12 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



•wliicli for the first time, as far as lie was concerned, though it had been 

 mentioned before by Lord Icblesleigh, he introchiced the discussion of 

 tlie okl Kussian pretensions, — the letter to which my learned friend 

 com])lains that Mr. Bayard did not reply. In the meantime, however, 

 whieli is probably one reason why Mr. Bayard did not think it necessary 

 to enter into tliat dispute, he had transmitted to the United States Min- 

 ister at London instru<'tions to approach the British Government, and 

 to ask for a (Jonventiou by which the seals might be protected, not aj)on 

 the ground tliat the Government had not a right to protect itself, but 

 upon the ground I have stated, upon wliich it was far better to reach 

 that result, as he was sanguine, and justified in the belief as the event 

 showed, that it would be immediately accorded by Great Britain. What 

 was the result of that proposal? There was a little delay, explained in 

 the correspondence on the part of the Minister in London, on account 

 of the absence of Lord Salisbury, perhaps in the belief that such things 

 would be better discussed personally than oni)aper; but when the Min- 

 ister and Lord Salisbury met, the whole matter was settled in one inter- 

 view; a second was not necessary. Tlie proposition of the United 

 States for a close time in the killing of the seals between the 1st of 

 April and the Istof November, subsequently modified, I nmy say, to the 

 loth of October, was agreed to; and there on the map [Pointing], are 

 the boundaries to which it was extended. I am speaking of it as it was 

 originally; it was enlarged afterwards. Between the United States 

 Minister and Lord Salisbury, an Agreement covering the water com- 

 prised within those lines and excluding within that limit all the seals 

 killed between the 1st of April and the 15th of October was agreed to. 

 I do not mean to say that a Treaty was made; but it was agreed that 

 one should be made. 



Now, my learned friend, Mr. Eobinson, yesterday alluded to what he 

 thought ])roper to call " the misunderstanding" between the Minister 

 and Lord Salisbury, in respect to the agreement I have referred to. If 

 it was that, it would not play much of a part here; and, therefore, I may 

 usefully enough pause to consider whether it was a misunderstanding, 

 or a very explicit and direct understanding on both sides. My learned 

 friend, with a sort of compassion for the weakness of Lord Salisbury, 

 which, I presume, his Lordship does not feel the need of, intimates that 

 nobody could be less informed on matters connected with seals than 

 Lord Salisbury; and that he was the kind of a statesman who when 

 the propiKsal was made, would fall immediately upon the neck of the 

 United States Minister, and say. — "By all means; anything you want 

 in a Treaty between two great nations, I shall be only too happy to 

 agree to. Let us swear eternal friendship". Those who know that 

 statesman do not need to be told that his weakness does not lie in that 

 direction. He does not speak before he thinks; he thinks before he 

 speaks. He does not make Conventions or Agreements of any kind to 

 biiui his country, until he is quite sure that he understands what they 

 mean. 



And I am going to take the trouble to show yon that Lord Salisbury 

 did perfectly understand what he was about, and that in the course of 

 the negotiation, which continued about the details of this agreement 

 up to the time when it disappeared, never having been recalled by him 

 or by Great Britain, when the United States made up their mind that 

 it would not go any further, he had all the information from all quar- 

 ters that existed, aiul that at no time did he intimate that in making 

 the agreement he had acted without knowledge or upon mis-information. 

 And that alter he had heard from Canada, and received the otticial 



