The Treaty of Washington underwent an elaborate, but very mild
criticism in the House of Lords on Monday, Lord Russell opening the debate with a sharp attack on it, more especially on the retrospective operation of the rule of International law agreed to by the American and English Commissioners. Lord Russell compared this to charging a workman with intimidation committed in 1869 under an Act passed in 1871, and said that Germany, en- couraged by the example of what America had gained, might press on us to admit a rule against allowing neutrals to export arms to a belligerent, and might further demand that we should give it a retrospective operation, so as to render ourselves liable for the ex- port of arms from Birmingham to France in the late war. Lord Russell spoke with a good deal of acrimony of Mr. Fish, who, be said, had accused the Commissioners of Customs at the time of the escape of the Alabama, the law officers of the Crown at the same period including Sir Roundel] Palmer, and himself of "ex- treme" negligence, which all but amounted to "evil intention ;" and he charged Lord De Grey—henceforth Marquis of Ripon,— of having seemed delighted to meet Mr. Fish, and having at once "sworn eternal friendship" with him. Lord Russell, indeed, grew quite smart and " peart " over his wrongs ; and though he referred once to Mr. Canning, once to Lord Hawkesbury, and once to the Treaty of Utrecht, his speech was for him quite a speci- men of modern thought, containing no quotation either from Lord Somers or Mr. Burke, and effervescing freely with disgust.
Previous page
