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

VACCINATING SHEEP.

In reply to Sir J. C. JERVOISE,
Mr. LOWE said that the report, relative to the experi-
ments that were being made as to the vaccination of sheep,

wou'td be laid before Parliament before Easter.
PASSAGE OF TOBACCO THROUGH THE
BLOCKADE IN ANI.ERICA.
Sir R. CLIFTON asked the 'Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs, whether it was true that her
Majesty's Government have, on the application of
the French Government, consented that the French Go-
vernment should pass a quantity of tobacco through the
blockade with the approval of the 'Washington Govern-
ment ; and whether her Majesty's Government have
thought it their duty to make any similar application for
the passing of cotton for the benefit of the distressed opera-
fives of Lancashire.

Mr. LAY ARD explained that at the time of the break.

ing out of the war there was a quantity of tobacco belong-
ing to Austria and France at Richmond, and arrangements
were made for its transmission to these countries. The sub-

ject of cotton was entirely a different question.
EXTENSION OF THE COUNTY FRANCHISE.
Mr. LOCKE KING moved for leave to bring in a bill
to extend the franchise in the counties in England and
Wales. He said that the object of the bill was to introduce
into the constituency of the country a class that, from their
intelligence and numbers, were entitled to have a voice in
the election of their representatives in Parliament. He con-
tended that the increase in population justified a corre-
sponding extension in the franchise, and he drew the
attention of the house to the fact that there had been a
decrease in the number of county
_electors within the

last view years, they having dwindled from 622,000 to
519,000, an amount which in no way represented the
population in the rural districts, the fact being
that not one-fourth of that population had got
a voice. The hon. member then entered into a history
of the different efforts which had been made relative to this
subject ire Parliament, but his remarks were listened to with
great indifference by the house, which was numerously
attended.

Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion.
Sir G. GREY said that the Governmont did not intend
to oppose the first reading of the bill, and would therefore
allow the debate on the merits of the measure to stand over
until the second reading.
PUBLIC EXECUTIONS.

Mr. HIBBERT drew the attention of the house to the
demoralising effects of pule‘,,,c executions, and moved for the
production of certain papers in reference to the same. The
hon. member 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, ".ad blasphemy
characterised the spectators, and sctn 94 of a most revolt-
ing character were enacted. Arrwngst the evidence which
he adduced was that of t,
‘l.te sheriffs of different coun-
ties, and he alluded tr:, the graphic description of Mr.
Charles Dickens a letter to the Times on the occasion:of
the execution •ji the Mannings. He next referred to the
practice w'aich prevailed in Prussia and parts of America,
of hav tag executions in private, which was found to act
beneficially, and that practice had been extended advantage-
Ously to Australia,
Mr HADFIELDsaid that capital punishments had failed
in deterring persons from the commission of crime, e-id
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 the strongest terms the principle of capital
punishment.

Sir G. GILEY defended the execution of the five pirates
1111, 1111‘,1 considered was calculated to lead to good results
"e taoped the house would not be induced to accede to Mr.
Ilibbert'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 animadverted 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 officers in her Ma
jesty's service, and 'Messrs. Laird Brothers, relating to the
two iron-clad vessels, the El Tousson and El 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 he was not insensible to the delicacy of the task he ha
undertaken. Some days ago, in calling attention to the
conduct of Americanieruisers, 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 same spirit he
would now call the attention of the house only to that por-
tion of these transaction which. concerned the conduct of
her Majesty's Government. He 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. ref.erence. to
.matters which were still
tho subject of judicial investigation. (Hear.) There was
sometimes great force in` uch an.objection, but not in a case
like the present. If we ere g.oing to discuss the question
whether these vessels were rightly seized or not, there
would 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
neeee.ary for him to refer briefly to the circumstances con-
neeled 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 vessels 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 let 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
that on the 4th September, only three days afterwards, 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 u.seight.
The first questien 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 ratios ? 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 turnish 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 t o 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 coantry 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 ob-
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
will 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,
were capable of doing them most extensive mischief. Then
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
as 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 111 r. 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
only 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 ITnited