40 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



belli <.,^'ivncc of the Conrudomtcs, and to tlio conse- 

 quent facility ot' llic latter to obtain .supplies; and 

 also, though less so, yet in an ap})reciablo degree, to 

 the naval warfare which the Confederates carried on 

 against us from the basis of operations of tl^e ports 

 of Great Britain. 



Careful perusal of the instructions to ^Iv. jNIotley 

 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, di<l not insist on the recog- 

 nition of V)el) gerencc as a continuing subject of claim 

 of (ircat Britain. 



Conscious of this distinction, while the American 

 Commissioneis would not relinquish claim on account 

 of any thing done l)y Confederate cruisers, the British 

 Conunissioners were content with stij)ulations of in* 

 denuiity, which covered all national claims of the last 

 category, but did not reach back to claims on account 

 of tlic uni'eaMonaldenesM and i)i'em/iturity f»f th(( i)roc- 

 lamati(»n of tlie (^ueen. 



Tiiat is \\\u\i is meant by ^Fr. Bernard in his lect- 

 ure at Oxford, where he sjieaks of the sjKcijic char- 

 acter of tlie stiiudationsi they wOi'o Hjiecilic, confined 

 fo acts of the Confederate cruisers. And tin? ])oint 

 is clearly involved in the debute in the House of Lords 

 (in ocv'asion of the pi'es«'ntatit)n of the Treaty, wlien 

 Lord Uussell objccteil that it was lio better for CJreat 

 Britain than the Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, and Lord 

 Ciranvilh' replied that it was better, because, while it 

 includes claims on account of acts of cruisers, it does 



