DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND FOREIGN RELATIONS. 



215 



that their circulation is as limited as their read- 

 ing-matter is excellent. The proudest names 

 of Danish literature and science are represented 

 in these periodicals, few of which have a cir- 

 culation of over one thousand copies. Two 

 new magazines and seven new literary papers 

 were issued in Copenhagen during. the year 

 1868; one of the older magazines and three 

 literary papers were discontinued. 



DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE AND 

 FOREIGN RELATIONS. Alabama Claims. 

 The question of the payment by Great Britain 

 of the claims of American ship-owners for the 

 depredations by vessels fitted out in England 

 for the Confederates, and known by the general 

 term of the Alabama claims, was revived in 

 the House of Commons on March the 7th, 1868, 

 by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. He made a long and 

 eloquent speech on the subject, in which he 

 urged the settlement of this vexed question on 

 the plan proposed by the American Govern- 

 ment. In calling for papers on the subject, 

 and hi moving the consideration of the ques- 

 tion, he disclaimed any feeling of prejudice. 

 All future negotiations, he said, would but add 

 to complications already existing. He sketched 

 the progress of the recent civil war in the 

 United States to its happy termination. He 

 said the fall of Fort Sumter evoked the famous 

 proclamation of Mr. Lincoln. In less than a 

 month after the appearance of that proclama- 

 tion Great Britain had recognized the South- 

 ern insurgents as belligerents. They had no 

 fleet, but they purchased ships in our ports. 

 These ships, notwithstanding the vigorous 

 measures of pur Government to stop them, 

 eluded our vigilance, and went to sea, and 

 were hospitably received at British colonial 

 ports. They captured and destroyed during 

 the war more than two hundred American 

 merchant-vessels. In less than two years the 

 United States was literally driven from the 

 seas, while the commerce of Great Britain was 

 doubled. For this reason, the speaker thought 

 we ought to treat these claims generously. 

 They were first made in 1862, by the American 

 minister, Mr. Adams. 



After a warm eulogium on the course of Mr. 

 Adams on this and other questions, Mr. Shaw 

 Lefevre continued : The arbitration of the mat- 

 ter had been proposed by the American Gov- 

 ernment, but refused by Lord John Russell, 

 who repelled the suggestion. Mr. Stanley 

 might have taken the other course, as the 

 Tories had changed on the question of house- 

 hold suffrage. The question of recognition by 

 England was only as to her rights, if these 

 were rights that might safely be referred. But 

 Mr. Stanley had insisted that the responsibility 

 of England was only a moral one in the Ala- 

 bama case. The speaker thought the less said 

 about morality on this question the better. He 

 regarded the breaking out of a war between 

 England and the United States as extremely 

 unlikely; but thought, on the other hand, that 

 all needless irritation should be shunned. 



Lord Stanley then took the floor. He praised 

 the pacific oration of Mr. Lefevre, and warmly 

 complimented Mr. Adams for the conciliatory 

 spirit he had displayed in the subject under 

 discussion. He said we could not make indis- 

 criminate concessions, but we could learn the 

 right of the case. There never was a case 

 where there was more need of understanding 

 the points. Much allowance is to be made for 

 the feeling of the United States. Great Britain, 

 in the same case, with five hundred millions of 

 debt contracted through a civil war in which 

 a million of lives had been lost, might appre- 

 ciate the matter better than mere lookers-on 

 only. He thought England had been entirely 

 neutral ; but no neutrality would have pleased 

 America. What the United States wanted was 

 neutrality coupled with warm sympathy and 

 support. The Queen was ready to arbitrate 

 and submit all questions but the great point of 

 recognizing the belligerent rights of the South. 

 Nobody contends that at no time the South 

 acquired them, and, if not, why deny the right 

 of Great Britain to recognize them at the time 

 she did ? The Confederate ship Alabama did 

 not sail from England until 1862, and the battle 

 of Bull Run was fought in 1861. Admitting 

 that it was wrong for Great Britain to recog- 

 nize the South, would the United States Gov- 

 ernment say that its case against the Alabama 

 had been altered had Great Britain made the 

 declaration of neutrality six, rather than eleven 

 months before she sailed ? The speaker re- 

 ferred to the speeches of Daniel "Webster in the 

 United States Senate, on the subject of recog- 

 nizing Hungary, in support of his argument. 

 How could England refuse to recognize a war 

 which Mr. Seward himself had announced to 

 be a civil war nine, twelve, or sixteen days be- 

 fore the proclamation ? "Who could complain 

 that England had recognized a civil war which 

 the United States had admitted some weeks 

 before ? In conclusion, he thought a friendly 

 arrangement of this difficulty was still practi- 

 cable. He deprecated the debate. The friend- 

 ly reception of Minister Thornton at Washing- 

 ton was a pledge of peace. The ministers 

 were ready to leave the question to the entire 

 world. 



W. E. Forster, the member for Bradford, 

 thought Mr. Seward's views of the question of 

 the recognition of the Alabama claims deserved 

 better treatment and more careful considera- 

 tion, as being perhaps the view that was right 

 and sensible. He cpmplained of the abrupt 

 disposition of the question which had been 

 made when the universal wish of the United 

 Kingdom was for its speedy settlement. He 

 thought that if any impartial statesman had 

 been sent to the United States as minister, the 

 point in dispute might be readily adjusted. 



John Stuart Mill, the member for West- 

 minster, was the next speaker. 



He regarded the present condition of the 

 question as the result of a mutual mistake. 

 The real question was, whether England was 



