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 aj^preciable degree, to 

 the naval warfore which the Confederates carried on 

 against us from the basis of operations of the ports 

 of Great Britain. 



Careful jDerusal of the instructions to Mr. Motley 

 would have shown that the President of the United 

 States, while j^ersisting 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 iinreasonal)leness 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 spec/fc 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 



