No. 13.
Mr. Phelps to Mr. Bayard.
Legation of the United States,
London, December 1, 1888. (Received December
11.)
No. 858.]Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith
for your information an extract from the Times newspaper of 27th
ultimo, containing a question asked by Mr. Gourley in the House of
Commons and answered by Sir James Fergusson, under secretary of
state for foreign affairs, with respect to the appointment of a new
minister to the United States. I also inclose a leader from the
Daily News on the subject.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 858.—Extract
from the London Times, Tuesday, November 27,
1888.]
a new minister at washington.
Mr. Gourley asked the first lord of the treasury whether Her
Majesty’s Government intended appointing a new minister to the
Government of the United States at Washington on the departure
of Lord Sackville, or not until the President-elect entered upon
the duties of his office.
Mr. W. H. Smith. The Government are unable at present to make any
statement as to the appointment of a new minister to the United
States.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 858.— Editorial
from the London Daily News, Tuesday, November 27,
1888.]
london and washington.
The first lord of the treasury informed Mr. Gourley, in the House
of Commons yesterday, that her Majesty’s Government did not
intend to take any step at present towards tilling up the vacant
post of British minister at Washington. Lord Salisbury’s
determination is much to be regretted, and we venture to hope
that suitable pressure may induce him to reconsider it. Lord
Sackville, now on his way home, was guilty of an unpardonable
indiscretion. The letter might have been forgiven, But the
subsequent interview went beyond all bounds, and would have been
tolerated by no European Government. Lord Sackville, though he
probably meant no harm, behaved in a manner which would have
excited the keenest resentment in this country against any
American minister so conducting himself. His recall was a matter
of course, and ought not to have been resented. National
dignity, as well as common sense, forbids the exhibition of a
childish sulkiness, although the Conservatives who
[Page 1705]
cheered Mr. Smith’s
answer seemed to be of a different opinion. Lord Salisbury may
provoke President Cleveland to withdraw Mr. Phelps from London,
and may suggest to vigilant economists that England could
contrive to get on without any representative at Washington at
all. But we fail to see what other object he proposes to himself
by the unusual course he has seen fit to adopt. He can not put
Lord Sackville in the right, because Lord Sackville is
hopelessly in the wrong. He cannot wish to make himself
responsible for an inexcusable blunder, and then annoy the
American people. He can not wish to curry favor with General
Harrison by insulting the general’s predecessor and unsuccessful
rival. Yet, unless he is waiting for the opportunity of a job,
these suggestions seem to exhaust the possibilities of
accounting for a most unwise and unfortunate delay in doing the
right thing.
