43 hours after midnight, an unusual number for even that month in recent years. The House of Commons divided 287 times this Session, being a larger number than in either of the two next preceding. There were 277 divisions on public Bills and 10 on private Bills. As many of the 115 of the former class of divisions occurred after midnight, this is almost exactly the same number as in 1871, but 38 more than in 1870. The largest division was on June 28, on the Lords' Amendments of the Ballot Bill-304 voted against, and 230 for, the Amendment under consideration. There were 63 divisions on the Ballot Bill; 31 on the Scotch Education Bill; and 24 on the Licensing (Public-houses) Bill. In the Session of 1872 Parliament passed 190 private Bills-89 relating to railways; 11 to tramways; 4 to other roads and bridges; 13 to waterworks; 8 to ports, piers, harbours, and docks; 2 to canals and navigation; 2 to churches or burial-grounds; 20 to paving, lighting, and improving; 1 to county buildings; 6 to markets; 1 to drainage; 25 miscellaneous; 7 estates Bills; and 1 naturalization Bill.

CHAPTER IV.

Proceedings under the Treaty of Washington-Rules of International Duty embodied in the Treaty-The American "Case" raising the Indirect ClaimsDebate thereon in the Senate-In Parliament on the Queen's Speech--Discussions on the meaning of the Commissioners as to these Claims-Draft Article proposed by Britain to the United States to get rid of them-Proceedings thereuponMeeting of the Tribunal of Arbitration-Rejection by it of the Indirect ClaimsDecision and Award-Statements of the several Arbitrators-The Treaty adopted by the Canadian Parliament-Award of the Emperor of Germany in the San Juan Arbitration.

IN the ANNUAL REGISTER for 1871 the conclusion of the Treaty of Washington, in May of that year, and the discussion respecting it in Parliament in August, were mentioned; as well as the ratification of the Treaty by the United States' Senate. English dissatisfaction with some portions of the arrangements already evinced itself in that discussion. It was felt that the exclusion from the list of subjects to be submitted to the Joint High Commission of the claims of Canada in respect of the Fenian "raids," was, in point of fact, the deliberate omission from our side of the account of claims of which we had a moral right to demand the settlement, and which were also of importance in counterbalancing the allegations so perseveringly made on the part of the States of unfriendly conduct and sentiments on the part of Britain during their great civil war. It was felt, also, and by experienced politicians more seriously, that the statement of certain principles of international law, not hitherto specifically admitted, as legal and conclusive for the purposes of the arbitration, was a very dangerous concession,

not only with reference to the pending question itself, but to our political interests in the event of future differences with other maritime Powers, or between other maritime Powers. The "rules" which had been prepared by the American Commissioners, and acceded to by the English, at Washington, in April, 1871, ran as follows:

"That a neutral Government is bound, first, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.

"Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

"Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports or waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

"It being a condition of this understanding that these obligations should in future be held to be binding internationally between the two countries.

"The American Commissioners," it was added, "referring to the hope which they had expressed on the 8th March, inquired whether the British Commissioners were prepared to place upon record an expression of regret by Her Majesty's Government for the depredations committed by the vessels whose acts were now under discussion; and the British Commissioners replied that they were authorized to express, in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the 'Alabama' and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels. The American Commissioners accepted this expression of regret as very satisfactory to them, and as a token of kindness, and said they felt sure it would be so received by the Government and people of the United States."

These rules were represented by those who criticized the proceedings of Government as innovations on the established principles of international law, assented to on our side merely by way of concession to American feeling. On the other side it was contended that they only expressed in definite language what had been already impliedly recognized as the law of nations.

But although these difficulties were serious enough, and tended greatly to increase the unpopularity of the entire arbitration scheme not only with a large political party, but with the public in general, another cause of dissension, which very nearly led to the total failure of the negotiation, was as yet undeveloped. This was the determination on the part of America to press her so-called "indirect" claims:

those growing out of the acts of the cruisers, of whose proceedings complaint was made, consequentially and not immediately.

The English "Case," which was submitted to the Arbitrators appointed under the Treaty in January of this year, contained no reference whatever to this inopportune and, as it subsequently turned out, unnecessary difficulty. Its contents were briefly and accurately summarized in the newspapers:

"The Case sets out by expressly limiting the subject in dispute. According to the views which we present to the Arbitrators, the claims referred to the tribunal are claims 'growing out of the acts' of certain vessels in respect of which the Government of the United States alleges that Great Britain has failed to perform some international duty. The tribunal is reminded that these vessels have not been designated by name, but are only indicated by reference to a particular class of claims, which are assumed in the Treaty to have become familiar to both Governments. The only vessels in respect of the acts of which any claims have been made by the Government of the United States up to the present time are the 'Alabama,' the Florida,' the Georgia,' and the 'Shenandoah.' On one occasion since the war mention was indeed made in an American despatch of a vessel called the 'Sumter'-but no claims in respect of this vessel were made then or since. The Queen's Government therefore assumes, as the basis of the proceedings, that the only question for the Arbitrators is, whether and how far England has been guilty of a breach of international law with respect to these four vessels, and is liable to the claims' growing out of their acts?'

"This position, if sanctioned by the Arbitrators, reduces the case to certain definite issues, on which evidence may be presented for or against. But as the nature of the war, the belligerent character of both the parties to it, and the law of nations with respect to the export of warlike material and the non-liability of the neutral for the acts of individual citizens who engage at their own risk in such a practice as blockade running, may be elements in a proper consideration of our dealings with these four vessels, the British Case makes an introductory statement' of events which attended and followed the commencement of the Civil War, and of the course pursued in relation to it by Great Britain and other naval Powers.

"It is urged that what the United States Government now calls an 'insurrection,' was really a war between two States of vast geographical area, of great resources, and unflinching determination; that the armies of the North were overthrown in Virginia, and only succeeded in reconquering the territory of the Confederate States after a conflict of four years; that the North did, in fact, recognize the conflict as a war by the proclamation of blockade, by the seizure and condemnation of neutral ships, the number of vessels captured or destroyed by vessels of the United States during the war, for breach of blockade or in battle, exceeding 1200. To these facts the British Government applies the following general

propositions, which it believes to be in accordance with the principles of international law and the practice of nations:-That it is the duty of a neutral Government, in all matters relating to war, to act impartially towards the belligerent Powers; that this duty, inasmuch as it flows directly from the conception of neutrality, attends the relation of neutrality wherever it exists, and is not affected by considerations arising from the political relation which before the war the belligerents may have sustained to one another; that in maritime war a neutral Power is bound to recognize, in matters relating to the war, commissions issued and captures made by each belligerent; and, lastly, that where either belligerent is a community or body of persons not recognized by the neutral Power as constituting a sovereign State, commissions issued by such belligerent are recognized as acts emanating, not, indeed, from a sovereign Government, but from a person or persons exercising de facto, in relation to the war, the powers of a sovereign Government.”

The publication of the American "Case" in answer, which soon became known through the newspapers, first created the untoward embarrassment of which we have spoken. Mr. Bancroft Davis, the American counsel, has in popular opinion the creditwhether justly or otherwise we know not-of having brought into the arena a class of pretensions which (in the belief at least of our diplomatists) had been discussed, and waived, at Washington. And the British public certainly entertained no notion whatever that they were about to be revived. The principal claims of the "indirect" class thus put forward included the national loss incurred through the transfer of much of the American commercial marine to the British flag, the enhancement of insurance, and the prolongation of the war; and the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and suppression of the rebellion.

In the American Congress, however, the question of the Indirect Claims was early agitated. The speech in the Senate of Senator Edmunds, of Vermont (Feb. 5), may be taken as affording a fair view of the light in which the politicians of that side of the water regarded it. The English Government, said the Senator, were reported to be prepared to repudiate the Treaty, if these claims were urged on the part of the States. To see whether this pretension is well founded, Senator Edmunds made copious extracts from the American Case, in which are cited the Protocols of the Joint High Commission and the words of the Treaty itself. He laid especial stress on the following words of the Treaty :

"Now, in order to remove, and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the United States, and to provide for the speedy settlement of such claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the said claims growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid vessels, and generally known as the Alabama Claims, shall be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration."

This, Senator Edmunds argued, was in the express language of the Treaty itself a statement that all the American complaints and claims set up as growing out of the acts of those cruisers-that is, the necessary and natural consequences of them as well as the acts themselves not only the acts of the cruisers themselves, but growing out of those acts as consequences, should be submitted to this Tribunal of Arbitration, and be decided upon the principles fixed for their decision. He also argued that it was a matter of public history that the claims so covered embraced all damages and losses arising from the necessary and natural consequences of the wrongful acts and omissions of the British Government. That claim had been stated by Senator Sumner in a speech on the preceding Treaty, and it was as well, if not better, known in England than here. For years the British Government had notice that these damages were a part of the American claim for reimbursement, and that the American people thought them a just and proper ground. The outcry in England, he thought, "looked almost like a pretext for revoking the Treaty, or a contrivance to exert an external influence upon the Arbitrators prejudicial to the American Case before them, if the Government or Parliament of England were to assume the attitude imputed to them by the press reports. If this be the fact, let us say "Amen," and enter into no more Treaties with Powers so ready and willing to break them, and be ready at the proper time to vindicate the honour and enforce the just claims of our country."

A short extract from an article by the well-known and intelligent French public writer, M. John Lemoinne, in the Débats of Feb. 17, may serve to show the view of the subject of debate which suggested itself, at this point of the negotiation, to an impartial neutral:

"The principal fact is, that there has been between the two Governments a complete misunderstanding as to the functions of the Arbitrators, or at least as to the points in dispute which are to be submitted to them. The English Government understood that the Arbitrators would only have to consider the question of direct damage caused to the United States marine by Southern cruisers, armed and fitted out in English ports, while the American Government seeks to submit to the Arbitration Court all cases of indirect losses which were the consequence of the prolongation of the war. England-and here we speak not solely of the Government, but also of the nation-will not tolerate that interpretation; it is categorically rejected. Without reproducing here all the notes which are daily interchanged by means of the Atlantic cable, it is sufficient to say that the United States Government maintains its right to interpret the Treaty in their own way, and to submit such and such questions to the Arbitrators; while, upon its side, the English Government declares that there has been an essential misunderstanding with respect to the Arbitration, and that the two parties having understood in a totally different manner that which was to be considered