ne nation, and (on great subjects)
Russia and Italy also with them.

I've talked lately not only with Sir Edward but with nearly half
the other members of the Cabinet, and they are all keyed up to the
same tune. The press of both parties, too, are (for once) wholly
agreed: Liberal and Conservative papers alike hold the same
war-creed.

Sincerely yours,

WALTER H. PAGE.

Before leaving for Washington Page discussed the situation personally
with Sir Edward Grey and Lord Bryce. He has left memoranda of both
interviews.

_Notes of a Private and Informal Conversation with Sir Edward Grey, at
his residence, on July 27, 1916, when I called to say good-bye before
sailing on leave to the United States_

... Sir Edward Grey went on to say quite frankly that two thoughts
expressed in a speech by the President some months ago had had a very
serious influence on British opinion. One thought was that the causes or
objects of the war were of no concern to him, and the other was his (at
least implied) endorsement of "the freedom of the seas," which the
President did not define. Concerning the first thought, he understood of
course that a neutral President could not say that he favoured one side
or the other: everybody understood that and nobody expected him to take
sides. But when the President said that the objects of the war did not
concern him, that was taken by British public opinion as meaning a
condemnation of the British cause, and it produced deep feeling.

Concerning the "freedom of the seas," he believed that the first use of
the phrase was made by Colonel House (on his return from one of his
visits to Berlin)[40], but the public now regarded it as a German
invention and it meant to the British mind a policy which would render
British supremacy at sea of little value in time of war; and public
opinion resented this. He knew perfectly well that at a convenient time
new rules must be made governing the conduct of war at sea and on the
land, too. But the German idea of "the freedom of the seas" ("freedom"
was needed on land also) is repulsive to the British mind.

He mentioned these things because they had produced in many minds an
unwillingness, he feared, to use the good offices of the President
whenever any mediatorial service might be done by a neutral. The
tendency of these remarks was certainly in that direction. Yet Sir
Edward carefully abstained from expressing such an un