One of Mr. Gladstone's main points was the number of
great concessions we had made for which this supposed waiving of the " indirect claims " was the only equivalent. We had submitted to arbitration, although we had formerly said that we ourselves were the only proper judges of our own fidelity to our own muni- cipal law ; we had not only done this, but we had consented to have our conduct tried by new rules of law which we desire to see accepted for the future, but which we deny to have been recognized as rules of international law in the past ; more than this, we had expressed frankly our regret for the escape of these cruisers ; we had agreed to include in the " direct " claims the expenses of the American Navy in pursuing any cruiser for the escape of which we should be declared responsible by the arbi- trators ; and finally, we had waived our right to have our claims for the Fenian invasions of Canada set off against these Alabama claims. For all these great concessions our one return was that exclusion of the indirect claims which is now denied,—claims which, as Mr. Gladstone forcibly said, amidst great cheering, we should be taken to be " insane " to have admitted in " a peaceful arbitra- tion," when they might easily include demands greater than any to which conquest itself would induce us to submit. Mr. Gladstone added that no correction of any kind of the interpretation of the Treaty given by Lord Granville in the presence of General Schenck last summer had ever been received by the British Government from the Government of the United States.
Previous page
