abuse, we care nothing; but to the cheers
which, according to the report, followed his
offensive and insolent allusion to the Trent
affair we cannot afford to be Indifferent 1t
was most indecent allusion, and the cheers
which it called forth reflect anything but
credit on the members Of the upper house of
the British Parliament. We can afford to
overlook Lord John, but we cannot overlook
or lightly esteem the fact that the sentiments