and approval. It would have been, I am sure, most interesting to this House, and to Parliament generally, if we could have been made acquainted before the adjournment with the terms of the Supplemental Article. But it appeared to me that the plea urged for withholding such information was quite irresistible, seeing that the right hon. gentleman told us that the Supplemental Article was to be discussed in a secret Congress of the Senate, and that it would be looked upon as a breach of confidence prematurely to make it public. I felt, and I think the sentiment was general on both sides of the House, that it would be impossible after that statement to press for particulars. I must say, however, that it was with the greatest mortification I found, immediately after the adjournment, that the contents, almost the verbal contents, of the article had been made known in America, and had, in consequence of the rapid means of communication now existing, become immediately afterwards familiar to the people of this country. The consequence was, that having, from a delicate feeling of honour-which I trust will never be wanting in this House-made that great sacrifice for an object of the greatest importance, we were deprived of all advantages of the sacrifice which we might have expected by the circumstance to which I have referred. I make no charge against her Majesty's Government; I only refer to the matter in order to make other matters more clear on which I require explanation. I am sure that the right hon. gentleman opposite, any more than any other adviser of her Majesty, or any gentleman who may hope to become a Minister of the Crown, will never trifle with the House of Commons. I have no doubt that the statement of the right hon. gentleman was a bona fide statement, but I regret that Her Majesty's Government did not take the necessary pains to become well informed on the matter. But I should now like to know on what representation the right hon. gentleman felt himself justified in calling upon the House of Commons to make so great a sacrifice, and to refrain from asking for the means of forming a comprehensive opinion. We have heard to-day that the Senate has accepted the Supplementary Article, but with modifications. What I wish to learn from the right hon. gentleman is, first, whether it is authentic that the Supplementary Article has been approved by the Senate; and, secondly, whether the modifications which have been introduced, and which are now in the possession of Her Majesty's Government, will be published in the "London Gazette?" I wish to know if he can inform us what are the modifications which have been made in the Supplementary Article? and, secondly, whether an opportunity will be given to Parliament, before the Ministerial sanction of those modifications, to express an opinion as to their expediency? There is one other topic connected with these negotiations respecting which I think the House has a right to some information. The House is aware that by the fifth article of the treaty of Washington, within two months of the period upon which the Counter Case was sent to Geneva, which would be April 15, we

are called upon to offer, in a printed or written form, our arguments in favour of our views. Now, that is a statement which is of course the most important document that can be placed before the Tribunal at Geneva; and as, according to the fifth article of the Treaty of Washington, it cannot be sent in after June 15, I wish to know whether, with reference to the state of the negotiations at Washington, the right hon. gentleman will be able to comply with the conditions of the fifth article in such a manner as not to impair our case or damage our present position. The House will see at once that if the Supplementary Treaty is not agreed upon between both Governments by June 15, and that if we do not by that date send in our arguments, the Treaty will lapse; if we do send them in for final adjudication, waiving our protest against the Indirect Damages, we shall be placed in a position of extreme difficulty. The House will see the importance of being quite sure on this head. It has been proposed by an eminent authority on the other side of the Atlantic that a joint note should be sent in by the two Governments asking for time and requesting delay; but it appears to me, and it may also appear to others, doubtful whether the Tribunal at Geneva could grant such delay. I think, so far as the question can be judged by the experience of previous Courts of Arbitration, that even if the Tribunal at Geneva had the power, it would decline to exercise it. The House will see how important it is to have the clearest information on this subject, and I would therefore request the right hon. gentleman to inform us whether it is in his power to make us acquainted with the reported modifications in the Supplementary Article, and whether, when these modifications are placed in the ultimate and authentic shape, he will give this House an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon them. I wish also to know whether the right hon. gentleman, remembering that after the Supplementary Article has been approved of by the Senate, it must still be negotiated in the form of a Treaty about which considerable time must elapse, can inform the House what precautions have been taken that we shall not, under its fifth article, lose the advantages of the main Treaty, or be committed to the Indirect Claims by prematurely sending in our arguments, and thus waiving our opposition to claims which we have so long opposed.

Mr. Gladstone answered: I shall deal with the topics of the right hon. gentleman in the order in which they have been introduced by him. He has alluded first to the appeals which were made to both Houses of Parliament before the holidays, entreating a prolongation or repetition of the indulgence which had been shown in a remarkable degree during the previous few months. That appeal was founded by us on considerations of general precedence. I stated that the President of the United States had actually submitted for the consideration of the Senate the Supplementary Article which had been drafted by this Government on a suggestion from the other side, and which had been transmitted for the consideration of the Presi

dent. Further, I may say that, when making the appeal, the motive which was principally in my mind was not so much an apprehension as to the premature discussion of the Supplementary Article by Parliament on the public here, as that its premature publication in America might lead to mischief. At all events, I was anxious that the question of publicity should be left for the consideration of parties there. I cannot be surprised that the right hon. gentleman should feel some mortification at seeing that very soon after the article was almost textually divulged in America and transmitted here, the right hon. gentleman asked on what representations I felt myself justified in making the appeal I did make. Well, so far as general policy is concerned, the appeal was not founded on any representation, but on our own judgment. I stated at the time that the article was submitted for the counsel and advice of the Senate, and that that submission, as we understood the constitution of America, was strictly in the nature of a confidential submission; but if the right hon. gentleman asks me how the article so shortly after became public, I am afraid that the question must be put in another place on the other side of the water. It is not for me to venture upon a surmise as to whether the publication was made by accident or through inadvertence. Such things do happen from time to time in America, and perhaps in other countries, but the disclosure is not one for which this Government can be made responsible. The right hon. gentleman next inquires with respect to the present state of communication. What I have to state is that we were informed yesterday that the Senate had agreed, by a large majority, to the last article which had been prepared by Her Majesty's Government, but with certain verbal amendments, or, to quote more strictly, with amendments of its words. These amendments were not made known in a formal or accurate manner, so as that any step could be taken upon them until this day. The Cabinet met to consider them this afternoon; but the House will bear in mind that these questions require careful consideration and advice from the counsel of the Government, and will not be surprised, when it is considered that the Cabinet met only one hour and a half ago, to learn that we have not yet been able to transmit our final argument to the American Minister. The right hon. gentleman will understand that, under these circumstances, I am not in a position to make the communication he desires to Parliament; had I been so, I should not have waited for his question. These modifications have not been published in America; they are strictly confidential between the two Governments, and cannot therefore be disclosed until the disclosure may be made without disadvantage to the important interests involved. The right hon. gentleman asks whether time will be given for consideration before the ratification of the Treaty; but that is a stage which has not been reached, inasmuch as the terms are still under discussion between the two Governments. I would much rather that the right hon. gentleman should be good enough to put his question on paper, so that I may give him an

answer with perfect precision. I have my own idea upon the subject. I apprehend that before ratification these conditions must be transmitted across the water. Communications are now going on by telegram, and I would much rather wait for more precise information. The right hon. gentleman has also referred to the necessity of laying our arguments before the Tribunal at Geneva previous to June 13. I think it would be premature to make any announcement to Parliament with respect to the steps which may be taken at Geneva until we have been able to conclude the business which is now in hand with respect to the Supplementary enactments. All proceedings at Geneva must, it is evident, depend in a material degree upon the nature of the termination to which the present negotiations on the Supplemental Article may arrive. So far from giving information, it would rather tend to confuse this House and the public mind if we were to allow our views on the two subjects to be mixed up together. What I have to state is, that we have carefully considered the question of time; and that in considering it the position of Parliament, as well as our own, will be taken into consideration. The right hon. gentleman has referred to the idea that an application should be made to the Arbitrators for an enlargement of time, and has expressed a doubt as to the powers of the Arbitrators in that respect. It is not necessary for me to enter into the question of sufficiency of powers, because it is quite evident that if an enlargement of time should become necessary, power could be given by agreement between the two Governments. As far as this Government is concerned, the question has been considered with great promptitude. I am not able to say how it is in America, but the element of time would be treated by this Government with the main object of attaining the ends of the negotiation; that is to say, that no question of time should be allowed to interfere with such result. Until, however, we know more we shall not be able to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to whether an enlargement of time will be necessary, or to raise a discussion on the subject. I have now answered the right hon. gentleman's questions, and I have only to make this one addition. I have said that we appreciated the importance of the element of time as respected Geneva, but we are still more impressed with its importance as regards the negotiations which are now going on; and I may say, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, that not one moment shall be lost in returning our reply to the last proposal of the American Government, so as to make our contribution towards producing the consummation which both nations so ardently desire.

On June 3, Lord Russell moved his long-deferred resolution (originally introduced early in the Session) against going on with the Geneva Arbitration until the Indirect Claims were withdrawn. Premising that this kingdom was, in his opinion, fully equal to the United States or any other State in the world in point of diplomacy, he recapitulated the circumstances which would, in his opinion, justify the Government in declaring that they would not negotiate on the

basis of a Treaty to which they had never been parties. It was now exactly a twelvemonth since the Treaty came before their lordships, and yet the question was in the same state of doubt and anxiety as when it was originally raised. Great Britain would never pay a farthing of damages on the ground of the Indirect Claims, and Her Majesty's Government would be placed in an ignominious position if they found themselves before a tribunal which took those claims into consideration. They should, therefore, speak plainly, and tell the American Government that until those claims were withdrawn no representative of Her Majesty's Government should appear at Geneva. What the Americans respected in us was the quality vulgarly called "pluck." It was evident from the correspondence surreptitiously published that the views of the two Governments were as wide as the poles asunder. If this were frankly acknowledged, the present Treaty might lapse, but at some future time the American Government would be guided by counsels of wisdom and conciliation. Accusing Her Majesty's Government of great negligence in not urging the claims of the Canadians for compensation for the Fenian raid, he called upon their lordships to affirm his resolution, and to show that they were not wanting in regard for the honour of the British Crown.

Lord Granville, after pointing out that the American telegraphic correspondence was not applicable to the present state of the negotiations, first defended individually the composition of the Commission, and then confidently asserted that they had done their work well. The one omission in the Treaty was in regard to the Indirect Claims, and upon this point he again asserted that neither her Majesty's Government nor that of the United States intended to include the Indirect Claims in the Treaty. They were also waived by the Protocol and by the Treaty itself. Citing high English and American authorities to show that the Indirect Claims were kept out of the Treaty and waived by it, he added that her Majesty's Government would stand better before the world should the Treaty fall to the ground-which was not yet certain-if they exhausted every possible means of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion.

General Schenck, the American Minister, was at last able to communicate with Lord Granville, by letter, in a manner so far satisfactory that on the next day of debate (June 6th) Lord Russell felt warranted in withdrawing his resolution.

On the 6th," says a newspaper reporter, "the scene in the House, from the moment when their lordships assembled till even after the adjournment, was one of the most interesting and exciting that has been witnessed for a long time. There was a large attendance of peers when Lord Derby rose to read Sir Stafford Northcote's explanation; and among the privy councillors who crowded the space around the throne was Sir Stafford himself. soon as Lord Derby had resumed his seat, Lord Granville rose with a beam of satisfaction on his face; but not till he had made his few

As