ALABAMA CLAIMS. 51 



war bctVveen Great Britain and Ilussia, and altliongli 

 we replied by charging in i-csponse that the only vio- 

 lations of neutrality committed in the United States 

 during that war were conuuitted by Great Britain 

 herself, yet in the subsequent discussions not a word 

 of self- justification on this point was preferred by 

 the British Government. 



In regard to the second of the questions, a member 

 of Parliament [Mr. lluglies"|, in ignorance of tlie facts, 

 it is to be ])resumed, \indertook to impugn the con- 

 duct of the Counsel of the United States, and to draw 

 inferences therefrom prejudicial to the conduct of the 

 United States in the Arbitration at Geneva. In re- 

 sponse to this complaint, it sufliccs to say that, on oc- 

 casion of a settlement of tlie claims of the Hudson's 

 Bay Company and of its shadow, the Buget's Sound 

 Agricultural Company, by mixed commission, under 

 the treaty of July, 180.'), it devolved on me, in behalf 

 of the United States, to assert, and to prove to the; 

 satistaction of the Conunission, that tlie jiretcnsions of 

 the Hudson's Bay Com})any were scandalously un- 

 just, and founded on i)i'emises of exaggeration and 

 usurpation injurious to Great liritain and to the Ca- 

 nadian Dominion, as well as to tlie United States. 

 I luive no reason to regivt or (pudify any thing said 

 or done by me in that alfair. 



As to the third of these questions, namely, tlie A^a- 

 hama Claims, it seems diAicult to comprehend how 

 persistent demand of redress on the part of the United 

 States can be complained of by any candid English- 

 man noiL\ when the judgment of the Tribunal of Ar- 



