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.
