108 'i'li' ruicA'iv or wasiiingtox. 



siK'li as tlie Earl of Dorhy, the ^Marquess of Salisbury, 

 ami Lor4 Cairns, in tlio House of Lords, and, in the 

 House of Conunons, ^Ir. Disraeli, ^Ir. Ilorsnian, and 

 others, spoke coniplainingly of the Treaty, and of the 

 new Kules, i-ather than of the Award, yet Lord Gran- 

 ville, tlie iMarquess of llipon, and the Lord Chaneel- 

 lor, in one House, and ^Ir. Gladsto)ie, ]\Ir. Laing, Mr. 

 Lowe, and otliers, in the other House, defended the 

 ■whole transaetion with its results, as alike beneficial 

 to Great Britain and the United States. 



Among the discontented persons is ]Mr. Laird, who 

 finds himsolf characterized as one of those who prefer 

 "j)rivate gain to ])ublic honor," and who seems to 

 think that the Government of that day did not in- 

 vcstlfjate him and his family so much as it might and 

 sliould have done to the end of detecting and expos- 

 ing the false })retenses with whicli they covered up 

 the illegal destination of the Alabama. Lord Redes- 

 dale also continues to mourn over the insensibility 

 of the Hritish Government to his partnership argu- 

 ment, and refuses to be comforted, althougli the Gov- 

 ernment did, in fact, ])resent the aigument with all 

 possible seriousness in the British Counter-Case and 

 elsewhere, in season to have it distinctly responded 

 to by the Counsel of tlie United States (Argument, 

 p. 470 and scq.^, and considered or not considered by 

 the Tribunal. 



The elaborate speecbes of the Earl of Derby and 

 Mr. Disraeli sufficiently indicate the footing on which 

 objection to the Treaty and to the Award is to be 

 placed in England. Little is said in criticism of the 



