The Sun.
London, England, 1864-02-17 00:00:00

THE AMERICAN WAR•

The Earl of CARNARVON moved for a return of
claims by British subjects upon the United States Govern-
ment since the secession of the Southern States, specifying
various particulars, and also asked for any information as
to the claims made by the United States Government upon
her Majesty's Government for damages alleged to be done
to A.meriean ships by the Alabama and other Confederate
cruisers. The noble lord proceeded to refer to several cases
of damages committed on British shipping, which he said
in round numbers could not be estimated at less than a total
loss of £2,000,000.

Earl RUSSELL thought that no public advantage could
be served by printing such a voluminous return as that
moved for by the noble earl. He could assure the noble
earl that British commerce with the Southern States was
not on the verge of extinction. The noble earl said that
the prize courts of the United States had not done justice
according to the principles of international law. But he
thought we were bound to accept their decisions. The com-
plaints that were made often arose from ignorance of the
principles of international law as laid down by Lord Stowell
and other great judges in the country. With regard to the
Saxon, the Government were advised by the law officers of
the Crown that she was not taken in British waters. The
ground on which she was seized was that she had received
from the Alabama and Tuscalooza part of their spoils. All
that he could ask in respect of the barbarous murder of the
mate of the Saxon was that the offender should be tried as
soon as possible, and that demand her Majesty's Govern-
ment had made. it was said that it is no satisfaction that
the commander of the Vanderbilt had expressed his regret
at what had occurred ; but what more could he do ?
The Earl of CARNARVON—Has he put the murderer
under arrest ?

Earl RUSSELL—That was a circumstance as to which
the Government had no information, but he had seen it
stated in a newspaper that this had been done. The case
of the Tuscalooza was the case of a vessel which had
been captured by the Alabama. She had been seized in
compliance with the opinion of the law officers of the
Crown that this should be done if she put into a Bri-
tish port. Then, with respect to the claims of the United
States in respect to captures made by the Alabama, her
Majesty's Government had always maintained that we
were not responsible for any acts of hostility committed
by that ship against Federal vessels. The noble earl,
indeed, seemed to suppose that by a letter of his, dated
October 21, ho had admitted that that question should,
at a subsequent period, be referred to arbitration. He
(Earl Russell) admitted nothing of the kind.
Ho stated then, as he had always done, that the
English Government were not responsible for the
acts of the Alabama. The American Minister had spoken
of a reference to ar bitratien—but her Majesty's Goverment
never had consented, and never would consent, to refer this
question to arbitration. (Cheers.) There was some talk
about a commission to discuss the claims made by British
subjects against the United States. The American
Minister had said that he was ready to entertain a proposal
to that effect. But her Majesty's Government had not lii-
tened to the idea, because they felt sure that the American
Government would insist on referring to such a commission
their own claims in respect of the captures of the Alabama ;
• and to that they were not prepared to assent. For a long
time there had been great excitement in America on the sub-
ject of the Alabama. She was constantly called "the Bri-
tish pirate." The feeling of America had been roused against
us. And he thought, when the United States Minister said

ho did not wish to press the cunsideration of these claims for

the present, that the time would come when, after consider-
ing the precedents laid down by the English and their own
judges, the United States Government would come to the
conclusion that they had no claims to prefer. His supposi-
tion was, not that tho English Government would change
their mind, but that the United States Government would
-change theirs—and therefore in this same despatch he went
on to disclaim all liability on our part in respect of the acts
of the Alabama. He quite agreed with the noble earl that
it Wail deairable that these cases should be settled—but how
Could they be settled except by arbitration, to which the
noble earl as well as her Majesty's Government objected ?
Or would he have preferred that the American Govern-
ment should have pushed us to the verge of war ? The
United States said they were willing to keep their claims in
abeyance. Was he to say, " Why don't you make war ?
why don't you push things to extremity ? How can you be
so unreasonable as to go on with us in good and pacific re-
lations ?" (Hear, hear.) The noble earl had blamed him
(Earl Russell) for saying that the sailing of the Alabama
and Oreto from our shores was a scandal and a reproach
to our law. But he considered that, having passed the
Foreign Enlistment Act in 1819, it was a seandal and a re-
proach that one of the two belligerents should be able to fit
out in our ports, and despatch from them, an armed cruiser
to capture the merchant vessels of the other belligerent.
Re could quite understand that a vessel might be sent to
Charleston, and there sold ; but that we should have a law
to prevent the fitting out of armed vessels without her Ma-

jesty's licence, and yet that such a vessel should be built
in our ports and despatched on a hostile cruise, was a scan-
dal and a reproach. A very learned judge had said that not
only a coach and six, but a fleet of ships, could run through
the Foreign Enlistment Act. If that was a correct descrip-
tion of the Act, all he could say was, that we ought to have
laws more clear and intelligible, and more adequate for
their purpose. This Act had been passed to secure the
peace and welfare of the nation. He trusted that it would
be found effectual in preventing British subjects from vio-
lating the Queen's proclamation of neutrality and carrying
on operations of war against her Majesty's declared wish.
(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of CARNARVON expressed his satisfaction at
the explanation given by Earl Russell with respect to the
meaning of his despatch of the 26th October. He quite ac-
cepted that explanation. He must press for the production
of the papers in regard to the case of the Saxon; and he
also particularly desired to be furnished with the instruc-
tions given in regard to the detention of the Tusca!ooza,
The return in an amended form was then agreed to.
The house adjourned at twenty minutes past six,

ROUSE OF COMMONS—Last Evening,
The SPEA.KER took the chair at 4 o'clock,
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The following members were sworn in as a committee of
selection :—Six W. Miles, Sir F. Baring, the Right Hon.
E. Herbert, and Mr. Bonham-Carter.
THE 13ECKINGTON, LEWES, AND BRIGHTON

RAILWAY BILL.
Sir J. SHELLEY, iu moving the second reading of this
bill, stated its object was to obtain railway accommoda-
tion for East Sussex, which
wan not provided by the exist-
ing line. The only opponents to a bill bearing the title of
this bill last year were one landowner and the Brighton
Railway Company, who now opposed this bill. The case of
the former was settled in about an hour. Last year the pro-
moters of the bill, according to his mind, proved that the
Brighton Company charged more than their legal fares,
which they had subsequently reduced. The merchants,
traders, and the residents on the line of the proposed rail.
way were in favour of its construction, and the Only oppo.
Lent was that powerful company whieh naturally was
opposed to any project that would interfere with their pro-
fits in the form of a rival company. The company which he
represented had met the objections urged against it, and
provided a more efficient mode of entrance into Brighton
than the existing line.
Mr. HANKEY strongly opposed the bill on independent
grounds, not being connected with the Brighton Company
or the country which the proposed railway would traverse,
and objected to the measure solely ou public grounds. Ho
contended that it could not be shown that the pro-
posed scheme would be of any public benefit, or that
it would prove a remunerative speculation. He ridi•
croed the idea of making a line to meet the re-
quirements of so insignificant a place as Eastbourne.
There were no new features in the present bill as compared
with that of last year, and the committee investigated the
latter for 35 days, so that in his opinion it would be a most
needless expense to refer the present bill to a committee.
He concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the bill
be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. pAULL, ;Is a member of the committee who consi-
dered the bill of last year, seconded the amend:nent, and
said that the opposition on the part of landowners amounted
to 109. He cited a precedent for refusing the second
reading.
Sir E. COLEBROKE, as a member of the committee
of last year, strongly opposed the bill. There was no doubt
there had been some complaints on the part of some portion
of the Brighton population with respect to the accommoda-
tion afforded by the existing line, but he utterly denied that
the allegation of illegal charges had been established against

the Brighton Company. No doubt there were some altera-
tions in the details of the present bill, but in the main it
was identical with the measure of last year.

Colonel BARTELOTT opposed the bill, a- said that
the Brighton Company had made arrangemear, for meeting
the requirements of the traffic, of the chstr,ct it traversed.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DUTTON' and Mr. BLENCOWE also opposed the bill.
Mr. MASSEY said it was clear that the opinion of the
house was against the bill; and being, in fact, the same
project, and promoted by the same parties as those who
brought forward the measure of last year, it would meet
with the same result.

Sir J. SHELLEY said that after the strong expression
of the house, he would not press his motion to a division.
The motion was then negatived, and tho amendment
agreed to without a division.
CALEDONIAN, EDINBURGH, AND GLASGOW,

AND SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAILWAY COM-
PANIES BILL.

Mr. BUCHANAN opposed the second reading of this
bill, and said the object of the measure was to concentrate
the traffic between the west and east of Scotland, which had
been attempted before without success. He traced the
course of legislation in reference to the attempt to carry out
the objects of the present bill, which aimed at a monopoly.
He contended that if Parliament sanctioned a scheme. like
the present, it would be lending itself to a most dangerous
description of legislation. The opponents of the bill were
those who were interested in the matter more materially,
and, of course, were best acquainted with the advantages
of the proposed scheme.
Mr. BLACK seconded the amendment for the rejection
of the bill amid loud and frequent cries of " Divide."
Sir J. FERGUSSON deprecated the practice of oppos-
ing on second reading in a wholesale way private bills,
as being at variance with the principle of proper legis-
lation on the subject, and denied that the present bill was
identical with those which had been previously introduced
and rejected. He based his support of the second reading of
the bill on important concessions which had been made with
reference to a considerable reduction in the rates with re-
gard to the traffic, and affording the public all the advan-
tages of a competing line. With respect to petitions that
had been got up against the bill, they emanated from a
noisy but small section of those who had no interest in the
traffic of the district traversed by the proposed railway.
Mr. MASSEY objected to the bill, which had been vir-
tually rejected in 1860 and the following year by the deci-
sion of the house, and there had been no change in the cir-
cumstances of the case to justify the introduction of this
measure, not that he wished to pledge himself as an oppo-
nent to all railway amalgamation.
Mr. BLA.CKBURNE considered that after the lapse of
three years, notwithstanding the decision come to by the
house previously, a bill might be properly brought forward.
After a few wards from Mr. DALGLISH, the motion for
the second reading was negatived without a division.
DUBLIN METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
This bill was read a second time, and referred to a com-
mittee.

DUBLIN TRUNK CONNECTING RAILWAY BILL.
This bill was also read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY (No, 3 DONCAS-
TER TO GAINSBOROUGH, &c.) BILL.

Lord R. MONTAGUE proposed the second reading
this bill.

Mr. C. PACKE submitted that this was a line of great
importance, not only to the railway company, but to the
public at large, because it would relieve the main line from
the north up to Peterborough of the coal and mineral traffic.
Mr. R. INGIIA.M was bound, in justice to the promo-
ters of the bill, to say that, so far from the rejection of the
bill by the committee being a discouragement, it was merely
objected to in the form it then was.

Mr. ROEBUCK was sure that nine out of ten members
of the house knew nothing about this matter, and suggested
that it had better be dealt with by a select committee.
After a few words from MASSEY, the bill was read a
second time.