sible, whether their faults were due to accident and haste
or to design. Sometimes refusals of this suggestion or that from our side
were couched in "terms of scant courtesy and bordering upon harshness."
Still the cabinet persisted in husbanding every chance of saving the
treaty. They charitably judged the attitude of the Washington government,
in Mr. Gladstone's ample language, "to be directed by considerations
belonging to the sphere of its own domestic policy, and to the contentions
of party in that sphere. But they will attempt by patient consideration,
avoidance of self-laudation and of irritating topics, and a steady
endeavour to be right, to attain the great end in view of an honourable
settlement which it would be a sad disgrace as well as misfortune to both
countries now to miss." And here occurs a consideration as we pass, upon
the American constitution. "The fact remains indisputable (June 1), that
there is no conclusive evidence of any serious subject the substance of
which is at present in dispute between the two governments, but the
difficulties arising on the American side from what may be termed
electioneering considerations are greatly aggravated by the position of
the American senate and the reference to that body for previous counsel,
for which it seems to be miserably unsuited, as it takes days and almost
weeks for debate, where a cabinet would require only hours."

The opposition in parliament was patriotic, and as a rule made no
difficulties. "Mr. Disraeli," reports Mr. Gladstone (June 3), "behaved
with the caution and moderation which have generally marked his conduct
with, regard to the Washington treaty.... On the whole the House of
Commons showed the same dignified self-command for which it has been
remarkable during the whole period since the opening of the session with
reference to this question; although the more inflammatory expressions,
which fell from a few members, were warmly cheered by a portion, and a
portion only, of the opposition."

The cabinet was unanimous against the submission of the indirect claims,
but there were marked differences of leaning, as in fact there had been
throughout. All accepted Lord Ripon's(265) view that if he had insisted on
getting into the treaty nothing less than a formal and express repudiation
of the indirect claims, no treaty at all would have been possible. Both
sides in the Washington conferences had been more anxious to submit to the
arbitrators th