The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-13 00:00:00

an inquiry into the circumstances connected with
that vessel, but the Government had not yet
received any information relative to the subject. With re-
gard to the Margaret and Jessie and the Ssxon, he
thought it would be most inexpedient to produce the
papers. Indeed he objected to the production of any
papers relating to a subject on which negotiations were
pending. He also deprecated the publication of statements
in reference to the subject,as being calculated to impede the
course of negotiations. He asserted that the conduct of
the Government was such as would satisfy the house and
the country.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD persevered in his motion.
Lord R. CECIL described the statement of the Attorney-
General as very ingenous, but .very unsatisfactory. In
regard to the murder that had been committed, he thought
the course that had been adopted at Kagosima might be
resorted to with effect. He contended that in the case of
this vessel, and in the policy of Government, the result
was that the honour and dignity of England had been
lowered, and unless that policy were changed it would
arouse a spirit in this country which would lead them into
some excesses.

Col. SYKES said his object in taking part in the discus-
sion was to lay before the house the sworn deposition of one
of the crew of the Saxon, who was present at the murder of
Mr. Gray, and which had been forwarded to him by the
relatives of the murdered man, they being residents in the
constituency which he had the honour to represent. The
hon: and gallant gentleman having read the deposition, and
having called particular attention to the fact that Mr. Gray
was shot in the back of the neck while descending the poop,
and when quite unarmed, said it was evident that on the
face of the deposition the murder was one of the most atro-
cious and wanton ever committed. (Hear, hear.) The re
latives had forwarded to him a letter complaining of the
great loss which the family had experienced, and asking for
redress and recompense. That letter he sent to the Foreign
Office,. and Earl Russell, with a promptitude which did him
honour, answered him on the next day, stating that, if the
deposition were to be trusted, a grievous and wilful murder
had been committed, and that the offender ought to be
brought to trial. He did not see how Earl Russell could
have done more. (Hear, hear.) The relatives themselves
expressed their gratitude for the promptitude with which
the matter had been taken up. But, in justice to Earl
Russell, it should be added that the noble earl had informed
him that the subject had already received the attention of
the Government, and that the law officers of the Crown had
been consulted as to the character of the despatch which
should be transmitted on the occasion. He was thoroughly
satisfied that the Government would not only demand that
the murderer should be brought to trial, and if found guilty
that they would insist upon his execution, but also that
they would ensure due recompense should be afforded to the
family of the deceased. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE, after reviewing the facts con-
nected with the death of Mr. Gray, declared that Captain
Baldwin ought to be designated as a pirate, and an accom-
plice in the crime, for not having immediately placed Lieut.
Donnegan under arrest. (Hear, hear.) He also shared in
the opinion that the conduct of the Government in its
foreign relations was that of the bully towards the weak—
a policy of subserviency towards the strong. (Hear, hear).
Mr. C. BENTINCK quoted the opinion of Lord Cran-
worth on the case of the Springbok, in opposition to the
judgment of Judge Betts, which had found such favour in
the eyes of the Attorney-General. It should be remem-
bered that the Federal judges were not like the English
judges, but that they went out with the Government ; and
he thought, with regard to these inferior judges, this was a
very fit and proper opportunity for her Majesty's Govern-
ment making some further representations. The noble lord
was a great man against a feeble adversary. If he had to
deal with a Greek or a Neapolitan, his courage was enor-
mous. He would wage war on the poor Chinese or the
defenceless Japanese, but the moment the noble lord was
placed in front of an adversary who, either by popularity or
actual physical strength, was formidable, he shrank from the
contest, and left the British subject to obtain redress as best
he could. When the noble lord came to face the great
Abraham—(a laugh)—he sued with bated breath and
whispering humbleness, and said, " Fair sir, you spurned
me upon such and such a day; on Tuesday last you spit
upon me ; and now I am quite willing to do your bidding."
(Laughter.) These circumstances called upon the noble
lord to do justice, and assert for all Englishmen those
rights and privileges which the people of this country were
entitled to seek.

Mr. CRAWFORD denied that Lord R. Cecil spoke the
views of the mercantile community, which he held were
entirely different from those entertained by the noble lord.
The greatest circumspection was necessary to be observed
in dealing with these affairs, and, so far as he could see, the
American Government were not open to the charges that
were so freely brought against them.
Lord J. MANNERS said it was not to be wondered at
that a feeling was rapidly growing up in the country that
the Government were not so energetic as they ought to be
in repelling the outrages committed on British subjects ;
and it was a singular fact that for some reason or other Eng-
lish officers did not appear to those who witnessed their
operations to be animated by the earnest spirit in checking
_ _

those outrages that was to be expected of them.

Mr BTiNTTNTIK was of npininn that the ttatintla:
honour had not been maintained as it ought, and that the
Government had been too much in the habit of bullying the
weak and truckling to the strong. Ho hoped to hear no-
thing more of a contemplated reduction of armaments; for
we had been brought into discredit by uttering threats which
we were not in a position to carry into effect.
L',rd PALMERSTON—I hope, after the discussion that
has taken place, the hon. member for Horsham will not
press his motion to a division. The greater part of the
papers he hss moved for relate to a question of law now
pending, or that was under discussion between the two Go-
vernments, and, as stated by my hon. and learned friend,
an injury even to some of the parties concerned would arise
from their premature production. Now, we have heard
this evening that cuckoo cry addressed to this house by
those who like general assertions better than particular
proof, that the Government is in the habit of bullying the
weak and truckling to the strong. 1 entirely deny that
assertion. Her Majesty's Government are anxious in all
cases to assert the rights and dignity of this
country, and they must judge in each case what method
may be best adapted to accomplish that purpose.
I feel we have no right whatever to state, as regards the
United States Government, that they would not act with
equity; and there is no reason to doubt the equity and in-
dependence of the tribunals of the United States, which
have tried cases such as this under discussion. It is but
due to the Government of the United States to say that they
have invariably received our applications with a spirit of
equity and justice. I need give no greater proof of this
than that in one strong case of remonstrance justice was
done to this country. I refer to the case of the Trent—(a
laugh)—in which the Government of the United States very
handsomely did justice to the demands which we made, and
the right to which they did not deny. Therefore I say it is
prejudicial to a good understanding between two Govern-
ments on good terms with each other, that we should ac-
cuse a foreign Government of that of which it is not guilty,
and express distrust of their equity and fairness which
nothing that has occurred can justify us in imputing to
them. I felt it only right, with regard to the tribunals of
the Government of the United States, to express my testi-
mony to the fact that the accusations and imputations
which are cast upon them are neither just nor founded on
equity.
Lord LOVAINE thought, looking at the circumstances
under which the men who were illegally seized on board the
Trent were given up, the conduct of the Federal Govern-
ment was hardly courteous.
Sir J. WALSH wished to call the attention of the Go-
vernment to the fact that in the case of the Saxon two very
different questions arose, The one was the seizure of the
ship, the other the murder of the mats of that vessel, Mr.
Gray, For the decision of tbe first they must, of course,
wait for the cautious, procrastinating delays of the prize-
courts of America; but we ought not to lose one unneces-
sary day or hour in claiming full compensation fur the mur-
der of a British subject.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed with the hon.
baronet that the seizure and condemnation of a vessel was
a totally different case from the murder of a British subject.
The one must be settled by a prize court, and they must
wait the tedious issue, but the other was a criminal offence.
He begged to assure the hon. baronet that there had been
no delay in the matter. The first information on the sub-
ject the Attorney-General and himself had received was
three weeks ago. They had then lost no time in advising
the Government that it should demand of the Government
of the United States that the offender should be put on his
trial. There had not yet been time to receive an answer,
but it was expected by the next mail. He trusted the hon.
baronet would see that no time had been lost in making the
only representation that they could make to the United
States Government.
Mr. MALINS said he had heard the speech of the Attor-
ney-General with pain, because it had left the impression
on his mind of great want of decision of expression on the
subject of a most unwarrantable and barbarous murder.
Tho speech of the Solicitor-General, however, would re-
lieve the house and the country from the knowledge that
pointed demand had been made on the Government of the
Uthnaiitterh. E
deEShitaaTdtzeosG.nl He had only risen to express his satisfac-
tion at that statement,
ls
,RmAoLveDdefaoir the
wordsdafepwapersto icnasrteupllyam, denying
only then)yi
American Government. llehad expressly guarded himself
at
igoani nosft
tthhea tc.o
u rHieaa oof only object
Majesty's had
Government.been toob
Under
t ni form
thea -
circumstances ho should not proceed any further, but if
that course were not satisfactory he should bring the case
again before the House of Commons.
FIRES IN THEATRES.
reW. FRAZ ER asked the Homeade f
Se. tary
the Lord Chamberlain would grant licencoerc escape licences
in case
to
sthienr
of fire.
which no adequate provision was made
Sir G. GREY said that the subject was one of great
importance as regarded churches and public buildings,
well as theatres. Explaining the course taken by theL asrd
Chamberlain to secure public safety in the event of fire, the
right hon. geoatlein an said that in 1853 that official had re-
quired from every manager, before renewing his licence, a
certificate as to the state of the structure generally, 515, as
+0 the zratie of egress in CRSI3 of alarm. Two years after