The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-06-07
THE TREATY SHUTTLECOCK.
ington Treaty-Snvage Sfoech Of Earl
Russell-Lord Granville's Reply.
LONDON. June 4.


In the House OF Lords, this evening, there
was full attendance of peers, and the gale
res were crowded.
Earl Russell moved his long impending I'D.
dress to the Queen, praying her Majesty 10
cause Instructions 10 be given 10 her represent
latives 10 rellre from the board of arbitration
are rot withdrawn by the Government OF the
United staes. Earl Russell spoke at great
length In support Of the motion.
He reviewed the events of the war Ia The
United States. and llle circumstances OF ihe es-
cape of the Alabama, and discussed the subSe.
quent negotiations. The government, he said,
should remember that England never admitted
the Justice of the indirect claims. What was the
meaning OF this delay, this mystery, this hesita.
Llon? The nalion was In the same state OF un-
certainty as when the treaty was ratified. the
honor VI the government required that 1t should
speak plainly. Il should say 10 the United
States, "Withdraw the indirect claims, or no
arbitration" There was no form OF extrava.
gance which was not to be found In the
American case. He held the English negotia-
tor5 responsible.
He contrasted the conduct OF the British
government In relluouishlng her Fenlan
claims with that OF the United States govern
ment In advancing Its indirect claims. This
country must feel humllated BY the manner
In which the negotiaLors had mismanaged the
business. 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 IL has before, that It is
Jealous of the honor OF the British crown 1t
must treat The United States as itireated Them
In the Trent case" [Cheers.
Earl Granville followed. He defended tbe
right OF the American government to place its
own construction on the Treaty OF Washing
ton aud to Introduce the indirect claims.
The only way TO escape from th2 consequences
Of the opposite interpretations put upon The
the treaty by the Two governments was
through supplemental article, and OF this the
government had avalled ITSELF Therefore
Earl Russell's proposition did not touch the
point at Issue.
He defended the commissioners who nego-
tiated the treaty-thOse OF The United States
as we'll as those oil Great Britain. II was all
very we'll to pick holes III the treaty, which
when first published was generally approved.
The British commissioners believed the indl-
rect claims would be Withdrawn, and they be-
lleyed the American commissioners had 80 ad.
mltted. The aspersions on the government
and commissioners were unfounded and un-
lust. He rebuked Earl Russell for his alluslon
TO the Trent affair, declaring 1t would be the
cause OF incalculable Ill feeling. Should the
Treaty OF Washington faIl-an event by no
means certalu-Engand would stand the
better for having exhausted the means or re-
moving tile misunderstanding. The govern
ment had been legally advised that the supple
mental article was amply sufficient.
II their lordships arrogaled to themselves
treuty. making power, they would have an
enormous responsibility. II they required the
President of the Bnlled States TO do thai
which Mr.. Dsraell said In bis 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 ID lrriCaGng expressions
and resolutions.
Earl Grey remarked that If the negotiations
proceeded as at present, the country would
be committed to any mistake the government
Lord Denman thought that their lordshIps
were needessly alarmed. Even II the indl-
rect claims were passed, he doubted whether
the Commons would pay the bill.
The Earl OF Derby dlsclaimed party feeling
on this question. He had been told that ne
should be- careful not to offend the Amerl-
cans. He could conceive Of no poorer COM
pIlment to the Americans than the apprehen-
sion that frank. plain statement might De
cause of offence. [Cheers.] He did not want
TO quarrel or break off the negotiations. De
wanted TO know where they stood The ne
gotiators were either unable to see what was
,,Iain 20 everybody or nad ueCermiueu " mano
The treaty with their eyes shut. II the under
standing Is clear that the Indirect claims are
excluded, why are they not excluded In plain
terms [Cheers.1 A..
The Earl of Kimberly regretted that Lord
Granville had constituted himself an Amer
lean advocate. He seemed to be under the
impression that The House had determined the
treaty should fall, and Tie real object and
spirit or his speech was its defence. He must
know that words whereby the direct claims
would bo directly Withdrawn could be inserted
In the treaty with the consent Of the United
States Government.
The Marquis of salisbury regretted that
Lord Granville should throw the responsibility
on the Joint high commissioners. He parllcu.
larly alluded 10 the selection The government
had made of commissioners for Great Britain,
and hlnted that they had been oVermatched oy
The astute Yankees. he confessed that ne had
no active regard for the treaty, and declared
his unmitigated hostility to the Indirect claims:
He ridicnied the idea that the Americans II
they felt they ought to withdraw the Indirect
claims would not plainly do so.
The deoale was continued by the Earl OF
Malmesbury In favor of The motion, and the
MARQUIS of Ripon against 1t.
The House adjourned at late hour until
Thursday.