The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-24 00:00:00

PUBLIC EXECUTIONS.

Mr. HIBBERT drew the attention of the house to the
demoralising effects of public executions, and moved for the
production of certain papers in reference to the same. The
hon. memb3r cited the evidence given before a commission
appointed on the motion of the Bishop of Oxford
to inquire into the subject, and also the testimony of a com-
petent person who had directed their attention to the matter,
to show that the tendency of public executions was, per se,
demoralising. According to the statements of these
parties, women with children in their arms were present at
these executions, ribaldry, drunkenness, and blasphemy
characterised the spectators, and secnes of a most revolt-
ing character were enacted. Amongst the evidence which
he adduced was that of the sheriffs of different coun-
ties, and he alluded to the graphic description of Mr.
Charles Dickens in a letter to the Times on the occasion of
the execution of the Mannings. He next referred to the
practice which prevailed in Prussia and parts of America,
of having executions in private, which was found to act
beneficially, and that practice had been extended advantage-
ously to Australia.
Mr HADFIELD.said that capital punishments had failed
in deterring persons from the commission of crime, and
referred to criminal statutes to show that neither in the
case of forgery, which was once visited with capital
punishment, or in regard to the crime of murder,
capital punishment was attended with beneficial effects. He
said that an execution was an attractive spectacle in the
same way as a prize fight, and he believed that if a battle
took place within a hundred yards of where they were
assembled it would soon clear the house. (Laughter.) He
deprecated in tho strongest terms the principle of capital
punishment.
Sir G. GREY defended the execution of tlit,3 five pirates,
which he considered was calculated to lead to good results.
lielhoped the house would not be induced to accede to Mr.
Hib here s views ; he was not prepared to consent to any
alteration of the law.

Alderman SIDNEY complained of the recent execution,
insisting that the culprits should have been sent to the out-
ports.
Lord H. LENNOX, While he agreed with Sir G. Grey,
described and animad ;lifted upon certain disgraceful scenes
at the late execution.
After a short discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
THE STEAM RAMS IN THE MERSEY.

Mr. S. FITZGERALD rose to move an address for
copies of all correspondence between the various depart-
ments of her Majesty's Government, or emcees in her Ma •
jesty's service, and Messrs. Laird Brothers, relating to the
two iron-clad vessels, the El Toussor? and Ei Monassia,
building by that firm, and seized by order of her Majesty's
Government ; and of any papers or correspondence that had
passed between her Majesty's Government and the Govern-
ment of the United States, or their representative, Mr.
Adams, relating to the said vessels. The hon. gentleman
said ho was not insensible to the delicacy of the task he ha
undertaken. Some days ago, in calling attention to the
conduct of Americanicruisers, he had expressed his desire
to let nothing fall from him which was calculated in the
slightest degree to aggravate that feeling of irritation which
was so prevalent in the country ; and in the seine spirit he
would now call the attention of the house only to that por-
tiuu of these transaction which concerned the conduct of
her Majesty's Government. Ile should scrupulously avoid
alluding, except perhaps incidentally, even to the correspon-
dence addressed to the Minister of the United States in this
country, but which he, in the exercise of the discretion and
good sense which distinguished him, declined to present to
our Government He was aware that the hon. and learned
gentleman might possibly meet the present motion by the
objection that it had reference to matters which were still
the subject of judicial investigation. (II:ar,) There was
sometimes great force in such an objection, but not in a case
l;ke the present. If we were going to discuss the question
whether these vessels were rightly seized or not, there
wculd be considerable force in the objection ; but the object
of the present motion was to obtain papers which would
show whether, before the seizure took place, the conduct of
the Government was consistent with the law. It would be
necer,eary for him to refer briefly to the circumstances con-
nected with the seizure of the steam rams. From the papers

laid before Congress it appeared that Mr. Adams, having
heard that vessels of a formidable character were building
at Birkenhead, addressed a communication to Earl Russell
on the 11th of last July, enclosing depositions which, in his
(Mr. Adams's) opinion, proved that the vess_;le in question
were intended for the Confederate States. Mr. Adams
urged the case upon the notice of the noble earl in the most
forcible terms, for he described the building of these rams
as being regarded by the Government and the people of the
United States as tantamount to a participation in the war
by the people of Great Britain, to such a degree as could
not fail, unless her Majesty's Government seized the ves-
sels, to endanger the preservation of peace between the two
countries. (Hear.) This communication was followed by
others enclosing supplemental depositions, and it appeared
that, from the 11th July to Ist Sept., the case was receiving
the consideration of the law officers of the Crown and the
careful attention of her Majesty's Government, The result
was communicated to Mr. Adams in a despatch dated Sept.
1, 1863, in which Lord Russell said—" Her Majesty's
Government are advised that the information contained in
the depositions is in a great measure mere hearsay evi-
dence, and generally it is not such as to show the intent
or purpose necessary to make the building or fitting out
of these vessels illegal under the Foreign Enlistment Act."
After this the house would scarcely be prepared to hear 11
that on the 4th September, only three days afterward-, Earl
Russell directed the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs
to write to order the detention of the vessels. Now, the
only additional information received by the noble lord in
the interim consisted of some depositions which, as ap-
peared from a despatch addressed to Mr. Seward on Sept. 3,
even Mr. Adams himself considered to be of no great weight.
The first question he wished to ask the hon. and learned
gentleman was, how it happened that, not having any evi-
dence to seize those vessels, they yet proceeded to them ;
and he further wished to have it shown upon what autho-
rity they detained the rams during the whole month of Sep-
tember, without proceeding to any legal investigation.
What was the first announcement which was made to
Messrs. Laird with respect to those rams ? It was in a letter
dated the 9th of September, which announced to them that
the rams would not be permitted to leave the Mersey until
satisfactory evidence was given as to their destination.
(Hear, hear.) Was it the principle of the English law to
enforce a highly penal statute and not proceed, according to
the requirements of that statute, to put those implicated
upon their trial, and put the whole case in a train of legal
investigation ? Or was the executive to say to Messrs.
Laird, " We will take care that your vessels shall not leave
the Mersey until you can prove you are engaged in an in-
nocent transaction, or until some roving commission we
have shall return to show they have no evidence to offer on
the subject" ? (Opposition cheers.) The noble lord the
Foreign Secretary stated in another place that he directed
those vessels to be seized on the 3d of September, but it
somehow curiously happened that on that day the Under-
Secretary for Foreign Affairs wrote a friendly note to Messrs.
Laird, asking them to furnish the Government with infor-
mation, with as little delay as possible, on whose account
and for what destination they were building the rams. At
the very time the Government wrote this letter to Messrs.
Laird, they were directing a prosecution—(Opposition
cheers)—and were asking them to furnish information which
might be used against them. (Hear, hear.) Was that law ?
Her Majesty's Government, although they were informed
those rams were being built for Mr. Gravet, of Paris,for the
Pasha of Egypt,yet within one week after the letter to Messrs
Laird, they made proposals, through the Chief Constructor
of the navy, for the sale to them of the rams ; but Messrs.
Laird called upon Mr. Read to produce his authority. There
was one remarkable letter of Lord Russell's of September
11, 1863, which conclusively proved that the noble lord per-
sisted in his intention of detaining the rams long after he
was convinced that the story told by M. Gravet was correct.
The letter of Mr. Colquhoun to the Foreign-office showed
satisfactorily that M. Gravet was the owner of the rams ;
and the only ground of doubt was, that Ismael Pasha re-
fused to carry out the contract made by the late Pasha.
(Hear, hear.) But the real question remained, what was
it that led to such a sudden change of opinion on the part of
Lord Russell ? This was best answered by the despatch
from Mr. Adams to the noble lord. Mr. Adams, writing to
Mr. Seward, informs him that, in consequence of the pres-
sure of his note of the 3d September to Lord Russell, the
decision of the British Government not to proceed to seize
the rams was subjected to reconsideration. (Hear, hear.)
The simple fact was that Mr. Adams had used language so
forcible as to be almost menacing, and even his despatches,
though couched in temperate language, left no doubt that
if the rams were allowed to leave the Mersey and prey upon
American commerce it would inevitably lead to war, (Hear,
hear, from Mr. Dunlop.) He did not know the meaning of
the cheer of the hon. member for Greenock, but he did not
think that was the feeling generally of the house nor of the
country. There was no man who deprecated any hostility
between this country and the United States more than him-
self. He believed it would be a most fatal and unnatural
war for both; but if he was to be told that, rather than run
the risk of war, the Government of this country were to
seize the property of British subjects, he could never ap-
prove the conduct of such a Government. What he
asked was, that the Government should give them those
papers which would enable the public to judge of the
conduct of the Government, and whether they strained or
overstepped the law. The objection raised was, that the
matters to which the papers relate were still undergoing
judicial investigation. But the papers to which he
limited his demand could have no reference to the legal
question of the detention and seizure of the rams. If such
a plea were entertained, judging from the case of the Alex-
andra, the whole year might elapse before the judicial in-
vestigation concluded. The only correspondence he asked
for was what passed between the Government and Messrs.
Laird. All the letters were in the possession of Messrs.
Laird, and the Government had only to send copies to the
journals and they would appear in every paper to-morrow
morning. The other correspondence which he asked for
was that which passed between the Government and the
representative of the American Government, In conclusion,
he hoped the house would enforce the production of those
papers, and then they would see whether the Government
had behaved in a manner worthy of a British Government.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HORSFALL seconded the motion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—My hon. friend says
the objection to the present motion is—that the papers he
requires are the subject of judicial investigation, and he
thinks he evades the question by limiting his inquiry to the
papers relating solely to the seizure of the vessels, which he
supposes will enable the house to judge whether or not the
Government have done their duty. But by this limitation
my hon. friend partly admits that the house may well hesi-
tate to ask for all the papers in the hands of the Government,
for this would be to interfere directly with the administra-
tion of justice in this case—(hear, hear)—and make the
House of Commons instrumental in precipitating the 0-
jecs of private parties in litigation who may find it conve-
nient to get behind the scenes, and when possessed of the
information, seek to get a reversal of the decisions of the
Government in this house or elsewhere. Such a thing was
never heard of as that, while a case was waiting for
trial, the litigant party was to be given up all the
information as to the course which was taken. I can-
not see the object of my hon, friend in limiting his de-
mand to two classes of papers. Still, if he desires it,
the Government are perfectly willing to produce what
passed between Mr. Adams and the Foreign Office ;
although if these papers are separated from the other class it
not enable the House of Commons to judge correctly as
to the course of the Government. And what is that other
class ? Why, the correspondence which has passed between
the Government and the Messrs. Laird, unaccompanied by
those other documents, which showed the grounds on which
the Government acted, notwithstanding the professions of
candour and openness solemnly made in that correspon-
dence. The production of this correspondence alone would
not enable the house to know why the Government were
not satisfied with the professions of these gentlemen, and
why in the end they deemed it their duty to suspend the
sailing of these vessels. But my hon. friend in the absence
of all materials, would persuade the house that Earl Russell
and the Government had acted upon grounds not warranted
by law, and entirely under the influence of representations
made by Mr. Adams. I will follow my hon. friend, as far
as I can, in his statement; and, first of all, I will refer to
the period of the 11th of July, when Mr, Adams urged
upon the Government the importance of fulfilling their pro
fessions of neutrality by preventing the departure of the
vessels from the ports of the United Kingdom. Well, can
any one blame Mr. Adams for urging the matter in the
most pressing and serious manner upon the attention of the
Government. (Hear.) But are we to,conclude that because
a matter of the kind was pressingly urged upon the Go-
vernment by the Minister of a foreign State, that for that
reason the Government may overstep the bounds of mode-
ration and avoid doing its duty. (Loud cries of Hear.)
I should like to know what should have been our language
if the Congress had said to the Government of the United
States, when we applied to them to enforce their Foreign
Enlistment Act, " Don't enforce this law, because 'tis
Great Britain that asks you." Would such a course be
consistent either with dignity or honesty ? (Cheers.) Un-
doubtedly it is the right of the foreign State which feels
itself injured by a proceeding of this description, to call
upon a friendly Power to enforce its law, and observe its
professions of neutrality. What was the fact? Here are
ships of a formidable character, which, even according to
the view taken in the Court of Exchequer by the judges
opposed to the course taken by the Government, if they
were intended to operate against the Federal Government,
them most extensive mischief. Then
were capable of doing
the nature
and character of these ships are known, and the
only question is for whom are they intended. Mr. Adams
believed that they were intended for the Confederate States.
What did the Government do? They did that which they
always said they would do—namely, require such evidence
es would justify them to act upon. Well, upon the whole,
it did not appear that there was sufficient evidence to enable
them to act ; and that was announced upon the let of Sep-
tember, by Earl Russell, to Mr. Adams. But it is said that
Mr. Adams pointedly observed, before the fact, that it was
upon the 4th of September the order was given to detain the
vessels. Now, the fact is, as has been already stated, not
onl3 was the order the result of the resolution of the Go-
vernment—come to subsequently to the letter to Mr. Adams
of the Ist of September, but it was made previous to the re-
ceipt of Mr. Adams's letter of the 4th of September, and had
been actually communicated to the President of the United

States in the interval. (Cheers.) And had any informa-
tion reached Earl Russell in the interval between the Ist and
the 4th September ? That is exactly one of the things we do
not intend to tell the hon. gentleman, although he may be
quite sure the Government have good grounds for what they
did, and that they will give at the proper time that informa-
tion which reached them in the course of the inquiry
which determined the action which they took. (Cheers.)
Well, my hon. friend asks, Why detain the ships without
seizing them ? I answer boldly, the Government did so
upon their own responsibility. The inquiries which they
were prosecuting were imperfect, still they went far
enough to have strong reasons for believing that these
ships were intended for an illegal purpose. The Govern-
ment did not seize the ships, but they took it upon their
own responsibility to say that the law shall not be violated
until the inquiry has been brought to a conclusion. Of
course the ordinary law cannot be followed in case of the
the seizure of a vessel, and therefore it was that the Go-
vernment were compelled to act upon their own responsibi-
lity and upon the determination that what took place with
respect to the Alabama should not be again repeated.
(Hear, and cheers.) There is all the distinction in the
world between detaining a ship upon the responsibility of
the Government and seizing it. In point of fact, this deten-
tion was nothing more nor less than an announcement to
the builders that the ships were under the surveillance of
the Government. It was upon the 9th of Sept. that Mr.
Hamilton wrote to the Messrs. Laird that the ships would
not be permitted to leave the Mersey, and on the same date
a note was written to them making inquiry who was the
owner of the ships. Messrs. Laird, in reply, mentioned the
name of the French gentleman to whom reference has been
made. The hon. and learned gentleman then further traced
the course of the proceedings and the correspondence, and
referred to Earl Russell's declaration to the American Go-
vernment that her Majesty's Government were satisfied that
the vessels were not intended for the Egyptian Govern-
ment. The next step was the sudden announcement of the
Government to Mr. Adams of the seizure of the ships.
Well, I shall abstain from explaining all the facts which
satisfied the Government of the illegal destination of the
ships—but as my hon. friend has quoted from the papers
laid before Congress, I may be permitted to refer to papers
laid before another congress—to the report of the secretary
to the Confederate Navy department. The hon and learned
gentleman read an extract from this report, which was to
the effect that in accordance with the orders of the Pre-
sident of the Confederate States, agents had been de-
spatched to England and France to enter into contracts
for the building of eight iron-plated vessels, which were to
be provided with rams—that three of them had been com-
pleted, but that they were 'detained in the Mersey in
consequence of the Government of England having sta-
tioned ships of war at the mouth of the river in order to
prevent a breach of their neutrality laws. (The reading of
this despatch was received with loud cheers on the
Minos-
terial benches.) Well, then, as between this country and
the Confeder ate Government we have information of a cha-
racter perfectly unquestionable—(cheers)—and therefore I
hope that the house will not believe that the Government
merely stumbled upon a mode of preventing an infraction
of the law. I confess it would be much more satisfactory
to us if the legal proceedings were more advanced than they
are; but the house will admit that we must take pains to
proceed to trial under circumstances most favourable for the
Crown. It is impossible, however, that the case of the
Government can now be brought before the house ; and I
can only say that the Government have acted throughout
in a serious sense of their duty to themselves, to her Ma-
jesty, and to her allies throughout the world. (Hear.) On
the other hand, her Majesty's Government have continued
to act as they always have acted, on the principle that no
seizure of this kind ought to be made except on evidence
satisfactory to their minds of the existence of an actual vio-
lation of the law, They have acted upon such evidence in
this case. The only question that is raised by my hon.
friend is really this, whether they were or were not justified
in taking upon themselves to say that, pending an inquiry
which might result in obtaining such evidence, and which,
in their judgment, did so result, they did not permit ships
to be removed as to which the inquiry was incomplete, and
before they had the means of knowing whether evidence
proving the innocence or guilt of those vessels would be
forthcoming or not. The house will say whether, in that
respect her Majesty's Government did or did not exceed
their duty. For my own part I think they would be most
grossly wanting in their duty if after the evidence
in the case of the Alabama—(hear, hear)—whilst
the inquiry was pending, they had not taken upon
themselves the responsibility of saying that they
would not permit justice to be evaded until they
could judge whether the ships should be seized or
not ; and the Government confidently relies upon the care •
ful and fair judgment of the country, knowing that the
country must come to the conclusion that they have been
actuated by no motive whatever in taking such steps, ex-
cept that of vindicating the law, and doing that to other
countries which they would expect other countries to do by
them. (Cheers.)

Mr. HORSFALL contended that as there was nothing
in the Foreign Enlistment Act that forbade the building of
ships of war in this country, it would be a fatal policy and
oppressive to our commercial interests not to allow such
vessels to be built here.

Lord R. CECIL said that although the Attorney-Gene-
ral argued that the house had no right to inquire into any
matter under judicial investigation, in a case of this nature
the house had a right to satisfy itself that the Government
were acting from legitimate motives. In this case the
Attorney-General had acknowledged that they had broken
the law. This had been in deference to a foreign Govern-
ment; yet that house was not to interfere.
Mr. W. FORST E R remarked that some of the quest;ons
raised in the debate should have been made the subject of
a specific motion that would test the opinion of the house.
The Government alleged that they had obtained informa-
tion as to the destination of these rams, had taken upon
themselves the responsibility of acting as they had done,
and the question raised should have in view to test the pro-
priety of that act.
Sir H. CAIRNS wished to put before the house the
exact question on which they were called upon to vote.
He subscribed heartily to what the Attorney-General had
said as to the inadvisability of producing papers which
would affect pending legal proceedings, and if he thought
the papers now moved for would have such a result he
should be the last person to support the motion. The
papers moved for were of two classes; first, the de
spatches between this Government and those who repre-
sent the Government of the United States with regard to
these ships ; and secondly, the correspondence between her
Majesty's Government and the firm who are the builders or
these vessels. It was material that he should state what
were the purposes to be served by the production of those
papers. With regard to the first class, he understood that
the object in view was not to raise any question about the
Foreign Enlistment Act, not to raise any question as to the
merits or demerits of any person under that Act, but to as-
certain what are the demands in point of international law
made by the United States on the Government of this
country in respect of these ships, and what has been the
answer in point of international law given by our Minister
to such demands. (Opposition cheers.) He could conceive
no question of such vital importance as this, and he believed
there was no question at the present day on which the
House of Commons had less information. (Opposition
cheers.) Had Mr. Seward said it was an infringement of
international law to allow armed ships to leave this country,
or had he said that to allow ships not armed, but intended
to be armed and equipped at a subsequent period, to go out
from our ports, was a breach of international law ? On
March 22 Earl Russell wrote a despatch to the American
Minister, wherein he said he wished the United States Go-
vernment to understand that he considered the cases of the
Alabama and the Oreto to be a scandal. What did the
noble earl mean by that ? Did he mean, that there being a
law authorising the seizure of those vessels, it was a scandal
that it had not been put in force ; or did he mean to say it
was a scandal that there existed no law authorising their
seizure? If the first were his reason, why were not the
persons concerned in building the Alabama, who were per-
fectly well known, indicted for a misdemeanour ? As re-
gards the Oreto, that ship was mentioned in
the House last year, and the Attorney-General
said : " In order to show our good faith to the
American Government, we strained a point and seized
the Oreto at Nassau." The hon. and learned gentleman
had strained more than one point. (Laughter.) Well,
the Oreto was tried at Nassau, and acquitted ; and she
must therefore be considered free from any infringement of
the Foreign Enlistment Act. Why then did the noble earl
consider the case of the Oreto to be a scandal ? Now for the
other branch of the dilemma. If it were a scandal that we
had not better laws to deal with the Alabama and the Oreto,
why did not her Majesty's Government propose some alto-
ration in the law? (Hear, hear.) Having read several ex-
tracts from statements made on this subject by the noble
lord at the head of the Government, the hon. gentleman
proceeded to remark that the noble lord the Foreign Secre-
tary did not suppose that he was prejudicing the case against
the owners and builders of those rams by going down to
Scotland and stating that they were intended for the Con-
federate Government. The Attorney-General and the Pre-
sident of Board of Trade, following suit, also explained to
their constituents that there could be no doubt of the desti-
nation of those rams. The case in question amounted to a
misdemeanour ; but supposing it was a case of life, and that
a person was awaiting trial on a Government prosecution
for high treason, and that the first law officer of the Crown
and Secretary of State, and another Minister, were to ad-
dress popular assemblies, and tell them not to mind the con-
struction of the law, but that it was as certain as that the
sun shone the man was guilty, what would be thought of
such a proceeding ? He would now proceed to show why he
thought the papers between the Government and the
Messrs, Laird should be produced. He spoke with the full
consciousness of the gravity of his words when he charged
the Government with having done, and now doing, that
which was illegal and unconstitutional, without justifica-
tion, without law, and without excuse. (Opposition cheers.)
On the 31st of August, in answer to a memorial from a
member of the Peace Society to tho Foreign Secretary,
asking him to detain the rams, the noble lord stated that,
in order to justify the Government in adopting such a
course, it was necessary they should be furnished with
such facts and evidence as would be sufficient in a court of
law, that the rams in question were intended to carry on
hostilities against the Government of the Federal States,

but that the memorial did not point to any such proof.
Again, on the Ist September, the same noble lord, writing
to Mr. Adams, informed him that Government had received
information that the rams were being built for Frenchmen;
and, under these circumstances, and having regard to the
insufficiency of the depositions to prove an infraction of the
law, they, the Government, had resolved not to interfere in
any way with those vessels. (Hear, hear.) It appeared,
however, that from the Ist to the 3d of September facts had
come to the knowledge of the Government which entirely
changed their intentions, and made them resolve upon tak-
ing proceedings against the rams. But if the Government
had resolved, upon the 3d of September, upon detaining the
rams, was it just and proper to write to the Messrs. Laird to
furnish them with information about the ownership of the
rams ? Messrs. Laird, not suspecting anything, replied to
the Government that they had obtained the necessary pet-
mission to declare the ownership. He left it to the house to
reconcile the two proceedings—the resolving to seize the
rams and the writing to Messrs. Laird for information. He
demanded to know upon what authority tho Government
detained those rams; for they had not vet been told. The
Attorney-General had not told them there was law or con-
stitutional practice for it ; but, that they had violated the law
in order to vindicate the law. (Cheers.) What was done
in the case of personal liberty ? The party was arrested and
taken before a magistrate, who had the power of remanding
until evidence could be adduced. That was a strictly legal
proceeding. There was an important distinction between
detaining and seizing a vessel. The moment a vessel was
seized the builder or owner could, without delay, force the
Government to trial, whereas in the case of detaining a
vessel the owner was without remedy. If a right were
claimed by the Government to detain for a month, the
same right could be claimed for a year, and where was
the line to be drawn ? The hon. and learned gentleman
then referred to the demand for compensation which had
been threatened by America, on account of the depreda-
tions of the Alabama, and asked what answer could
Government have to that demand if their detention of these
rams was justifiable. (Opposition cheers.) What became
of their defence that the English law did not enable them
to detain the Alabama ? In the next place, he pointed with
bitterness to the tardiness of the proceedings of the Govern.
ment. A quarter of a million was at stake, the interest upon
which was not less than £2,000 a month ; and yet, between
Oct. 9 and Feb. 8, no information was filed in the Court of
Exchequer. Then, after the Government had laid an em-
bargo upon these vessels, they actually sent down an officer
of the Admiralty to deal with the owners for their sale.
Was that the learned Attorney-General's idea of equity?
(Cheers.) But the climax was, that February having come,
and it being no longer possible to delay the information, the
Government wrote to the builders to say that it might be
necessary to send a commission abroad for the purpose Of
collecting evidence. They had not received many papers
this session, but he trusted the house would insist upon hav-
ing those now asked for. (Loud Opposition cheers.)

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the hon. and learned
gentleman being aware that much of the information asked
for would be produced, might have spared the house a great
deal of his argument. (Hear, hear.) At the same time,
the hon. and learned gentlemen having given an opinion as
the legal adviser of the Messrs. Laird—(Sir H. Cairns :
Never I) (Loud cheers from the Opposition benches.)
NV ell, the hon. and learned gentleman appeared in the case
of the Alexandra, and no doubt a portion of his address upon
that occasion was a rehearsal of that which he intended to
deliver in this house. However, the distinction between
the correspondence was plain. One portion of it was ad-
missible in a court of justice, the other was not. If the
house should think that the Government had unfairly insti-
tuted this prosecution, they cught to be no longer entrusted
with such powers; but if they were to conduct it, let them
be permitted to do so like otter Government prosecutions.
There never was an instance :n which the Government was
called upon by the House of Commons to produce a portion
of its evidence before the pericd of trial. (Hear, hear.) The
Government had been charged with pusillanimity, but it
seemed to him that no duty more vitally affected the hon-
our of the country than the maintenance of its neutrality.
(Hear, hear.) So long ago as 1793 England insisted most
emphatically against America that she should not supply
France with vessels of war; aid at our instance Washing-
ton detained certain ships. Indeed, whatever might be our
grievances against America, we had no complaint against
her on the ground of not enforciag her Foreign Enlistment
Act. He was bound to say the information volunteered by
Messrs. Laird—for they were nut asked—was not satisfac-
tory to the Government.
.They endeavoured to ascertain
whether it was true that these vessels were sold to a gen-
tleman of the name of Gravet, end said if that were so,
" Well, sell the vessels at once." (Hear, hear.) Of course
the Government entertained the idea that the vessels were
intended for the Confederate States, or they would have been
guilty of most unjustifiable conduct in what they did. Had
any gentleman on the other side any doubt about it ? (Hear,
hear.) Of course the Government must prove their case,
but he was sure the house would not desire him to state
what that case w,ts, (Hear, hear.) The proofs had been
fairly considered, and would he believed be sufficient, but, on
that point a jury would do justice between Crown and sub-
ject, In the case of the Alabama the opinion of the law offi.-
cers of the Crown was given just before the vessel had got
away by stratagem, and an that question he would say that
in dealing with a difficulty for which no precedents were
found in the books, the Attorney-General and himself had
endeavoured as far as possible to follow the lights of the
highest authorities in England and America, whose deci-
sions had commanded the highest respect; and while he
would not say they were always right, he would say they
had kept a straight path, without being influenced by
sympathy with the weak or by fear of the strong. They
had never advised, and never would advise, her Majesty's
Government to submit to indignity, but they had thought
it just to act with America as they would expect America
to act with this country if the positions of the two
Powers were reversed. They had endeavoured to do as
they would be done by, and he ventured to say that in that
course they had best consulted the honour and interests of
this country. (Ministerial cheers.)
Mr, IV ALP OLE paid a high tribute to the speech of Sir
Hugh Cairns, and proceeded to criticise the speeches of the
law officers of the Crown. He entirely concurred with them
in saying that people who would be neutrals ought to act in
the same way as they wmld expect neutrals to act when
they were belligerents ; but he contended it was fallacious to
confound the obligations of our municipal law with the
obligations of international law. (Opposition cheers.) The
greatest principle of all was that neutrals were deprived of
no rights, when other countries chose to go to war, which
they possessed in the ordinary course of business before.
With great deference to the law officers of the Crown, he
preferred the view of international law on the subject taken
by Earl Russell to that taken by them, and said that the
builders of ships had dcne no more than others had done in
sending guns, or English manufacturers in sending their
goods; and when he found the other side echoing to the
roof the observations made by the Solicitor-General, that
this country would do what they would have others do to
them, his answer was that if people send articles of war
abroad they do no more wrong in building ships, which may
be turned to warlike purposes hereafter, than they do in
sending goods or ammunition, or attempting to break the
blockade. (Cheers.)

Mr. T. BARING said that as the right hon. gentleman
who had just sat down had appealed to the merchants to
support the opinion which he had propounded, he (Mr. T.
Baring), as a humble member of that community, could not
but protest against the opinion of his right hon. friend—
(" Hear, hear," from the supporters of the Government)—
that by sanctioning measures which would lead to arming
privateers and war vessels in neutral ports, to take part in war
between belligerents they would benefit the commerce of the
country. (Hear.) What community would suffer more than
the mercantile community of this country if that system
were supported and that principle were adopted ? They
were not, however, interested in the question only as merch-
ants. They were interested in the maintenance of the
principle which we had propounded 3urselvos when engaged
in war, and which had been adopted by Mr. Jefferson at
our recommendation, and had been carried into effect as
late as the Crimean war. If we broke through it now, it
would be maintained as a principle to our injury hereafter.
(Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend had said that neutrals
were authorised to build, but they were not allowed to
equip. (Hear, hear, from Mr, Walpole.) But did his
right hon. friend mean to say that these vessels, armed
with rams, were mere.y innocent commercial vessels, to be
used for commercial turposes, and that they would be mis-
used if adopted for be ligerent purposes. (Hear, hear.) Did
he believe that they were not intended for the Confede-
rates? (Hear, hear.; When he heard gentlemen on his
side the house taunting the Government and endeavouring
to precipitate the country into war, he, as a humble mem-
ber of the mercantile community, in identifying himself
with the blessings cy' peace, thought he was not only urging
his own interests, bit the interest also of the country and
of humanity. (Hear, hear.) In conclusion, the hon. mem-
ber thanked Earl Rissell and the law officers of the Crown
for the course which had been taken in regard to the iron
rams, and expresbec his regret that similar decided mea-
sures had not been adopted in regard to the Alabama
(Hear.)

The house adjourned at 12 o'clock.

After a few worclaia reply to Mr. FITZGERALD, the
House divided.

Sir G. GREY preciously stated that it was to be distinctly
understood that the negative applied only to the first papers
mentioned in the motion, and that the latter would be
granted.
For the motion
Against it ..
slajoriti
The motion was consequently lost. The announcement
of the number was reeived with loud cheers.
COPYRIGHT. _ _

Mr. BLACK obtaited leave to introduce a bill for the
consolidation of the acts relating to copyright in works
of literature and the fine arts.
INSANE PRISONERS' ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill, as &monied, was considered.
Mr. HUNT took tie opportunity of making an expla-
nation in reference t 4 a statement which he had made
when the bill was incommittee, respecting the opinion of
Dr. Forbes Winslow es to the insanity of George Victor
Townley. His statement was to the effect that Dr. Wins-
low's opinion was btsed on Townley's perverted moral
sense, but the doctor has since written to him to say that
his opinion was really founded upon the prisoner's per-

THE Still, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24. 1864.

verted moral obliquity, in conjunction with great aberra-
tion of intellect. There was not any very great difference
between the two statements, but he thought it right to
make the explanation.

WAREHOUSING OF BRITISH SPIRITS BILL.
This bill was read a second time, and ordered to be com-
mitted on Monday.

The bills for which leave had been obtained were read
a first time.

Disgraceful Scene at the Dublin Rotundo,

An "aggregate meeting of the citizens of Dublin"
was convened for Monday evening, in the Round
Room of the Rotondo, to protest against the vote of
the corporation granting a site in College-green for
the statue of the late Prince Consort, to " testify"
their "indignation and shame" at that conduct, and
to " let those who thought the people of Ireland
shared in the base ingratitude displayed on Monday
last towards Henry Grattan hear the people's
solemn declaration." There must have been be.
tween 4,000 and 5,000 persons present. Long
before 8 o'clock—the time announced for the chair
to be taken—the body of the room was crammed
with an assembly scarcely ever paralleled for the
dirty, disorderly, and disreputable elements of
which it was composed. A sea of upturned faces,
grimy with the duet of the workshop or black with
the accumulation of several days' unwashed filth,
surmounted by locks unkempt and unshorn, or the
worst of bad hats, swayed hither and thither like
the surges of an angry sea, and emitting in hoarse
roars sounds of applause or disapprobation as the
names of their partisans or opponents were shouted.
Amongst those on the platform were The
O'Donoghue, M.P., Alderman Tarpey, Alderman
Plunkett, Mr. Egan, T.C., Mr. Whelan, T.C., Mr.
Lombard, J.P., Mr. A. M. Sullivan, Morning News;
Mr. Gill, 7ipperary Advocate; Mr. Ryan, grocer;
and a number of Roman Catholic clergymen. At a
quarter-past eight, amid a seene of confusion such as
we have seldom witnessed,

Mr. Gill, of the Tipperary Advocate, rose and
moved Mr. James Crotty to the chair.
The Chairman rose to address the meeting, but
the conduct of the reeking brutal ruffians who com
posed the audience in front of the platform pre-
vented a single word from being heard at the repor-
ters' table. He was understood to introduce

The O'Donoghue, M.P., who rose amid a scene of
noise and confusion, mingled with applause, that
baffled description. When partial order had been
restored he said—Mr. Chairman, you can easily
suppose that if I did not take a very deep interest
in this movement I would not have come from
Kerry to be here this evening, (Loud applause.)
I never saw, and I have attended many meetings
in this room, so glorious or magnificent a meeting
as the present. (Hear.) There is Jne appeal I would
make to this meeting, and that is to support the
authority of the chair—(hear, and a Voice : " We
won't have Sullivan," which gave rise to a scene of
considerable disorder, mingled with loud cries of
" Put out Sullivan," and hisses.) When silence
was again partially restored The O'Donoghue
proceeded—l refuse to believe that that re-
mark which has just been made represents the
feeling of the people here. (Applause, hisses, and
cries of " No, no.") Not being a citizen of Dublin,
I did not expect to be called upon to take so promi-
nent a position at this meeting as to move the first
resolution. (Voice—" More power to you.") When
I read of what passed at the meeting of the cor-
poration in the City Hall on last Monday—(yells
of disapprobation)-1 immediately wrote to my
esteemed friend Mr. Sullivan—
The remainder of the sentence was lost in a storm
of frantic yells. A scene of the wildest disorder
then ensued, and the fierce multitude who thronged
the hall and platform burst from the slender bonds
of decorum which had hitherto restrained them.
The members of the. Fenian Brotherhood, to whom,
as it appeared, Mr. Sullivan and the Nation are
obnoxious, uttered groans and cries of disapproba-
tion from the various positions which they occupied
in the building, and all attempts to reduce them to
order were vain. Ru>hes were made from every
part of the hall by the partisans of either party, and
blows were given and returned freely. The plat-
form was stormed by a large number of the roughest
and moat blackguard-looking fellows we have ever
seen, and, notwithstanding the resistance of those
stationed thereon, they succeeded in escalading it
and obtaining a partial footing, which they gradu-
ally improved until it was entirely irl their posses-
sion. Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Gill, The O'Donoghue,
and others, beat a hasty retreat from the platform
on which hut a few minutes before they had stood
the demigods of the assembly. Appeals were made
in vain to the patriotism of the mob by their would-
be leaders; one of the priests stood with head bared
and uplifted hands calling for order; the mem-
bers of the committee and a member of the better
conducted exerted their personal and physical in-
fluence to quell the storm, but all to no effect.
Words were unheard or unheeded, and the passions
which had been excited were rather inflamed by
the efforts made to calm them. In one quarter of
an hour from the time the first speaker addressed
the assembly, the meeting, which had been an-
Jounced with such a flourish of trumpets, and for
which such great preparations had been made, was
over, and a tumultuous riot filled the place. For
nearly twc hours the outrageous conduct we have
attempted to describe continued uninterruptedly,
and the wonder is that no serious injury to any per-
son occurred, or was reported to us.—Dublin Ex.
press.

Another Scene in the Belfast Town Council.

Mr. John Rea has been the hero of another scene
in the Belfast Town Council. Mr. Rea, it will be
recollected, was recently convicted on a criminal
information of charging the Mayor of Belfast with
"conspiracy" and "perjury," in connection with
the interminable local broil which has arisen out of
some acts committed years since by the majority of
the Council—acts always impeached by Mr. Rea
in the broadest terms. At the last meeting of
the Council the subjoined resolution came on for
discussion :—" That the bill prepared to carry
into effect the award in the case of the
Belfast Borough Arbitration, as altered by the
fiat of the Right Hon. E. Cardwell be, and the
same is, hereby adopted by the Council." The fol-
lowing extract from a report of six columns long,
all of the same character, will give an idea of what
a plague Mr. Rea must be to the Town Council
The Mayor—Again I order you to sit down. Mr.
Rea (shaking his fist in the Mayor's face, and
frothing at the mouth)—You have infamously en-
deavoured to screen your co-conspirators from the
inevitable justice. Mr. M.Getigh—Who is he talk-
ing about? A Voice—Call him out, the ruffian.
Mr. Rea—l call the members to order while—The
Mayor—l call upon you to sit down. Mr. Rea—l
won't sit down, I tell you to your teeth (thumping
the table and stamping on the floor). The Mayor
—You must. I order you. Mr. Rea—You will
drag me from the room and compel me to submit
ere I do so to your order. Here a frightful
scene of confusion took place. Chairs were pushed
out, books and papers scattered, and everyone
shouted something. Mr. Ilea bellowed till his voice
was heard above the deafening Babel. He stamped,
and shook his fists, and roared out ruffiln," per-
jurer,'suborner,' and such epithets. It was ut-
terly impossibte to catch a consecutive sentence.
The densely-packed crowd swayed and pushed
about, and the efforts of each person to get a good
view increased the confusion_ Mr. Rea shouting
as loud as he possibly coald—l charge you with
corruptly endeavouring to protect Alderman
Lindsay, he being an accused felon, and a co-
conspirator of your own, with Sir Hugh Cairns,
and Mr. Whiteside, and others. (Great cheering.)
The scene at this point was indescribable, every
member rising to his feet, and the gentlemen who
are not in the habit of expressing their opinions
further than by saying 'scandalous,' shocking,'
' vote,' and 'sit down, Rea,' shouting lustily, while
the Mayor stood up to obtain a lacaring and put the
resolution to the meeting. Mr. Rea (in a thundering
voice)—Mayor of Belfast as you are, and violating
your oath of office, I defy you. Mr. John Hammitt
here appeared to be in an awful state of excitement.
We observed him engaged at the side of the hall
where Mr. Rea sits, in pulling hack Mr. Lindsay,
who had a walking stick in his end pressing
him down on a choir."