[20] established, but a recognition of a state of war? At this moment the United States, in claiming the property of the late confederate government, place before your tribunals their title on the fact of their being the successors of a de facto government. I repeat that however valid our claims may be against you on other grounds, there is not the slightest pretext for any claim against you based on the public admission of a notorious fact, the existence of which has been recognized by every department of the Federal Government." No. 8. Mr. Thornton to the Earl of Clarendon. WASHINGTON, November 22, 1869. (Received December 4.) MY LORD: In compliance with the instructions contained in your lordship's dispatch of the 6th instant, I went to the State Department and read that dispatch to the Secretary of State, leaving a copy of it, at his request, in his hands. I then explained to him the reason, as set forth in your lordship's other dispatch of the 6th instant, which had induced you to follow his example as to the form which you had adopted to express your dissent from the statements contained in his dispatch to Mr. Motley of the 25th of September last, after which I proceeded to read to him the paper containing your lordship's observations, and, at his request, gave him a copy of it. Mr. Fish heard me read both the above-mentioned documents without making any remark whatever, and, upon my concluding, merely said that they would be taken into consideration by his Government; at the same time expressing his hope that some means might be found of coming to an amicable arrangement of all the questions at issue. Since that interview I have not seen Mr. Fish, so that he has not had an opportunity of telling me whether he intends to make any communication upon the subject to Mr. Motley by this mail. I have, &c., No. 9. EDWD. THORNTON. The Earl of Clarendon to Mr. Thornton. FOREIGN OFFICE, January 12, 1870. SIR Mr. Motley has this day read to me a dispatch dated the 22d ultimo, from Mr. Fish, stating that among the papers respecting the Alabama claims that had been presented to the Senate he had not included my dispatch of the 6th of November, and the memorandum it inclosed, which he did not consider to be official, as the memorandum was not signed or dated, and as in my other dispatch of the same. date I had said that Her Majesty's government did not propose to follow Mr. Fish through the long recapitulation contained in his dispatch of the 25th of September, of the various points that had been discussed in the voluminous correspondence that had taken place between the two governments for several years. I said that this decision of Mr. Fish's, which seemed to be founded on a mistake, was much to be lamented; and I stated that his dispatch of the 25th of September had been read with surprise and regret by Her Majesty's government; but, after due deliberation, they had determined to extract from it such passages as might be considered friendly and exhibiting a desire for the settlement of differences, in order to place on record the cordial concurrence of Her Majesty's government in those sentiments, and their readiness to resume negotiations, although, for obvious reasons, no fresh proposal could originate with them. By adopting this course, and abstaining from controversial discussion, it was thought that the policy of Her Majesty's government might in a convenient form be distinctly indicated; but it was impossible that the allegations against England contained in Mr. Fish's dispatch should remain unanswered, or that the people of either country should be induced to think that Her Majesty's government had allowed judgment to go by default; and we accordingly, in a separate dispatch, inclosed the observations that, in our opinion, the national honor required. Her Majesty's government thereby followed the example of Mr. Fish, who had made a distinction between Her Majesty's government [21] and myself, in order, as he said, *to state calmly and dispassion ately, and with a more unreserved freedom than might be used in a dispatch addressed directly to the Queen's government, what the Government of the United States seriously considered to be the injuries it had suffered. My colleagues and I, however, did not consider the dispatch as personal or confidential to myself, or otherwise than as an official communication from the Government of the United States. In the same manner, I added, my second dispatch of the 6th of November could not be considered otherwise than as an official communication. The memorandum it inclosed was not signed or dated, for that was not customary or necessary; but the dispatch in which it was inclosed was both dated and signed, and the document was thereby made official, and a copy of it was placed in Mr. Fish's hands. I did not question the right of Mr. Fish to deal with the correspondence in any manner he thought fit, but that, for my own part, I must say that, in presenting a correspondence to Parliament, I should not think it right to withhold the observations of a foreign government upon an important dispatch of mine that had been officially communicated to it. The publication of the correspondence was, in my opinion, to be regretted, as having a tendency to prolong discussion and not to allay irritation; but when it became known here that the correspondence had been sent to the Senate, Her Majesty's government had no other alternative than to publish the whole, as the British public had a right to expect that important information should be furnished to them by their own government, and not be derived from the newspapers of another country. Mr. Motley, in a friendly tone, supported the views of Mr. Fish, and a conversation followed upon the general subject, which I do not think it necessary to report, because Mr. Motley desired that it should not be considered to have an official character, as negotiatious, if they were resumed, would be conducted at Washington. I am, &c., CLARENDON. NORTH AMERICA. NO. 1. (1871.) CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING THE APPOINTMENT OF A JOINT HIGH COMMISSION ΤΟ CONSIDER THE VARIOUS QUESTIONS AFFECTING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. [2] No. *LIST OF PAPERS. 1. Sir E. Thornton to Earl Granville, February 6, 1871.... Sir Edward Thornton, Sir John Alexander Macdonald, and Mon- |