The Sun.
London, England, 1863-03-28 00:00:00

Uovernment would deem it expelient to accept. Negotia-
tions, however, were still pending.
BARRACK MASTERS.

Colonel FRENCH asked whether barrack masters, of
late employed as public accountants, bankers, and lawyers,
having charge of public property, paying and receiving
rents, underwent any examination as to their fitness to
carry out su many professions never before united in the
Bann person ?
Sir G. C. LEWIS replied that barrack masters had been
employed in the way mentioned, but not certainly as
lawyers and bankers. (Laughter.) They were examined
as to their competency, and were assisted by competent
soldiers from the ranks. A competent accountant, with a
salary of £4OO a-year, had been appointed to the Pimlico
establishment.

POLAND-ADJOURNMENT FOR THE HOLI-
DAYS.

Lord PALMERSTON moved the adjournment of the
house until the 13th of April.
Mr. HENNESSY called attention to the policy of the Go-
vernment with respect to Poland. He blamed the Govern-
ment for not following the desire of the people of this country,
supporting the et deavours of the Poles to obtain their
indepeudence. Throughout all the evils of Poland the
noble lord at the head of the Government had taken a part
inimical to the aspirations of this unhappy and down-
trodden people.
BUILDING WAR SHIPS FOR THE CONFEDE-
RATES.
Mr. W. E. FORSTEIt rose to ask the First Lord of
the Treasury whether the attention of her Majesty's Go-
vernment had been called to the danger of our friendly
relations with the United States, resulting from the
fitting out in our ports of ships of war for the service
of the self-styled Confederate States, in contravention
of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and of the
policy of neutrality adopted by this country.
The hon. gentleman entered at great length into the sub-
ject, and blamed the Government for their supineness in
connection with the undisguised building of those ships.
He did not ask the Government to infringe the right of any
British subject, but he asked them to act as the Americans
did towards us during the Russian war, not permitting
the construction of ships of war for Russia that might be
used against us. The hon. gentleman then referred in de•
tail to the progress and adventures of the Alabama, There
was no doubt she was built in a British port, and with
British money. She had a British crew on board, and she
not only sailed under the British flag, but lured her enemies
to destruction ender it. She had never been into a Con-
federate port, and he asked the Government to state what
steps they had taken to ascertain how she had changed
from a British to a Confederate ship. He could not see that
she had ever ceased to be a British vessel, and as such she
was subject to British jurisdiction. She had made good use
of her time—(cheers)—having up to Sept. 16 captured and
burnt 10 vessels. The circumstances attending the build-
ing and equipment of the ship were such as to naturally
excite ill-feeling on the part of the American Government
and people, and to induce them to believe that the English
nation ought to be held responsible for the damage she had
inflicted. He, however, did not think we were responsible
for it. (Hear, hear.) Had this been the only ship, he
should not have troubled the house about it; but as it had
been announced that other ships of the same class were to
follow, it became a serious and grave matter as between this
country and the United States. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, in
the intercepted despatches, which gave a confirmation of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer's prophecy in his speech
in the north in October last, 'I that the south would soon
have a navy," they were informed that contracts had been
entered into for six iron-clad ships (which was a fleet in
itself), to be constructed in this country. The question was
what could be done to prevent it, and all he asked was of
her Majesty's Government to carry out the law strictly,
and, if the law were net sufficient for the purpose, to ask
that house for further power—(hear)—similar to the ex-
ample of the United States at the time of the rebellion in
Canada, when they passed a temporary law, to be in force
two years, to prevent armed persons passing over the fron-
tier from the United States into Canada. A similar course
was also adopted by America towards England during
the late Russian war. She then interfered, and pre-
vented American ships sailing under the Russian flag
and destroying our ships and commerce. During the
Crimean war there was a schooner, the Morea, which was
being fitted out in New York, and which was much sus-
pected by our consul. Well, upon the mere lodgment of
information with the Customs Department, the ship was
put in charge of the United States marshal until our
consul was convinced that she was not intended for the
Russian service. Subsequently the New York Chamber
of Commerce met and passed resolutions to the effect that,
if such a breach of international law as was suspected had
been intended, it would have been disgraceful to the cha-
t/toter of American merchants; and, secondly, upholding
the administration of the State in acknowledging that the
law as to neutrality were binding in honour and conscience,
those who violated them as disturbers of the peace of the
world. (Hear.) Under such circumstances it was not sur-
prising that the New York Chamber of Commerce should
have passed such a rssolution as it had recently done. But
while he did not ask the Government to infringe the rights
of any British subject, he must say that, if the Customs'
authorities at Liverpool had shown anything like the vigi-
lance displayed by the American authorities, the Alabama
would never have gone to sea, nor would the six vessels
now fitting out ever go to sea. Nay, if they even exercised
the same vigilance as they did to prevent the smuggling of
a bale of tobacco, the same result would happen. What
would have been the feelings of Englishmen if the Ameri-
cans had dealt by England in the same manner during the
Crimean war ? Why, the indignation of the country would
have been so great that it would have been all but impos-
sible for any Government to have kept peace with the United
States. Nor could he help thinking that the Custom House
authorities, who were principally responsible for the law
being put in force, were acting upon a wrong principle.
They supposed that they were to wait for the action of
the United States Government ; but that was not so. It
was not a question of sympathy for either North or
South, but a question of obedience to the British law. It
might, however, be said that the Government of the United
States had now too much on their hands, not to permit these
things to be done with impunity. Well, suppose that to be
true; but let the house remember what a precedent was
being established for the future. England might be at war
again ; and if so, did they suppose she would be met by con-
duct on the part of America similar to that of the Russian
war. However,he could hardly suppose that such an argu-
ment would be set up in that house. English feeling would
revolt against it. At the same time he doubted that America
was too much occupied to bo compelled to meet such treat-
ment with impunity. He admitted that the Government
had hitherto preserved neutrality in this horrible war under
great temptations, and under no little provocation—(hear,
hear)—but he hoped that their future efforts towards the
same object would be no less effectual.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said his bon. friend who
had just sat down had referred to the strong feeling which
existed in the United States on the subject of the Alabama,
and the important interests which he thought might bo com-
promised if this country did not exert the powers which she
possessed to prevent the fitting out of similar vessels ; and
he said that we could not be surprised that the American
merchants and the American public should hold this country
responsible for the acts of that vessel. He would take the
liberty of saying that we should have reason to be surprised
that so extraordinary an error should prevail in the general
mind of the American public, if it did not happen fortunately
that we were able to trace that error to its source. The ac-
cusations that had been made against this country with re-
spect to the Alabama, and which he hoped to show to the
house were entirely groundless, were but part of a series of
accusations of systematic breaches of neutrality which un-
happily the Government of the United States had per-
mitted themselves to make from, he might almost say, the
beginning of this war against this country. (Hear.) In
their diplomatic communications, made through Mr. Adams,
to her Majesty's Government, and which he deeply re-
gretted to say constituted no small part of the contents of
the book which he held in his hand, and which had been
laid before Congress by the American Government, he
found repeated, over and over again, a catalogue of griev-
ances, of which the Alabama formed only a single item. It
was indispensably necessary, in order that the house should
appreciate the truth of the allegations respecting the Ala-
bama, and to see how utterly destitute of any solid ground
were the complaints that had been made of the conduct of
the Government, that he should show in what company the
charges were found. He would only mention two or three
examples. On the 13th February last they had Mr. Seward
writing to complain of the exportation from this country of
munitions of war and arms, and which he represented as a
breach of neutrality, and which the Government was bound
to prevent. On May 1, 1862, Mr. Seward complained that
money had been provided by subscription, in Liverpool, for
the purchase of arms and munitions for the Confederates.
On May 12 Mr. Adams wrote to Lord Russell, complaining
of the supply of men and ships which he mixed up with
arms and money for one of the parties in the war. On
June 2 Mr. Seward sent to Mr. Adams the report of a
gentleman, who gave along account of the purchase of arms,
munitions of war, and military stores, which had been ship-
ped from England to the Confederate States, and only as
late as the 30th December, 1862, Mr. &dams while engaged
in correspondence with Earl Russell on the subject of the
Alabama, annexed to his despatch a great number of docu-
ments, giving an account of a large quantity of military and
other stores which had been exported from this country to
the Confederate States. It was true that Mr. Adams en-
deavoured to give some colour to that complaint by mixing
it up with the question of the blockade, but he reiterated
the same complaints, and that was the way in which from
first to last, in their diplomatic correspondence with this
country, the United States thought it not unworthy of them
to complain of this country as guilty of breaches of neutra-
lity. They had in that correspondence done no more nor
less than to deny to this country, in this war, those prin-
ciples as neutrals which were invariably recognised in inter-
national law by all nations, and by no nation more strongly
than by the United States themselves. (Cheers.) He had
given the house the dates of the several complaints and their
nature. He would now mention other dates. On the 22d
November, 1862, the Mexican Minister at Washington
addressed a complaint to Mr. Seward to this effect I

have the honour to inform you that my Government has
given me instructions to communicate to that of the United