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 unwillingness on his own part, and the inference from his tone and manner, as well as from his habitual attitude, is that he feels no unwillingness to use the President’s good office, if occasion should arise.