40 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



belligerence of the Confederates, and to the conse 

 quent facility of the latter to obtain supplies; and 

 also, though less so, yet in an appreciable degree, to 

 the naval warfare which the Confederates carried on 

 against us from the basis of operations of the ports 

 of Great Britain. 



Careful perusal of the instructions to Mr. Motley 

 would have shown that the President of the United 

 States, while persisting to claim reparation for all in 

 juries done by Confederate cruisers, whether to indi 

 viduals or to the nation, did not insist on the recog 

 nition of belligerence as a continuing subject of claim 

 of Great Britain. 



Conscious of this distinction, while the American 

 Commissioners would not relinquish claim on account 

 of any thing done by Confederate cruisers, the British 

 Commissioners were content with stipulations of in 

 demnity, which covered all national claims of the last 

 category, but did not reach back to claims on account 

 of the unreasonableness and prematurity of the proc 

 lamation of the Queen. 



That is what is meant by Mr. Bernard in his lect 

 ure at Oxford, where he speaks of the specific char 

 acter of the stipulations : they were specific, confined 

 to acts of the Confederate cruisers. And the point 

 is clearly evolved in the debate in the House of Lords 

 on occasion of the presentation of the Treaty, when 

 Lord Russell objected that it was no better for Great 

 Britain than the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, and Lord 

 Granville replied that it was better, because, while it 

 includes claims on account of acts of cruisers, it does 



