orward, and by reference
to his diary, kept at the time, placed the facts and dates beyond future
controversy.

[Sidenote: THE QUESTION OF ARBITRATION]

'In the diplomatic correspondence, as to the "Alabama" and other
subjects of complaint by the United States, Lord Russell stood firmly
upon the ground that Great Britain had not failed in any duty of
neutrality; and Lord Lyons, the sagacious Minister who then represented
this country at Washington, thought there would be much more danger to
our future relations with the United States in any departure from that
position than in strict and steady adherence to it. But no sooner was
the war ended than new currents of opinion set in. In a debate on the
subject in the House of Commons on March 6, 1868, Lord Stanley (then
Foreign Secretary), who had never been of the same mind about it with
his less cautious friends, said that a "tendency might be detected to be
almost too ready to accuse ourselves of faults we had not committed, and
to assume that on every doubtful point the decision ought to be against
us." The sequel is well known. The Conservative Government consented to
refer to arbitration, not all the questions raised by the Government of
the United States, but those arising out of the ships alleged to have
been equipped or to have received augmentation of force within the
British dominions for the war service of the Confederate States; and
from that concession no other Government could recede. For a long time
the Government or the Senate of the United States objected to any
reference so limited, and to the last they refused to go into an open
arbitration. They made it a condition, that new Rules should be
formulated, not only for future observance, but for retrospective
application to their own claims. This condition, unprecedented and open
in principle to the gravest objections, was accepted for the sake of
peace with a nation so nearly allied to us; not, however, without an
express declaration, on the face of the Treaty of Washington, that the
British Government could not assent to those new Rules as a statement of
principles of international law which were in force when the claims
arose.

'While the Commissioners at Washington were engaged in their
deliberations, I was in frequent communication both with Lord Granville
and other members of the Cabinet, and also with Lord Russell, who could
not be brought to approve of that way of settling the controversy. He
h