148 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



the error of characterizing him as &quot; the representative 

 of the Crown, sent forth to discharge his duty to his 

 Sovereign and maintain the honor of his country :&quot; 

 which affords to Mr. Lowe opportunity of responding 

 triumphantly as follows : 



&quot; I have not spoken of the Lord Chief Justice in the lan 

 guage in which the honorable and learned gentleman has 

 spoken of him, and which filled me with unbounded astonish 

 ment. The Lord Chief Justice was sent to Geneva as an Ar 

 bitrator, to act impartially, and not to allow himself to be 

 biased by the fact of his being an Englishman, but to give his 

 judgment on what he thought to be the merits of the case. 

 That is my belief with regard to the Lord Chief Justice, with 

 regard to whom I am arraigned by the honorable and learned 

 gentleman as having treated him disrespectfully. But how 

 does the honorable and learned gentleman himself speak of the 

 Lord Chief Justice? He says that learned Judge was a plen 

 ipotentiary, that is to say, that he went to Geneva to do the 

 work of England, and not to decide between two parties im 

 partially, but to be biased in his course, and to go all lengths 

 for England. The conduct of the Lord Chief Justice negatives 

 such a statement, because in some respects the learned lord 

 went against us. Then the honorable and learned gentleman 

 said that the Lord Chief Justice was sent to Geneva to defend 

 the honor of this country* but the fact is that lie was sent to ar 

 bitrate, and Sir Roundell Palmer and others mere sent to defend 

 the honor of the country. It would be a libel on the HLord Chief 

 Justice to insinuate that he would undertake the office of going 

 to Geneva- nominally in the character of Arbitrator , but really 

 to act as an advocate and plenipotentiary for this country.&quot; 



It is difficult to judge how much of what Mr. Lowe 

 said on this occasion was intended as sincere defense 

 of the Chief Justice, and how much was mere sarcasm. 

 But this uncertainty is due to the ambiguous and | 

 equivocal conduct of the Chief Justice himself, and 



