No. 303.
Mr. Moran
to Mr. Fish.
Legation of
the United States,
London, May 7, 1874.
(Received May 19.)
No. 491.]
Sir: On the 4th instant Earl Russell delivered two
speeches in the House of Lords, which have attracted a good deal of
attention; one touching the present aspect of political affairs on the
Continent, and the other abounding in terms of condemnation of the late
government for having concluded the treaty of Washington. I forward herewith
reports of these speeches, taken from the Times of the 5th instant, and of
the reply of Lord Derby, as well as copies of the editorial comments upon
the discussion made by the editors of the leading London journals in their
issues of the 5tb and 6th instant.
I also forward a copy of a letter which his lordship addressed to the editor
of the Times on the 5th, inclosing an extract from Baron Hubner’s report of
the alleged state of public opinion in the United States in regard to the
treaty.
It is somewhat difficult to understand the real object of Lord Russell in
renewing discussion on the treaty at this time. So far he does not appear to
have obtained many converts to his views as to the assumed state of public
opinion in the United States in regard to the settlement; but it is just
possible that some newspapers friendly to him may inoculate the minds of
their readers with his notions, and thus revive to some extent a feeling of
dissatisfaction here in regard to the treaty which had almost died out. * *
* *
I have, &c.,
[Page 506]
[Inclosure 1 in No. 491.]
Parliamentary intelligence.
House
of Lords, Monday,
May 4.
[From the Times, Tuesday May 5, 1874.]
The lord chancellor took his seat on the woolsack at 5 o’clock.
* * * * * * *
the treaty of washington.
Earl Russell said he had given notice to move for any further
instructions given to Her Majesty’s envoy to the United States of
America, explanatory of the treaty of 1845, relating to the Oregon
boundary; and also, an account of all compensations received for the
injuries to person and property inflicted by Fenians from the United
States upon Her Majesty’s subjects in Canada. In the Fenian raids farms
were burnt, and the lives of the farmers and their families were put in
danger; but when compensation was asked, the answer returned was, that
the United States Government had given its representatives no
instructions to answer that demand. Lord Lyons thought that the question
between this country and America ought to have been allowed to rest, and
that was his opinion also; but an arbitration had been entered into, and
the character of England had been discredited by the treaty of
Washington. At the last general election the people of England showed
that to be their opinion of the treaty, and that being the case, he felt
it unnecessary to move for the papers. He hoped that what was done on
the making of that treaty would never be repeated. We ought to risk
everything in future negotiations rather than that England should not
stand on equal terms with any other country in the world, and the
government of England ought at all risks to uphold her honor.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 491.]
Earl Russell and
the Washington Treaty.
To the Editor of the Times:
Sir: As I appear to have been heard but very
indistinctly by your reporter in the House of Lords, I wish to inform
you that what I said of the negotiations on the treaty of Washington
was, that in those proceedings our government “had tarnished the
national honor, lowered the national character, and sacrificed the
national interest.” I send you Baron Hubner’s report of the impressions
of the “great public” in the United States.
Your obedient servant,
RUSSELL.
Pembroke
Lodge, Richmond Park, May 5.
[Inclosure in 2 in No. 491.]
Extract from Baron Hubner’s report.
According to the sense of the great public the convention at Washington
is, on the part of the English government, an act of deference, the
acknowledgment of the superiority of the forces of the United States.
England has submitted, she has capitulated; neither more nor less. If
this erroneous interpretation spreads itself in the Union, and takes
root in the convictions of the masses, the conciliatory dispositions
which animated the British negotiators are evidently ill-understood, and
the treaty, while removing existing difficulties, will have prepared
men’s minds for future complications.