was at once to appeal to the good feeling and good sense of the United States, and, stating the difficulty, to invite confidential conference whether it might not be removed.  But her Majesty’s government took a different course.  On December 15th her Majesty’s government were aware of a contrary interpretation being placed on the Treaty of Washington by the American government.  The prime minister received a copy of their counter case, and he confessed he had never read it.  He had a considerable number of copies sent to him to distribute among his colleagues, and you remember, probably, the remarkable statement in which he informed the house that he had distributed those copies to everybody except those for whom they were intended.

Time went on, and the adverse interpretation of the American government oozed out, and was noticed by the press.  Public alarm and public indignation were excited; and it was only seven weeks afterward, on the very eve of the meeting of Parliament,—­some twenty-four hours before the meeting of Parliament,—­that her Majesty’s government felt they were absolutely obliged to make a “friendly communication” to the United States that they had arrived at an interpretation of the treaty the reverse of that of the American government.  What was the position of the American government?  Seven weeks had passed without their having received the slightest intimation from her Majesty’s ministers.  They had circulated their case throughout the world.  They had translated it into every European language.  It had been sent to every court and cabinet, to every sovereign and prime minister.  It was impossible for the American government to recede from their position, even if they had believed it to be an erroneous one.  And then, to aggravate the difficulty, the prime minister goes down to Parliament, declares that there is only one interpretation to be placed on the treaty, and defies and attacks everybody who believes it susceptible of another.

Was there ever such a combination of negligence and blundering?  And now, gentlemen, what is about to happen?  All we know is that her Majesty’s ministers are doing everything in their power to evade the cognizance and criticism of Parliament.  They have received an answer to their “friendly communication”; of which, I believe, it has been ascertained that the American government adhere to their interpretation; and yet they prolong the controversy.  What is about to occur it is unnecessary for one to predict; but if it be this—­ if after a fruitless ratiocination worthy of a schoolman, we ultimately agree so far to the interpretation of the American government as to submit the whole case to arbitration, with feeble reservation of a protest, if it be decided against us, I venture to say that we shall be entering on a course not more distinguished by its feebleness than by its impending peril.  There is before us every prospect of the same incompetence that distinguished our negotiations respecting the