168 THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON. 



such as the Earl of Derby, the Marquess of Salisbury, 

 and Lord Cairns, in the House of Lords, and, in the 

 House of Commons, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Ilorsman, and 

 others, spoke complainiugly of the Treaty, and of the 

 new Rules, rather than of the Award, yet Lord Gran- 

 ville, the Marquess of Ripon, and the Lord Chancel- 

 lor, in one House, and Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Laing, Mr. 

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

 Avhole transaction witl^ its results, as alike beneficial 

 to Great Britain and the United States. 



Among the discontented persons is Mr. Laird, who 

 finds himself characterized as one of those who prefer 

 "private gain to public honor," and who seems to 

 think that the Government of that day did not in- 

 vestigate him and his ftimily so much as it might and 

 should have done to the end of detecting and expos- 

 ing the false pretenses with which they covered up 

 the illeiral destination of the Alabama. Lord Redes- 

 dale also continues to mourn over the ins^sibility 

 of the British Government to his partnership argu- 

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

 ernment did, in fact, present the argument with all 

 possible seriousness in the British Counter-Case and 

 elsewhere, in season to have it distinctly responded 

 to by the Counsel of the United States (Argument, 

 p. 479 and seq.), and considered or not considered by 

 the TribunaL 



The elaborate speeches 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 



