The New York Herald Newspaper, February 22, 1872, Page 4

* PMost distinguished jurisconsults, woatever tuat THE WASHINGTON TREATY. ‘She American Gase Before the Parlia- ment of Great Britain. ‘HAT KIND OF A TREATY IS IT? Whe Men of Both Countries Who Made It Criticised, @ BUNGLING BUSINESS. {An Irish Member’s Review of the Whole Affair. GLADSTONE’S “GOD HELP US!” ‘ould at One Time Have Lumped the Job, but That Time is Past. PHE CONFEDERATE COTTON LOAN. Wone of the English Press on the Subject. Lonpon, Feb, 10, 1872, The report upon the address to the Throne, in ply to the Queen’s specch, being brought in the jouse of Commons by Mr. Strutt, in the session of e 7th inst., Mr. Bernal Osborne, an Irish member, and after referring to the Scotch Education ll, the Baliot bill, the French Commercial Treaty nd other matters, he came right down to the Ameri- 0 difficulty with England. Mr. Bernal Osborne’s Speech. Mr. OSBORNE said:—What 1s the position of this ountry at the present moment with regard to these alms growing OU. of tue Alabama aud several ther questions? Why, provably it 1s the most mo- entous that this Parliament bas ever entertained. nu it has Appeared strange to me that, with a gen- itleman sitting in this House who had a hand in aking this weaty, we had no airect iuformation natever as to how tus bungiung business hay avout, There seems, to be a on bola sides to let have cost us 2 chorimous suin of money, as easy as they an. But 1 would ask the House to consider for a in the Gazette to-morrow | We have heurd some- hing as to the construction of this treaty; but how id 16 @il arise ¢ ‘The right honorable geutieman the | ist Minister of the Crown has taxen up a position uch no Other man in thus country bas ever yet uken up. He talked O! the energetic labors of tae igh Commissioners, 4uG he maintained logically grammuiicaliy tiat there was no amuiguity hatever in this treaty. “AMBIGUITY |"? do not profess to ve as good a judge of phrases f ambiguity as the right nonorable geatieman the irat Minister of the Crown, but where taere 1s a msentaneous agreemeut on the part of tne whole ress Of the country that there is tis Ambiguity, I el sure that noi even the most bigoted tollowers 1 the rigut honoravie genilemau, not even bis pele Havterers, Wil iollow nim in maintaining hat there 18 No ambiguity Whatever in tus treaty, [if there is no ampiguily WHAT 1S THE DISPUTE ABOUT? ut I am foriifled ou this powt by au opinion as the ambiguous nature of this treaty, whicu I will to the House, and then | will give my wathority, Speaking Of iis lreacy, he says:— “What 13 there in Ulls treaty to prevent extrava- ant Claims? I canuot fad one single word in these rotoculs or in these rules which prevents such aims from being putin aud taking their chance. lar as the Alavama claims are concerned, the eaty Nas beou entered ito most carelessly and nguardediy, and must iuevitably lead to much SCUSSLON hereafter in Parliament.’ That 1s the union Of @ laie Lord Chancellor, speaking in mother place jast year, And yet, in tne face of we are twid by the First Minister of the Crown it inere is no ambiguity, and we are asked tv pass way Irom the origin of tails most disgraceful usiness w the government ol this couniry—ior I that it 18 @ treaty the responsipility Of which ust rest entirely with the government, We need ot go far to seek for the origin, What was CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN HIGH COM- ‘MISSION ° Pot of five lawyers—the most experienced astute men in the United States. And whom id we sé€nd out to meet those lawyers? It was 1d in another place by a novie iord that this treaty as the greatest siur on our uipiomatic repuation at could be conceived. 1 demur 10 that state- ent; it is no slur on our diplomatic character. @ Most experienced and distinguished diplo- auste Of tnis couatry—men who had drawn ates and were acquaipied witn international W—were at once set aside in favor of A BAND OF GKNTLEMEN AMATEURS, Who, however hign tueir social position, aud now- ver distinguished in debute in this House, had no ort of knowledge—I do not say of internativnal jaw, but of the drawing Gp of treaties, unless, in- eed, Of this Americau Couracter. We are tuld of he energet.c lavors Of this Commissivn, of the criuces Which they made ior an ungrateiul coun- ‘'y, and we Dave aiso heard something of A PRIVATE UNDERSLANDING tween them and Mr. Fish that tuese claims were be Waived, Private understandings as to a dip- fomauc document! uo not understand sucn a bourse. I want io know why tuere was no public pacation ot these claims inthe treaty, exciuaing hem beyond aii possibility of doupt Why, actu- Billy, In the American case—wnich has only been, we are given to understand, one week in ihe OSSeSSI00 OL the guverument, though a friend of 10 bas had it ior jour weeks —we Hud it expressly lated that our Commissioners, a8 early as Lhe sta 1 March, Were 1miormed that Lbese indirect Claims ‘vuld be pul in, Was there any protest made? ‘hey May Nave provested over the table of Mr. Fist kes Une SuCial inevtings im New York; but Do pro- appears on the face of the document, aud no asOLS ure assigned Why these inuirect claims ould Dot be put in. J wantto Know What tae en- rgetic lavors Of these Coiumissioners have come to, t Jirst they Made a yreat iisiake in not Ustening the amiwadle settlement propused by the American ommission, Those jwe (awyers had no great wish go to arouravon—though J douvt wheiner arvl- ‘allon may not yet LEAD US INTO SEVERAL AWKWARD POSITIONS, have reason Lo believe that they offered to take a ump sun for damages, direct and indirect; and at the “amicable settiemeat”? which we hear of Mounted to this, tat they Would have taken 6,000,000 In sausia@ction of all claims. What will hey take nowy Why, the long and the suort of it that these jlve asiuie American Commissioners ‘an round our Commissioners, Who, With an in- enulty almost unparalleled iu the traditions of tue ‘oreign Uilce, have contrived to create an ex post ow law toenabie Great Britain to tax herseit to ay Claims Which er Majesty's government deciare i the same time are neither just nor deserved, Tih Y we had sent out a shrewd practising atior- what money he might not have saved us. understand that, tudependently of other enses, the mere cost of reference by the lectric Cable—the punctuation of the perilous hich we heard of ast night—amountea sum Of beLween £28,000 and £40,000, J think member Of this House has any right to make wlatht af the conduct of the American Commis= toners: they were five shrewd, avie lawyers, know- ig What they wanted and how to set about it; they rved their country weil, aud they have gained a plomatic triumph. We have no reason to refiect them; bat we have great reason to look at home, WHAT I8 OUR FUTURE POSITION? ‘hat treaty leaves us at the mercy of @ special ribunal—s board of foreign arbiirators—no douvt = jeans, because I have heard these Commissioners f ours called distinguished jurisconsulis—but our is © be put belore these men. Three of them jo mot speak @ word of Eagiish. Already tis ase has been translated months ago into Frencu aud German—for, by y, one of the arbitrators di not And yet these men put in the position of being able to that this country should pay—I take the esti- ate of the right honoravie gentleman the First imisier—hunareds of millions? Why, the thing 19 diculous. ‘There is only oue course, as it seems to NEW YORK HERALD, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1872.-TRIPLE SHEET. tmns country at all if tt were not for the greatest possible bagling on the part of @ government which, having, in the words of one of thelr own supporters, constructed armies that cannot march and navies that cannot swim, has now tried its hand with treaties which will not stand, Mr. Gladatese’s Speech, Mr. GLapstong in reply, sald, I would now, sir, refer to the rather numerous points raised by the various gentlemen woo have addressed the House With respect to the Washington Treaty, With regard lo my honorabie iriend, the member for venbighshire, 1 cannot but think he was somewiat rapid in the definite conclusion he peoponsaed, know not What amount of study @ has bestowed upon the whole of tne documents connected with this case, critiscism ts confined to a single expression, but he does not hesitate to say that, 1n his opinion, the British Commtssioners— which, in iny View, Means simply the British gov- ernment—have been guilty that which Is the very worst fault short of positive bad iaith they could have committed—namely, crassa negiigentic because, if that really be the fact, It leaves you no resource but, as it were, to godown on your knees and plead your good imtenu but notuing else, and to trust to the kindness and mercy of the othor party to relieve you irom ine consequences of the gross error Which, without excuse, you have com- mitted. 1 wish honorable friend had reservea his Judgment a littie until he had heard the argue nents 10 the case, because, you will observe, THK ARGUMENT OF HER MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT ‘Das not been heard, 4 did not atvempt to enter into At last night. 1 simply stated the propositions that ‘We ghould endeavor (0 prove, and which it would be entirely premature at the present moment to enter on, e honorable member for Whitehaven has put tome several points to which I will give him the best answer in my power. 1 understuod him to remark that the American government has claimed interest at @ mmimum rate of seven per cent On the suins that may be charged for indirect losses, and that tm interest at seven per cent is to be computed irom the ist of July, 1863; and he asks the American government bavieg made tuis claim pulation how comes it that there 18 no st to allow claims for interest, but, on tne contrary, an exclu- sion of such cliims, under the fifteeuth ariicie, in respect to #rittsh ciaima and all claims that are now being tried at Washington. ‘Tne honorabie gentleman bas pat to me a question of the construc tion of the treaty as to @ point which I Have had no opportunity of considering with the best autnority, and therefore the answer 1 give must be taken ior What it is worth; but AS I RKAD THE ARTICLE OF THE TREATY it is that Do interest shall ve paid from the time of preseuting the claims, but that i does not at all touch the question of the discretion ol the parties to include interest in the claims they make, or Lnat of the diseretion of the Commissioners to allow it if they think right. If that be so itis @ mere execu- tory provsion, and one that does not now require Jrom me @ morg elaborate notice. The honorabie member expréssed lls regret that there wus no reservation af the right of the louse af Commons co vote the money whicn the arbitralors might de- ciare us Liabie to pay, and he said the consequence O/ that would be that the obligations af the treaty were not fulilled awar might oe the result. On uhat remark 1 am bound to say, first of all, that I tnink the ss3ue would be preity much the same either way. I don’t say it would be a war, bul, what- ever it might be, It would be very much the same Whether the reservation treaty and ine money then withheld, or whether it should be withneld wader the treaty as 1t now is. THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ARK PERFECTLY AWARE shat we depend upan the discretion of this House In Tespect to te payment of the money; they nave shown @ disposition to trust to that discretion, aod in that I beneve they are perfectly right, Although Lhe Lonorabie msinver Was quite correct in saying that the House of Commons ts the body which realiy has the power of giving ulumate efectto this treaty in case the decision of the aroitrators should be— What I hope it may not be—to find us liabie to any payment from the national exchequer, yet 1t must ve borne in mind that we bave proceeded ou the lull and perfect Knowledge that this question of arbi- tration Was not @ new question, So far we hava had tnis advaniage, that, apart from the sauject of the wording of the treaty—which is one of vast im- portance, but one entirely distinct—as co the object Of the treaty, a4 to the principle of a reference of these claims to arbitration, We aszumed, and bad aright to assume, that we were already in posses- s10n of tue judgment of Parliament, because this was not an unadvised act or the sole act of the execuilve government, Two treaties nad already been concluded by this country on this very suoject and on the very same basis; and the discussions in this and the other House of Parliamenc enabled us to Know that the country approved the general principle of a relerence of these unfortunate differ- ences 10 lmparual arbitrauon. The honvurable geu- Ueman said THE HOUSE OF COMMONS WAS KEPT IN THE DARK, and that ne understood the whole of the labors of Uhe protocolists had been given by the Awerican Aiplomausts to the American Legislature. J believe they have been given to the American Legislature and also to the British Parhament, and Lam ata loss to KuoW how, up to the preseut moment, the American Legisiature can have been in possessioa of Juiler Luiormation than the Legislature of this country. I am airaid, from the honoravle member's ext Ooservanon, that he has not earned what is perhaps the best title to more lnformavion—numely, the having made tie best possible use of ‘What information he has haa; for } douot from his statement whether he 18 in perfect possession of the meaning of the protocola which ue has in his hands, He said he had heard with great astonishment my statement last night that we had undertaken to refer to arbitration the quesiion of whether we should be held lable for the cost of that portion of the United States Navy which was employed in chasing these cruisers, Idare say many gentlemen heard that Statement with astonishinent, aud i am very de- sirous of bringing it home to their minds; but that engagement Was on the Jace of the treaty and placed within the knowledge of Parliament during the tast session. If the honorable gentieman will refer to theelghth page of the papers marked U, 346, and containing the protocols of the negotiators of the ‘Treaty of Washington, he will find that a statement was submitted by the American Commissioners to the effect that they nad sustained CERTAIN DIRECT AND ALSO CERTAIN INDIRECT LOSSES. He will find in these direct losses they include, first, the capture and destruction of a large num- ber of vessels, with their cargoes; second, the heavy national expenditure iucurred in pursuit of these cruisers, He will then find that they recited the indirect losses, next that they waived the indirect losses in the hope of an amicable settlement. But Wich regard to direct loases there was no waiver whatever, ‘There had been no protest made on our part, and, therefore, whether we think 1t convenient or inconvenient—althouga, of course, on this sub- Ject we snail make as strong aul argument as I think we shall be able to make on the waole of the case—yet this, I think, 18a fair part of the matter to refer, and one which I take it by the treaty and the protocols together we are bound to allow to be relerred. THE BUNGLING BUSINESS, Regarding what the memver for Waterford re- marked, he said:—Thia treaty has been a bunglin; business, and I thought he added—though I hope was mistaken—that this was an “infamous docu- ment, Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE—I said it was a bungling business, (‘‘Hear, hear,” and alaugh.) Frobavly I also said it was ‘infamous.’? ‘The garden of my honorable friend’s mind 1s far richer in flowers than mine; but he says there is am- biguity and more than ambiguity in this weaty, aud Unat the American Commissioners on the 8tn ol March distunctly informed the Britian goverament tnat these 1udirect claims would be put in. Now, I wish to keep distinct iu our discussions here two differeat questions—tue one of them of vast and overwhelm- ing importance to this country, aud tho other also of great importance, but of Imporiauce as between Parliament and the existing administration. Whether there be ambiguity 11 this document or not is a guegtion yy of $e most careful attention, witn view to consider the conduct of the government; but I mnst take objection to a statement of my honorable friead (Mr. Osvorne) that it was injurious to the interests of thts couuiry. When it 18 siated in this House tt shall certainty not go without con- tradiction tnat on the 8th larch the american Commissioners informed the British Commission- ers Gnd government that these indirect claims would be pul in, Isay they informed them of the direct contrary. They iniormed them that the American goveroment had incurred HEAVY INDIRECT INJURY— equivalent, it may,pe, to tudircet losses to them; aud in the hope of an amicable settlement no esti- mate was made of those indirect losses; wit! prejudice, however, to the right to indemoification OD their account in the event of no such settiement being made. Now there was here a distinct reser- vation of right. There 1s anotner clause, * That is the protocol; that has the assent of both parties, THERE ARE OTHER CLAUSES with which will not trouble the House now; but they msot powerfully sustain our view of the mat- ter, What we say is that tnis reservation of right Was & reservation perfectly unequiyocal, but con- fined to the case of whethey an amicabie settlement should be made; and the questiun comes to be whether tne arbitration to which we agreed 18 or is not ab amicable settlement, If my honorable iriend Wishes, as he reagonably may, for light on that sub- Ject, let lum read the preamble of the treaty—a por- on of tais document which, strange to say, I, for one, Lave not even so much as noticed in aoy of une cubic oun ag! we have been reading for hours to- very day Of our lives during the iast Weeks. The preamble of the treaty or. runs as fol. lows:—“Her Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, being “desirous to pro- vide for an amicable settlement o1 all causes of difference bewweea the two countries, have for that purpose appointed their Tespective Pievipotentiaries.”” after haming the Plenipoten- Uaries On each side, the preamble contnues:—“And the saidPlenipoventiaries, atter having exchanged their full powers, which were found to be in due form, have agreed to and conciuded the toliowing e, for Parliameat wo pursue independent of the Parlia- Fovision in the constitution of the United Staves ‘hereby, even if @ treaty were signed.by all the par- les then present, ihe Senate could abrogate it aud Wrow it Out aitogeiner, | say THR BRITISH PARLIAMENT IMITATE THE EX- AMPLE OF THK UNITED STATES. ‘The right honoravie genueman says he has @ san- ibe hope that the Awericuns Will Withdraw these ais. Wi Ler ls hopes be realized or not, of is | ieel certain, that, whatever government be tu ower, both sides Yi This Honse at combine, and consent to pay these enormous sulns, neve; ), Itt the first instauce, Were never justly due, pa Could never have bea daumauued {rouk . articles,” which were Intenued to be th the proceeding at Geneva—namely, in tee Words 1 the treaty itself, the basis of “AN AMICABLE SETTLEMENT.” P Sadi OsBoRNE—Zhe amicable settiement was re- jecied. A particular proposal that would have been an amicable settlement was rejecved, but this treaty was concluded afver the rejection of that purticuiar proposal, and it was after that rejection that the Pleatpotentiaries of America said they were there for the purpose of making an amicable setuement, and they then set out the articles Of tue document by Which that settiement was to be effected. My hon- orable iriead says, “Why not resort to direct nego- tation? SIX MILLIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN if you hd done it in proper time. Now, indeed, you can’t get out of it 60 cheaply.” Now, { beucve tat 6X millions 18 somewhere Within the power of and perhaps a sul jarger sum; Over the Dreliminary dillicuity. this country to pa but ne entirely le had been made in the ; If money is tobe paid, way 1s it to be paid? Be- cause those who order nee be-paid by that very Tact declare that we Jatied in our international duty, aud the advice of my honorabie Sriena is that we should confess this Jatture; that we should have con- Jessed it last year at Washington, and he seems to recommend us lo confess it now. GOD HELP Us! Has my honorable friend thought for @ moment of the position in which he proposes to place the the contrary, that we have not failed in national duty. A direct and diametrical difference OF opiniun and conviction has subsisted between the two governments, That diametrically opposite conviction was tested by tne most elaborate argu. the history of dipiomacy anywhere contains the record. ‘Tne character of each country was pledged to the bona fldes of the convictions which were thus declared, and I can conceive of nothing that would more fatally com. romise name and the ancient honor of aig country than thal, afier Leys for ten years solemnly proclaimed and protested that we had done our dest, without favor and without prejudice, during the whole of the secession war, to perform every in onal duty, however dificult, to voth parties, but “especially to the government af the United States, we should now come forward and conjess that au our declarations were a mere blind, @ pretext and a Jalsehood, resorted to in the hope af evading a just claim, and that now, bemg reduced to the last of our devices, and having no rag leit to cover our disgrace, we are to tender to the United States what ts termed @ gross sum or payment, or what you like to call it, as full com- pensation, in order to escape from our difficulties, ‘THE CONFEDERATE ‘COTTON LOAN. My honorable friend the member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) bas reierred to what are known as the cotton loan claims. I wili not now undertake to give him a fuil and complete account of all that may have occurred in regard to those claims, My bonor- abe Iriend says, in regard to them, that we ought to come into court witn clean hands, I quite agree that if we ever come to tie point of @ difference with the American government as to whether this arbitration ought to go on or not, we ought to take the most scrupulous care to be certain that we ask nothing from them that we should not ve prepa! Under the same circumstances to grant ourseiv My honcraoie friend says that cotton loan claims were actually presented at Washington by th of the British governmont, and that the act agent 1s the act of the Briuish government; uhut the American representatives protested against his pro- ceeding; that it was, however, referred to the arbi- trator and aisposed of by him. My honorable iriend ‘Will at once be struck by the iact thas the Commis- sion sitting at Washington aad the American ageut tere are able on any day and at any hour to suomit to their government the nature of the evidence in any case that may arise and to ovtain the judgment of their government upon it. That was not the case With the British agent I am very iar from pro- Louucing apy blame upon the Britisa agent, but I believe—though I nave not inquired minutely at the Foreign Office on the point—inat tne Briush agent oad received @ genera: insiruction to reject claims tuat did not tail within tne period mentioned 1 the treaty; and it was by no means unnatural, if that were the case, that he shoula think it his duty to present any claim offered to him whicn appeared fo correspond with that time, Buy that agent was a subordinace agent. My honorable irigad bas not told us that the American Commis- sioners desired that ime might be givea for refer- Ting the matter home and for the judgment of the government at bome being taken upon it, and such 13 Lot the fact; and I will tell my honorable {friend Uhat which I am sure he will be glad to hear, that the British government never gave directions Jor the prexentation of the cotton loan claims tn question. ‘This matier of tne cotton loan claims is not to be got rid of in @ Moment, and tor this reason, that un- der the genera! name of cotton loan claims are comprised Claus of @ character totally ana essen. tially different, The great bulk of these claims are, 1 believe, simply Of this uature: they are instru. meats hela vy persons who lent money, or pur- Chased from tnose wo lent money vw. tne Con- federate States, and purporting generally to be secured upon cotton being the property ox tuose Confederate States. This cotton was appropriated or destroyed by the American government, or was supposed to have been 80, witnin certain dates; and thereupon arise these claims, However, the only act taken advisedly vy the British government on the cotton loan ciaims has been sng, After considering, with very delect- ive laformation, the various forms which (nose col- ton loan clans migat assume, We came to the con- clusion that there might be cases ia which those bonds had veen actually exchanged for particular specified parcels of cutton, and i our view In sucn @ case Liat they would cease to be in reality and in Substance cotton loan claims and would become Claims jor loss Of property if that particular cotton snould have been appropriated or destroyed, With that reservation as to bonds which had been con- veried into visible property, the decision of Her Majesty's government, altuough come to, 1 believe, alter this trausaction at Washington had occurred, Was that these cotton loan claims could not be sus- tained by us before the arbitrator, aud ought not to be presented by us to Nim for arbitrauon, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TREATY, Nothing has been said, I trust, to imply for one Moment twat we in any way question tne title of the American government to say anything about ‘this treaty which they please. If they choose to may it ts clear and unambiguous, but ciear and unam biguous against us—if they venture to do that, 1 Qppeal to logic, to grammar, to common sense 'to establish what we contend io ve the unambiguous constraction of the treaty with the protocols. ‘hey are ag much at iiverty as we are. We mention What 1s our coutention in this controversy; i re- Inatus to be seen Whether the American govern- ment agree to that or not; and their right to hold their own language and form their own opinion is &s sacred as ours. My honoraole iriend (Mr. O.way) saya that the Waole strength of our case depends on our maintaining that the treaty is ambiguous, 1 do not understand by what logical process he arrives at that conclusion, I admit that if it could ve shown that there was some ambiguity in the ‘Wweaty we should sull be abie to plead, if we could support it by reasonabie evidence, tne doctrine of intention. ‘ihe doctrine of the meaning of tne words 1s one thing; the doctrine of the intention of the parties is another, 1 stated distinctly last night that we adhered to the doctrine of the me of the words. We don’t pronounce the doctrine of the intention of tne parties, We shall give what we ink is demonsivattve evidence of the doctrine of the intention of the parties; but we shall appeal— ana I hope distinctly and conclusively appeal—to the meaning af the words embodied in the instru- TBE COMPRTENCY OF AN ARBITRATOR, Only one other remark I would make. My hon- oravle friead seems to suppose that every quesuion Tespecting the competency of an arbitrator and as to the scope of an arbitration ought of necessity to be settled beforenand. That 13 not so. The ground on which Her Majesty's government proceed in fe- gard sg sp ‘Treaty of Washington 1s not the mere [i that we think the indirect 1 to Ye beyond the scope of the arbitration, 1 believe nothing to be more common in cases of arbitration than the raising of questions betore the arbitrator Linsell as to the scope of his own duties. The decision in the first instance on the scope of the arbitration rests with the arbiiraior himself; but his authority 18 not final, The United | States tnemseives nave been the firsai—1 do not mean the earliest in point ol time, but the earilest as compared wiih us—to have declared and acted, On af important former occasion, upon the right of one of the parties to withdraw from and decline to accept the result of arbiiration. Well, we might have takea that course; put woula it have been an honorable one? Very oiten 1¢ may ve convenient to refer tu the arbitrator himseif the question of the Scope of tue reference; it 18 not worth while not to aoso, We have at this moment certain questions pending in regard to ships in which we de- Ueve that in all probability the arbitrator wik be called upon wo decide, as in the case Of the cotton loan, whether certain questions are within the scope of the arbitration, It is not the simple question of these indirect claims bel: beyond the scope of the arbitration that has induced us to act as as we have done, but that question combined with the enormous magnivude of the case. lt is the conjuncuon of these two consider: tons which has induced us to think that it would be far more honorable, frank and friendly to the United States to declare .at once that the matt ih our view, unfit for arbitration, ans , im fact, barred from this arbitration, than to have waited, and afterwards taken some step that might have Tendered us liable to the reproach of having per- mitted them to act In ignorance of our view and our intention, MORE ABOUT THB COTTON BONDS, The Speaker having retired for a ‘ew minutes, on his return Mr, GLADSTONE satd:~I wish to explain ment I made in the course of remarks | have Just concluded. When I made the statement in ref- erence to the instrucuons which were given to the British agent in Wasuington with reference to tie claims for the cotton bonds I had not had an oppor- tunity of the specific terms in which those instructions Were couched. During the past few minutes, however, I have referred to them, and I And that they were such as might have justified that individual in believing that the coon bond claims ‘were intended to be inciuded in the negotiations, as coming within the time specyled, 1t was not, how- ever, contemplated at the time those instructions were written that they should refer to the cotton bonds at ail, and I am quite at @ losg to understand how it was that time was not taken to communicate with the government of this country upon the sup- Ject before any steps were taken with regard to it. My statement, however, 18 strictly accurate, that no special instructions with reference to the cotton ipa were given to the British agent at Washing- jibe OPINIONS OF THE ENGLISH PRESS ON THE AMERICAN DIFFICULTY. The London Times of the 8th regards the previous day's discussion as of the highest vaiue, and for two reasons. “Jt showed a unanimity of opinion in the House of Commons in repudiating the admissibility Of indirect damages in the reference to arbitration under the Treaty ot Washington, and it enabled Mr, Gladstone to expiain and qualify the untenable po- sition he had assumed on ‘Tuesday. The night's in- terval had brought with it opportunities of reflection on what he had been tempted to say on the previous evening, ana he Spoke in a far more guarded and cautious strain han when he then addressed the House. We wish we could add that his second position was iree from ll possibility of exception, Unfortunately, it was notso, The Prime Minister 1s naturally most un- willing to admit that there was any defect or want of care on the part of the government last year; but he hastened to add that he did not question the Tight of the United, States government to construe the treaty in any sense they pleased. The dimculty of getting a high-spirited nation to recast their case after they have translated it into the chief languages Scattered it over the Continent 1s reased Es y ‘, denouncing o irreconeuable with sense, reason or honesty. treaty, bus there ig no one who does not see what a plausible argument may be the other side. It is idle, and worse than idle, because irritating to the other side, to say that the treaty is clear and unambiguous, hav- ing one, and oniy one, rational and grammatical meaning. Mr. Gladstone’s language is to be regret ted Jor @ more serious reason than its probable et- fect in America, It leads him to put our case ona janguage Tuesday declared the treaty to be clear and whole strength of our case rested treaty was ambiguous. In reply to this Mr, Glad- stone declared he conid not understand by what Jogical process this conclusion was reached. Do we mean, under any circumstances, to pay @ single sixpence in respect of these indirect eg? The unanimous answer is, ‘Certainly not.’ If we know thai we never agreed to refer the question of indirect damages, and if we are resolved under no circumstances to pay anything in respect to them, 1648 worse than idle to enter inlo an argument whether the words of the treaty mav or may not be stretched to cover them. The other side may argue the point ii it ukea. We cannot deny its title or right to do it, but we are bound to give notice be- foreband that our decision is taken, The claims now advanced we never to reler, nor can we enter upon @ discuasion of @ matter too serious to be allowed to depend on the construciion of phrases diversely interpreted,’’ Tne London Post of the same date considers ‘“t 1s certainly a matter for regret that Mr. Gladstone did not explain how the government came to consider the construction which they have placed on the ‘Treaty of Wasbington as ‘the only rational mean- ing—the only grammatical meaning’ which could be put on that instrument. However we may be in- clined to doubt the abiiity of Mr. Gladstone to con- vince the government of the United States that the only meaning, the rational meaning, and the gram- matical meaning of the treaty excludes the submis- sich of claims for remote damages, we certainiy think that in the first instance the government have acted wisely in endeavoring show (if they entertain that opinion honestly) that on the fair literal constraction of the treaty the United States have no /ocus s(andt tor the advance- ment of their preposterous demands, We discuss the meaning of the treaty with the view of showing that what we undoubtedly meant has been tntel- ligibly expressed. If we tation this point (and we candidly admit we do not share the confidence of Mr. Gladstone), we can then fall back on an argu- ment less complimentary to our sagacity, it is true, but not on that account the less convincing. We must confess that what we did mean we did not ex- press intelligibly, and deci ne to entertain the indi. ect ciaims on the ground of error in drawing up the terms of the treaty. We must show that this country and the United States did not agree ad idem, and that therefore the consensus, whicn 1s a necessary element of a valid contract, was wanting.” The London Standard remarks that ‘Mr. Giad- stone cuts off the chance of good understanding by declaring that there can be no question about the interpretation of the treaty, and bi ing its language as free from the slightest am- biguity. Forced into a corner by these declarations what can the American government do? ‘To with- draw the demana for these indirect damages would be to allow, aiter Mr. Gladstone’s speeches, that it had made aclaim under an aroitration for which the terms of the submission did not furnish the slightest pretence. But is it so clear that the treaty, lookil at it by itself, is free trom mbiguity? ‘The English government knows what it meant when it agreed to the clauses, and it bas good ground to say that the American government knew what it meant, and kuow what sense it attached coits stipulations, But 1t was con- tended yesterday afternoon"that the language of the treaty Was ambiguous, and that it was impossivie to say that the words employed—words of Ameri- can origin—did not establish some pretence for the glam, In the viow we take of the matter this point is comparativel: unimportant now, it only shows now awkwardly the govern- ment managed the business, aud we can have “po aifiiculty in agreeing with Mr. Bernal Usborne and Mr, Osborne morgan that Mr. Gregory and Mr, Goldney would have made a much more in- telligible and satisiactory bargain. But what we have to concern ourselves about now Is how to treat the American demands; and we hold the opinion that, while abaolutely refusing to entertain them, we need not suagest that they were dishonesty made, But that practically what Mr. Gladstone has done, and much as we sympathize with and applaud the decisive language in which he declares it to be impossible for Englaud to entertain such, or allow them to be entertained by any tribunal whose authority we admit, we are compelled to consider, With so many of his censors yesterday, that nis lan- guage has been indiscreet, and will probably be mschievous.”” ‘Tne London Daily News thinks “Mr. Gladstone made, yesterday afternoon, provably the most im- pressive speech that he has ever addressed to the House ot Commons, or that has been heard there for a generation, n other occasions he has spoken With the force of individual character and convic- tion, His re enti Nas oiten ted on a great party to victory and rallied it in defeat Yesterday he stood for England. ‘he unanimous sen- tument and purpose of the nation found in his_—-voice, The knew no distinction of parties as it listened to him. We do not pledge ourselves to every word of his argument. With some of the criticisms skilfully urged vy Mr. Otway, Mr. Usborne and Mr, Osborne Morgan we are dis- posed to agree. lt was a Jauit to allow ambiguous expressions in the treaty, and to afford a prevext, however shallow and uareai, for the intrusion of claims which had been unegatvocally abandoned. But in substance Mr. Gladstone’s speech was con- clusive. The Prime Minister declines to take his stand upon the ambiguity of the treaty, or to admit the possibility of douvtiul interpretations. speech yesterday justified his coniidence, aud will strengthen that of the nation,” The Loudon Zeleg aph tetiarks that “nothing is more essential for England, just at this harm le thga that he: ie should keep a firm anu digaitl tele YY Ther temper, we Know perfectly well taat all the bluster of ali the United States journals put together will not affect our determination never wo admit the indirect claims even todebdate. Let the issue be what it may, on this point there can be nO mistaking the purpose of the country, without exception Oi party or class. We beiieve that, when our unyielding firmness snail bave been fully recoguized, our trausatiantic kinsfolk will adopt calmer modes of expreasion and a more er equable tone in discussiag @ ma‘ter of grave politi- Cal moment, We ure couiident that no echo of the strong Janguage employed beyond the Atlantic will be sent back {rum our shores, aud we have too much trust in the genuine unfriendiiness and good sense of the Americans to imagine tat tne ‘tall talk? oL the journais represents the real sentiment of tie People. With @ litue patience and a great deal of rinness Ou Our part tt may be hoped that a brief pse of time will see the present cloud overpast,” ‘The London Morning Advertiser observes:—“The Mimusierial journals have already expatiatea upon the necessity of all parties being united in pa‘riouc resistance to the demands of America, So Mr. Gladstone, Coming out in the ‘May God defend the rigat!’ style of Earl Rusgell, may be cheerea, and ail minor matters be suelved and forgotten in the rospect of war. Jt 18 a desperate card; but it m: e played for all that, Really, fate seems dispose to oe ironical towards the memory of Mr, Cobden and the living Mr. Bright War con- aoe to be the ag A of mao Ft il is posed, or compellea, to aenouuce ‘treaty of Commerce which Cobden fram And now America turns round upon her poor old parent, and cries, ‘Your money or your life’ What wiil Mr. Bright say in the House about his model republic's modest demands? How does Mr. Henry Richard propose to solve the diMcaity? Will he head a depu- tation to the President of the United States to ask im, a8 Man to man and brother to brother, what might be the very lowest sum he will actually take? ‘ris, 1t must be remembered, 13 a case of arbitra tion, It was the first great example that was to re- nerate the world. The result is not happy. it be peace and payment, but it looks like refusal and war. And with such a war, and such @ Minis- we Guide it, we are inclined to take a dark view Tne London Financier says yesterday was extraordiaary day im the Stock Exchange. The markets opened under the influence of great ex- citement, much uneasiness being inspired by the Unsatisfactory state of our relations with America, while at the same time the drain of gold was re- garded as likely to lead to an early advance in the Tate of discount at the Bank of Kngland. Accord- ingly afurther considerable fall took piace. Large repurchases being then made by previous operators for the fall @ rally followed and was matutal though with more or less fluctuation, until the alternoon, when news of a iresa withdrawal . of £231,000 in gold from the Sank for export @ renewal caused of excitement and a fresh fall. Tne tone finally was unsetued aud unfavorable, The extent ot the re- duction in the various Classes of securities may be accurately gathered by reference to the details under the various heads. In the English funds the fall was % percent. Among foreign stocks Lurkish suffered prominently. Tn® expected purchase of foreign stocks on Continental account do not seem to have yet produced much sustaining effect. But the heaviest fall was again in the market for home raulway stocks, and ranged from 3, to 3 per cent. ‘The reduction, in fact, was universal. Doubtiess in- vestments, inducea by the lower prices, will uitt- mately exert. their force, but for the prosent there 1s sulla rash of specalative sellers,” The London Pali Mall Gazewe discovers the follow- ing way out of the American diMculty:— There is @ passage in the “Protocols of Confer- ences held at Washington” which indicates a pos- sible means of escape irom the dilemma iu which the carelessness of our government'has placed us. At any rate, the thirty-sixth protocol, recording discussion of the San Juan water boundary, siv us the manner in which the American Vomimissio, ers proposed to setile @ like difficulty—namely, mutual misunderstanding of the meaning of an ex- isting treaty. We quote the passage at leagth:— Atthe Conference on the 16th of March the British Com- missioners stated that it was proposed that day to take up bind id pecponais for @ ref to arbitration, and hoped that it would be seriously considered. And, as we know, the American Commissioners ultimately consented to supmit the matter in dis- ute to tne arbitration of tae Emperor of Germany. it 18 manifest that the language we have quoted as ty of June 25, 1846, is perfectly ap- licable to tne exiacing difficulty, The Ireaty of ‘asnington has ‘‘oeeu Made unuer @ mutual mis- understanding, and would not nave been made had each party understood at tnat time the con- struction which the other party puts upon tne lan- guage Whose Loterpretation 18 in dispute *’ Instead, therefore, of imputing disaonesty or even ‘acute- ness” to the American government, it would surely be much better to repeat the proposal made by their own Commissioners 12 a similar case, and “rearrange”? what ‘twas in dispute before that treaty was concluded.’’ But nere a3 elsewhere, unbappily, the British government has doue its best to make reconcillauon dificult, They have furnished a ready-made auswer to any proposal that might now be made for rearranging the Treaty of Washington without referring the matier in dis- pute to arvitration. The Loudon Koonomist says:—‘The sensitive imagination of some persons on the stock Bxchauge has assumed thas the probable faliure oi the Ala- bama arbitration will probably lead to war between this country and America, But this is ab- surd, There is no casus belt in the question, and the real evil 18 quite great enough wituout being at @t all exaggerated. What reaily 1s to be feared is that the arbitration will ‘go od;’ that Amer- ica will say it did 80 because the English Were alraid of high damages, and would not submit the true question to the Court; that England Will say We could not go on because the Americans tried to cheat us, and to get us ty submit questions which we never agreed to suvmit, Neither nation Will bear the other siue; and botn nations, who were to nave been made good iriends by tois arbi- tration, will be made far less iriendly than they were belore by the failure of ue attempt at it, There is no fear of instant war, bdt great fear of Pela ge Suspicion and rankling abger on both des, Yhe London Saturday Review romarks:—There was probably not a single Englishman who sus pected that the American statement of claims would include @ demand for the cost of the pre- tended prolongation of the war. Even travellers and residents in the United States shured in the = uuiversal belief that the con- troversy | was practically settled. Exces- sive confidence in the justice and good faith of the American goverament may have been a proor of weakuess; nor was there any reason why ne meaning which was attacued by the Engush Commissioners to the treaty snould not nave been distinctly expressed. The yenemence which the American papers now denounce as uuseeily repre- penty a payaral reaction, bui it is idie to revive the uldis statement that the treaty was a statesman- like example of mutual concession.’ The London Spectator observes tnat “all the great concessions were made On our part out of the abundance of our wish to sausfy tne American feeling, and because we supposed that in return America tad waived the oue class of cemands Loo absurd in themselves and too preposterous 10 tueir Maguilude for us ever to think of referring them to the decision of others, Well might Mr. Gladstone say, and heartily will the nation support him in his assertion, that the vernment reserves to itself the right to fall back on the ‘plea that a man or a nation must be taken to be insane, if supposeti to admit in @ peaceful arbitration claims of tis character, which not even the last extremit es of war and the lowest depths of misfortune would force a people with @ spark ot spirit—with the hundredth part of the traditions or the courage of the people of tnis country—to submit to at the poiut of deatn.’ The statesmen of the United States may assume that these words represent the absoiutely unanimous re- solve of the peopie of England. «If the decision of the Washinngton Cabinet is correctly reported, the Treaty of Washington ts already at an end,” LOUIS NAPOLEON. A Voice from Chiselhurs!—The Imperial Exile Addresses an Old Friend—The Disasters of Frauce—The Imperial Constii mn Crit. cisedThe Error of the Empire—The Aspira- tious of the Age. The following letter from Napoleon III. to Baron Belloguet has appeared in a Prague pewspaper:— My DEAR BaRON—I thank you for the sincere ex- pression of sympathy you have been pleased to send me at New Year’s and the wishes you express for the future of my family, which may undoubtedly gount you among its oldest and most affectionate en I share, in the fullest degree, your opinion upon the lamentanie disasters which ‘have, in so short a time, visited France. cannot, however, quite agree with you concerning tne absolute Otness of ‘the imperial constitution at all times and under all citcumstances. 1 judge things trom a point of view different {rom yours, and, excuse me If | say so, my oid nd, @ littie more practical, The best con- stitution is taat wich dyes not separate the gradual development of civilization and liberal institutions posal at bees 4 @ people, I penis Cd the French peopie, e ¢ f circle of the imperial constitution, contd ent ie Current ol European reaction which, since the beginning of tne present century, has ever regarded her with @ suspicious eye, and coaid contrivute to the liberal Consolidation of Europe. There bave not been Waating intelligent statesmen who have anuersiood the necessity of proceeding in that path. Italy, patient and caim, wou.d have seconded me in my work, and L would nave cherished for her au eter- Ral gratitude. If events have not corresponded to my desires, we should accuse the levity and im- patience, and, to a certain extent, a want of cour- age in the men who laeu the great liberty party. Toe other facuons, believe me, my dear Baron, are very aciive, but power.ess. ‘hat is why I am not, as you are, of the opinion that the empire has committed an error in sometimes imposing a curb upon @ people who are, as you remark, divided, restless and vain, A statesman worthy of the name should take into account all the elements of a siluauon, and satisfy not only the requirements of the moment, but even the legitimate uspiravions of the age. OMISBLHURST, Jan. 10, 1872, NAPOLEON. DRUNKENNESS AND DEATH, A Wite Dies from Injuries Received by the of Her Husband and Excessive A family named Donnelly reside at Garret Moun- tain, near Paterson. James Donnelly and his wife have been notorious for their intemperance, and have been frequently complained of to the police au- thorities by the neighbors tor their domestic broils, Donnelly and his two daughters, the eldest fifteen years old, went to the Poormaster yesterday for money to pay for a coffin for his wife, who had died the previous night, He was refused, because it was known that he was aman of property. They then went through the town trying to beg the money. In their rounds they met a policeman, who, asking the daughter about her mothers death, sne told bim that her tather nad killed her mother. Donnelly was then arrested, snd ve girls held as witnesses. The Coroner, being called to the acene Of the tragedy on ‘uesday night, found by THE AWFUL SIGHT that presented itseif to view that the report was correct, and that there nad been death done by vio- lence. The woman lay upon the bed in the largest room of the two-roomed house. This room was occupied as @ vedroom and: contatied two beds, The other room was used as a kitchen. The woman had been carefully washed and Cleaned and tne floor had been scrubbed recently, and everytning that was probably spotted with blued haa been carefuily removed or cleaned. The woman was upon tue bed reatly ior burial, while near by stood @ con wnici Donnelly haa had sent up and ior the Payment of which he had been tryiug to raise the money, The dead poay was badly bruised and dis- colored, With signs of rough handling all over. ‘The inquest was opened ester jay. Dr. Terri-+ berry’s evidence and that of Dr. Vaniil proved tne d-céased to have been very much diseased, and there was provability of ber having died from that and not from external Violence, although she had been roughiy hanaled und her deatn may nave been hastened by that and exposure, ‘The congestion of her 10ng8 and the broncaial affections would have been suiticient to cause death aloue. The resuit Will provavly be, from present appearances, that deceased caine to her death from dis%ase saperin- duced by exposare, intemperance and bad treat ment generally, OHIO STATE BOARD OP AGRICULTURE. CoLuMsuS, Ohio, Feb. 21, 1872, ‘The State Board of Agriculture has decided vo lo- cate the Onio Stato Fair for the next two years at held (rom the 2d to the 6th or nopeember poressed oremunms Wilt be oifered, THE CATACAZY CASE AGAIN. More About the Catacasy Quarrel—The Ex-Am bassador Making Most of His Case—How the Emperor Feels About the American Treat- ment of the Question—The Perkins Claims—Tone of the Russian Press. St, PETERSBURG, Jan. 26, 197% ‘This Catacazy affair ts beginning to wear a very ugly look. Justat the moment when we thought the whole matier had been arranged to the satis- faction of the principal parties concerned; just as our government, mollified by the attitude of con- ciliation maintained througuout by the Russian goq- ernment, commence showing its desire to avoia any further cause for misunderstanding, the latver, in ite turn, becomes more and more incensed at the wans of respect shown the Emperor, and 1s now inclined to assume as haughty airs as did our own in the be- ginning. People openly express their gratficatiem at tne fact of tne Grana Duke having soubped the President in peremptorily (as they put tt) declining the invitation to return to Washington sent to him at St. Louis, They maintain that this invitation in- stead of being an evidence of friendly sentiments om the part of tne President i only a proof thas he was obliged by public opinion to make amends for his shabby treatment of the Grand Duke at Washington, and that no credit can be accorded him for an act of reparation which he was compelled to make, SORB ABOUT TWO EVENTS. ‘Tne Russians, as 1 have before stated, feel excee@> ingly sore, not only over the Catacazy negotiations but also over the reception, of the Grand Duke at Wasnington, and they feel especially hurt by the Unfriendly attitude of General Grant, from whom they had expected more: forbearance and consideration, not to say gratitude, for the friend- ship and sympathy shown us during our war Judging the matter as seen from this standpoint, § think they have very good cause to look upem Grau\ as being ratber more than impolite, not te say ungrateful, for none should know better how much the Jriendly attitude of Russia in Eurepe alded the march of his own armies to victory. Many of our officers, who had been fighting for weeks around Vicksburg, tired and ragged and hungry and discouraged, will remember, as Grant nimseff ougnt to remember, with what dell ght they hatled the arrival of a delegailon of Russian officers who came FULL OF SYMPATHY AND ADMIRATION for the armies of the North. It was not soldiers we needed thea, nor arms, nor the sinews of war; we had all these things in suffictent quantity; but syme pathy and friendsnip, the knowledge that.some- where in the world there was @ people and @ gov- ernment that understood the cause for which we Were fighting, that appreciated our sacrifices ; and although 1 came from a people of another rade, speaking another language, from a distant part of the world wnere we might leas: have expected it, we halied 1. With none the less joy, for tt came irom a people who were themselves accomplishing with- out war aud without blvodsned, the great reiorm for which we were obliged Lo pour out so mach blood and treasure, RUSSiA’S POSITION DURING THE AMERICAN WAR, And these expressions of sympathy were not, a is too often the case, @ mere meaningless array of words without siguitication or importance, for the} Tendered U3 most material aid and assistance, may no. be generally Known tuat 16 was by the direct commund of ihe Hmperor that Gortschakom informed the goveraments of France and Kngland,, when they were meditating interference in our atfairs, that if they atiempted it he woula not quietly look on. 1t was noi a simple case of repre. sentations or persuasions or diplomatic insinuauons that they must not do the thiug, buta direci, posi- tive, straightiorward declaration thac the thing should not be doue. THE EMPEROR'S REQUEST. Now President Grant aud Secretary Fisa must have known tiis, and they ougut co have been tne first te remember it; yet when tie Emperor, asa personal fa- vor, asked that Catacagy be allowed to remam until alter tue visit of the Grand Duke, Fish answered 1a @ first despatch granting tne request, but not even mentioning the Emperor's name, ‘This was looked upon either ay an 1nteuttonal offence or an inexcas- able example of negligence or ignorance, which amounted to the same thing; and had Mr, Curtim presented the despatch as it Was originally worded 1t would not nave been received. He, however, changed the reading of itso as to make it accept. able b; putting ip tne name of the Emperor; much to their astomisoment, for by some means they generally knew not ouly the nature of the greater part of the despatcues that were exchanged about this time, but the very language in which they were couched, before they were received by Mr. Ourtin. How they suceeeded 1 doing this 1t would be diftl- cult to imagine, but it appears they did it by some means or other, and they were greatly surprised when Mr, Curtin read them the despatch in its ale tered form, WAS IT AN BRROR? Had this error—not to call it by @ harsher name— Nov been repaired, in some méagure by the ready 001 sense of Mr. Curtin, the consequences might ave been & Complete Cessation of diplomatic reia- hone pad no end of troubie and bad blood. Thus offence, owldg to the influence of Mr. Curtin, mighg Still have beeu forgiven nad the SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT ofthe members of the government with regard the Grand Dake been such as to make apparent the existence of friendly sentiments towards the Em. Peror anu something like remembrance for his ad- vocacy uf our cause when most we needed an adve~ caie. Unfortunately, the reception of the Grand Duke at Washington was not such as to show the existence of gratetul remembrances, or even of more than very cvol friendly dispositions, They had, not without reason perhaps, expected some- thing more, and their disappointment is, therefore, ‘the greater aud their resentment all the more bitter. PRESENT FEELING OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. It may ne vhought surprising that the Russian government, which, up to the present, has given Proo! of much moderation throughout the whole Course of the discussion, never showing any ill hue mor, never getting angry or scolding, or using 1m- polite, undiplomatic or ruue ianguage upon any oo casion, should, Low that tbe affair is to all inients and purposes setiled, begin to manifest a bitterness: ot feeling that would hardly have been expected under the circum tances. This may be partly atirie buted to the fact of their feeling that they have done everything in their power to effect a iriendiy settlement of the difficulty, and tuat General Grant irom whom they had more particularly expect some fectings of personal irendship for the course pursued by the Emperor during our war, an evi- dence of friendship towards the Americans, for ch Grant, of all others, ougut to feel personaliy grateful—has not met their advances im che spirit i wich they were made. THE IMPERIAL DIGNITY HAS BEEN WOUNDED in its tenderest part, and that will not easily be fore given or forgetten, but besides tas, Vataca: is Would seem, Nas not yet nad his last word, and stul keeps up the war, in the hope (without doubt) of jusuiyiog himself and retaining favor with hrs im- master. He pretends to have received a num- ber of anonymous letters threatening violence, and gouveying the intimation that if he did not leave the country Wititm g certain prescribed time Would be tossed intd fue Potomac. 1do not know whether these letters, Ald jhe fear of becoming a - “dem’d, damp, disagreeablé gle had anything to do with his early departure, but whether tne let- ters in question were written by mr.-Catacazy hime self, of which he will probably be accused by the Americans, or whether vy some evil-disposed per sun or persons fond of @ practicul joke, they THEY ARE REGARDED HERE AS GENUINE THRBATS, emanating from very*high places, and the feeling resulting fro such conjectures may be east imagined, This new accusation, along with the Teasons already euumerated in this and previous letters, will explain tais sudden bitterness of feel- ing mantiested by the memoers of the Russian gov- ernment, ‘This absurd story is, it would seem, the last straw on the camel’s back, and has put their patience to the severest test. Mr Vatacazy, It he attempts 10 attribute the auth Of these letters to any members of our governm ‘Will, of course, only make uimself ridi eg nor would it be easy to expiain why the Perkins claim. ants should resort to such measures, as tt coul@ assuredly do no good, and would naturally do them much harm, If air. Catacazy has no other private enemies wo mignt possibly write such letters we shali be obliged to suppose he is the victim of some huge practical joke, . A3 TO THE PERKINS CLAIMS, they are settled, for the present at least, the Empe. Tor having posilively asserted, I believe, that he will never pay a single kopeck on them, aut pis tor the Perkins claimants, THE RUSSIAN PRESS, The papers here have said very little about the matter, and that litte was oficial, or nearly so, Tue Moscow Gazette, however, the organ of the old Russian party, as come out lately with a very well written article, in Which it attributes the origin and fomenuug of the quarrel to Engtish duplicity, en~ deavoriug to exclie enmity between two nations whom it did not suit England to see too gooa frienus. This article you have doubtless received. This view of the question is well sustained in tl article; and, inJeed, it looks plausible enough thas England shouid be directiy or indirectly mixed 10 any affair in Whico sae has such a Vital intel ag the breaking up 01 an alliance between Powers that are pashiug very troublesome claims, Of course England cannot look with a very favor- ableeye upon the growing feelings of trienastip ‘alitude that have sprung up between the wwe countries, and it Would be periectly natural, logic: aod dipiomatc for her to stir up discord betwer them, which would in aimost any case turn to her advantage, Whetner she actually did have anything to ae with originating or iomenting the quarrel rematns to be proved, bat it would certainly ve neither une Teasonavie hor improvable to suppose she is nos aivogetier @ strauger to the didiculty, and we may, without doing any tyustice to the diplomatic or Statesmaniixe qualities of the leaders of the Kngtisa goverament, give them credit fur knowing more of We Catacazy-kisi auarrel LUN (Ney (elle x