formists allied for the moment with revolutionary philosophers. Mr. Miall, he held, should have furnished some better evidence that the Church of England had ceased to be the Church of the English. He himself maintained, as a matter beyond a dispute, that the Church was predominant, in the rural districts at least. As to the large towns, if the majority was not in communion with the Church, neither was it with Dissent. But Mr. Disraeli looked with great confidence to the future efforts of the Church in the great towns. Even now a plébiscite would be in her favour; but an educated and a cultivated people, he believed, would be more and more in sympathy with her each year if she conducted herself discreetly. Criticizing Mr. Bruce's halting tone, Mr. Disraeli expressed a hope that the Prime Minister would lay down some principle which the country could understand; and concluded a brilliant peroration by declaring that he should oppose the motion more in the interests of the State than of the Church.

Mr. Gladstone's response to this appeal was for once as decided as could be desired: and he showed himself firmer than his subordinate, who would have served his party better by establishing a reputation at the Home Office than by encouraging Mr. Miall's proposal (which of course miscarried), under colour of a faint opposition. As it was, no individual Minister was so responsible as Mr. Bruce for the blunders and misconduct of the Session. The greater number of the abortive schemes of the year related to domestic legislation. The Prison Ministers' Bill was only one of many which would have readily been adopted by the House of Commons if they had been pressed forward by an efficient and vigorous Minister; while the Mines Regulation Bill, the Improvement of the Licensing System, and many other measures entrusted to Mr. Bruce were urgently needed for the public welfare. But domestic legislation was wholly at a stand under his auspices; though when the Sessions closed, he had pledged the Government to deal, “at a future time," with a score of different subjects.

The Treaty of Washington, concluded in May, was not discussed in Parliament until August. The British Commissioners were Lord De Grey, Sir Stafford Northcote, Professor Bernard, Sir Edward Thornton, and Sir John Macdonald; the American,-Mr. Hamilton Fish, General Schenck, Justice Nilson, Mr. Ebenezer Hoar, and Mr. George H. Williams. The first formal meeting of the Commission was held on February 27; and on March 8, the Alabama Claims question was considered. The American Commissioners on that day stated to the Commission, that the Government and people of the United States felt that they had sustained a great wrong, and that great injuries and losses were inflicted upon their commerce and their material interests, by the course and conduct of Great Britain during the recent rebellion in the United States; that the occurrences in Great Britain and her colonies during that period gave rise to feelings in the United States which the people of the United States did not desire to cherish towards Great Britain; that the

history of the Alabama and the other cruisers which had been fitted out, armed, or equipped, or had received augmentation of force in Great Britain or her colonies, and of the operations of those vessels, showed extensive and direct losses by the capture and destruction of a large number of vessels with their cargoes, and also in the heavy national expenditure in the pursuit of the cruisers, and the indirect injury in the transfer of a large part of the American commercial marine to the British flag, the enhanced payment of insurance, the prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion. They continued, that this also showed that Great Britain, by reason of failure in the proper observance of her duties as a neutral, had become justly liable for the acts of these cruisers and their tenders; that the claims for the loss and destruction of private property which thus far had been presented had amounted to about $14,000,000 without interest-an amount liable to be greatly increased by claims not yet presented; that the cost to which the Government had been put in the pursuit of cruisers could easily be ascertained by certificates of Government accounting officers; that in the hope of an amicable settlement no estimate was made of the indirect losses, without prejudice, however, to the right of indemnification on their account in the event of no such settlement being made. The American Commissioners also pronounced the hope that the British Commissioners would be able to place upon record an expression of regret by her Majesty's Government for the depredations committed by the vessels, the acts of which are under discussion; and they proposed that the Joint High Commission should agree upon a sum which should be paid by Great Britain to the United States in satisfaction of all the claims and the interest upon them.

To this the British Commissioners replied, that her Majesty's Government could not admit that Great Britain had failed to discharge towards the United States the duties imposed on her by the rules of international law, or that she was justly liable to make good to the United States the losses occasioned by the acts of the cruisers referred to. They reminded the Americans that several vessels suspected of being designed to cruise against the United States, including two ironclads, had been arrested or detained by the British Government, and that Government had in some instances not confined itself to the discharge of international obligations, however widely construed, as, for instance, it had acquired, at a great cost, control of the Anglo-Chinese flotilla, which it was apprehended might be used against the United States. They continued that, although Great Britain had from the beginning disavowed any responsibility for the acts of the Alabama and the other vessels, she had already shown her willingness, for the sake of the maintenance of friendly relations with the United States, to adopt the principle of arbitration, provided that a fitting arbitrator could be found, and that an agreement could be arrived at as to the points to which arbitration should apply. They would therefore abstain

from replying in detail to the statement of the American Commissioners, in the hope that the necessity for entering upon a lengthened controversy might be obviated by the adoption of so fair a mode of settlement as the arbitration they were instructed to propose.

The American Commissioners regretted this decision of the British Commissioners, and said they could not consent to submit the question of the liability of her Majesty's Government to arbitration unless the principles which should govern the arbitrator could be agreed upon.

The British Commissioners replied that they had no authority to agree to a submission of these claims to an arbitrator, with instructions as to the principles which should govern their consideration. They would be willing to consider what principles should be adopted for observance in future, but they were of opinion that the best mode of conducting an arbitration was to submit the facts to the arbitrator, and leave him free to decide on them after hearing argument.

The American Commissioners answered that they were willing to consider what principles should be laid down for observance in similar cases in future, with the understanding that any principles which should be agreed upon should be held to be applicable to the facts in respect to the Alabama Claims.

The British Commissioners rejoined that they could not admit that there had been any violation of existing principles of international law; and that their instructions did not authorize them to accede to a proposal for laying down rules for the arbitrator's guidance, but that they would make known to their Government the American views on the subject.

During the remainder of March and the beginning of April the Joint High Commission considered the form of the declaration of principles which the American Commissioners desired to be adopted, the British Commissioners being in constant communication with London. On April 5, the latter stated they had been instructed to declare that her Majesty's Government could not assent to the proposed rules, as a statement of principles of international law which were in force at the time the Alabama Claims arose, but that her Majesty's Government, in order to evince its desire of strengthening friendly relations and making satisfactory provision for the future, agreed that in deciding the questions arising out of the claims, the arbitrator should assume that her Majesty's Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth in the rules proposed by the American Commissioners. These rules were those adopted finally as a part of the Treaty, and they were agreed upon at that Session of the Commission.

Several Sessions subsequently in April were spent in considering the form of the submission and the mode of appointing the arbitrator. The American Commissioners during this period referred to the hope above announced as to an expression of British regret; and to this the British Commissioners replied that they were autho

rized to express in a friendly spirit the regret felt by her Majesty's Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels. The American Commissioners accepted this expression of regret as very satisfactory to them, and as a token of kindness, and said they felt sure it would be so received by the Government and people of the United States. The articles of the Treaty referring to the Alabama Claims were then agreed to.

The British counter-claims and other claims between the countries were then considered. In the course of debating these matters the American Commissioners stated that they supposed they were right in the opinion that British laws prohibit British subjects from owning slaves, and they therefore inquired whether any claim for slaves, or for any alleged property or interest in slaves, can or will be presented by the British Government, or in behalf of any British subject, under the Treaty in negotiation, if there be in the Treaty no express words excluding such claims. The British Commissioners replied that by the law of England, British subjects had long been prohibited from purchasing or dealing in slaves, not only within the dominions of the British Crown, but in any foreign country; and that they had no hesitation in saying that no claim on behalf of any British subject for slaves, or for any property or interest in slaves, would be presented by the British Government.

The British Commissioners then proposed that the Joint High Commission should consider the claims for injuries which the people of Canada had suffered from the Fenian raids. The American Commissioners objected to this, and it was agreed that the subject might be brought up again. On April 14 the form of the Commission for the settlement of the British counter-claims, &c., was determined upon; and on April 26 the Fenian raid claims were again brought up. The British Commissioners said they were instructed to present these claims, and to state that they were regarded by her Majesty's Government as coming within the class of subjects designed for the consideration of the Joint High Commission. The American Commissioners replied that they were instructed to say that the Government of the United States did not regard these claims as coming within the class of subjects designed for the Commission, and that they were without any authority from their Government to consider them. They, therefore, declined to do so. The British Commissioners then referred to London, and on May 3, at the Conference, they stated that they were instructed to express their regret that the American Commissioners were without authority to deal with the question of the Fenian raids, and they inquired if that was still the case. The American Commissioners replied that they could see no reason to vary the reply formerly given to this proposal-that in their view the subject was not embraced in the scope of the original correspondence between Mr. Thornton and Mr. Fish, that they did not feel justified in entering

H

upon the consideration of any class of claims not contemplated at the time of the creation of the present Commission, and that the claims referred to did not recommend themselves to their favour. The British Commissioners then said that under the circumstances they would not urge further that the settlement of these claims should be included in the present Treaty, and that they had the less. difficulty in doing so as a portion of the claims were of a constructive and inferential character.

The remainder of the Protocols referred to the fisheries, Canadian navigation, and the north-west boundary. In relation to the fisheries, the Treaty gave to the fishermen of the United States full power to fish (for the ten years, which was the duration of this part of the Treaty) on the coasts of British North America, without any restrictions as to the distance from the shore, but this liberty applied only to sea-fishery, not to salmon, or shad, or shell-fish fisheries, the river fisheries being reserved exclusively for British subjects. In return, British subjects might fish in like manner on the shores of the United States down to the 39th parallel. The balance of advantage being, as maintained by Great Britain and denied by the United States, in favour of the United States, a Commission was appointed to estimate the value of it (if any), and such a sum was to be paid down for it to the Dominion as the Commission should decide.

On May 4 the entire Treaty was framed;. on May 6 the Protocols were agreed upon; and on May 8 the Treaty was signed, and the labours of the Commission terminated.

The Treaty was ratified by the American Senate by a majority of 50 to 12 votes. Mr. Sumner, in a hostile speech, declared the English apology inadequate, and asserted that an apology for the admission of belligerent rights to the South was requisite, nor would he have admitted the English counter-claims. The fact of Mr. Sumner's dissent perhaps went further to reconcile Parliament to the Treaty than any thing else, as any agreement likely to please him must have been unworthy indeed. As it was, however, there were not wanting some few who declined to join in the general congratulation on the conclusion of the Treaty, Lord Russell moving an address to the Queen against it, though the motion was withdrawn.

Towards the close of the session deep and general dissatisfaction was expressed at the abandonment, on most inadequate pretexts, of certain proposed manœuvres in Berkshire, about which much expectation had been raised. The prospect of the expedition thus abandoned had been held out from the outset of the session as an earnest of the various measures contemplated by the Government for bringing our various forces together, and training them for effective co-operation in active service. Mr. Cardwell stated in his opening speech that "it is one part of the Government plan to make arrangements for brigading the Regulars, Militia, and Volunteers more largely than has been the case in the past," and the House was repeatedly told that the clause in the Army Bill by which the