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. Horsman, and 
others, spoke complainingly 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 
whole transaction with its results, as alike beneficial 
to Great Britain and the United States. 
Among the discontented persons is Mr. Laird, who 
a 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 i- 
vestigate him and his family 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 illegal destination of the Alabama. Lord Redes. 
dale also continues to mourn over the insensibility 
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 seg.), 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 
