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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCH 28, 1863.

Govemme•At would deem it expedient to accept. Negotia-
tions, ho,cever, 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
earns person ? _ _

Sir G. C. LE WIS 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 tho adjournment of the
howso 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 endeavours of the roles to obtain their
independence. 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. FORSTER. 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 under it. She h,cl 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, " 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 eha-
teeter 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 nut sur-
prising that the New York Chamber of Commerce should
have passed such a resolution 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 oven 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 be 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 SOLIC [TOR-GENERAL said his hon. 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 be coin-
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 ae-
eusatione 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 Mrsho
.Sewgaavrde
a long se
t.Mr .
accountAdamsofthe
putrheeh
purchase
oorftof
arms,a
gentleman, who
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 whtle 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 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-
cipies 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 bad
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

States-, that the Mexican Government has reliable information
to the effect that the chief of the French expedition which is
invading the republic has sent emissaries to New Orleans
and New York to purchase mules and waggons for trans-
porting the cannon, war materials, and provisions into the
interior of Mexico. My Government thinks that if such
purchases should be realised the neutrality which should be
observed would be violated by the sellers." What was the
answer of Mr. Seward to the remonstrance ? On the 24th
November Mr. Seward in his reply quoted sundry extracts
from well-known authorities, and these he considered his
answer to the complaint of the Mexican Minister. What
were they ? The first was an instruction to the collectors of
customs, issued by Alexander Martin, the Secretaty to the
Treasury, August 4, 1793, as follows :—" The purchasing
and exporting from the United States, by way of merchan-
dise, articles called contraband, being generally warlike in-
struments and stores, is free to all parties at war, and ought
not to be interfered with." (Cheers.) " If our citizens
undertake to carry them, they will be abandoned to the
penalties which the laws of the country authorises." Had
this country not abandoned to the penalties which:the laws
of the country authorised all those ships which had been
taken on the high seas, and which were subject to such
penalties ? hear.) The next extract was dated
July 8, 1842, from Mr. Webster :—" It is not the practice
of nations to undertake to prohibit their own subjects from
trafficking in contraband of war. Such trade is carried en
at the risk of those engaged in it, under the liabilities and
penalties prescribed by the law of nations." (Cheers.)
There they had Mr. Webster's instructions, and according
to them, if American merchants in the way of commerce
sold munitions of war to Texas, the Government of the
United States were not bound to prevent it, and could not
prevent it without a manifest departure from the prin-
ciples of neutrality. (Hear, hear.) The next extract
was from President Pierce's Message to Congress in
1855: " The laws of the United States do not forbid
our citizens to sell to either of the belligerent Powers
articles contraband of war, or to take munitions of war or
soldiers on board their private ships for transportation ; and
although in so doing the individual citizen exposes his pro-
perty or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do
not involve any breach of international law, and do not of
themselves implicate the Government." Complaints had
been made a$ to loans of money to the Confederates. What
did Mr. Webster say on that subject in the year 1841 ?
"As to advances of money or goods to the Government of
Texas, or to its citizens, the Mexican Government hardly
needs to be informed that there is nothing unlawful in
this, or that these are things which no Government un-
dertakes to restrain." (Hear, hear.) The American mind
would be better prepared to appreciate the justice and spe-
cific value of the complaints made as to the Alabama by an
application to them of those acknowledged principles of in-
ternational law. The Government of this country were de-
term'ned to enforce our own laws according to law and adher-
ing to constitutional principles and precedents. The Foreign
Enlistment Act was confined to this country, and had refer-
ence only to British subjects. If ithad been violated America
had no more right to complain of that than they had topre-
vent its enactment or repeal. The United States had a
Foreign Enlistment Act, which, being older than ours, had
been oftener the subject of judicial decisions. In 1815, in
the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest tri-
bunal in the country, it was decided that a neutral nation
might, if so disposed, without any treach of its neutral
character, grant permission to both belligerents to equip
vessels of war within its territory. But without such per-
mission the subjects of such belligerent Powers had no right
to equip vessels, because that was a violation of the sove-
reign rights of the neutral Power. That was the principle
on which the decision was based. If, a priori, ships, like
cannons, or arms and munitions, might be sold, unless the
neutral State interfered to prevent it, what was the right
which a foreign Government derived from the existence of
the Foreign EnlistmentAet? Simply this, that it might appeal
to the friendly feeling and disposition of the neutral Power
to enforce its own laws within its own territory, and upon
its own subjects; but it could not complain if the law was
enforced upon the only principle recognised in this country—
upon evidence, not upon suspicion; according to law, not ac-
cording to presumption ; upon well-founded testimony, and
not upon the suspicion or complaint of a foreign Minister.
It was not the right of a foreign Government to insist that
the Foreign Enlistment Act should be enforced any more
than any other law in this country. He would not enter into
the difficulties of enforcing the law. Two things must be
proved—first, that there had been what the law would con-
sider a fitting out, arming, and equipping of the vessel;
and, secondly, that it was intended for the service of a bel-
ligerent Power. Upon these points they had a decision by
Judge Story in the Supreme Court of the United States in
1832. The first case to which he would refer was that of a ship
which was originally a privateer, and employed as such in
the war between the United States and Great Britain. That
war came to an end ; and after the capture of the vessel she
was turned into a frigate, and was sold, and for a short time
was used for purposes of commerce. Then a war having
broke out between Spain and her revolted colonies in Jan.,
1816, this vessel was loaded with munitions of war by her new
owners, who were inhabitants of Baltimore, and was armed
with 12 guns, which constituted part of her original arma-
ment. She was sent from that port, under the command of
a citizen of the United States, to Buenos Ayres, which was
then at war with the 'United States. By written instructions
the cargo in that vessel, and the vessel itself, were autho-
rised by the owners to be sold to the Government of Buenos
Ayres, if a satisfactory price could be obtained. She arrived
at Buenos Ayres, having committed no acts of hostility on
her voyage. She sailed with the United States flag, and
was sold to the Government of Buenes Ayres. She assumed
the flag and character of a publio ship, and from that was
employed in war—the same captain and the greater part of
the same crew navigating her. Well, what was the judgment
of Mr. Justice Story in that case ? He said it was apparent
that if she was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial ad-
venture she in no shape violated the laws of international
neutrality, but if she had been captured by a ship of war
daring her voyage, she would be justly condemned as a prize
if engaged in a traffic prohibited by the law of nations. But
he said there was nothing in the United States law or in the
law of nations that forbade their citizens from sending
armed vessels and munitions of war to foreign ports for sale.
That was a commercial adventure which no nation was
bound to prohibit, and which only exposed the person en-
gaged in it to the penalty of confiscation. Supposing the
voyage of the ship in question to have been for a commer-
cial purpose, and that the sale to the Buenos Ayres Go-
vernment was a bona fide sale, there was no pretence for
saying that the original venture was illegal. He (the
Solicitor-General) would refer to another American deci-
sion, namely, that in the case of the De Quinsey. The
doctrine laid down in that case was—if the defendant, who
was accused of having violated the Foreign Enlistment
Act, was entitled to an acquittal if these facts should ap-
pear :—lf it were found that when the ship was being fitted
out and equipped at Baltimore, the owner and equipper in-
tended to go to the West Indies in search of funds with
which to arm and equip the vessel, and that no person em-
ployed it as a privateer, but intended, when it was equipped
to go to the West Indies to endeavour to raise funds to pre-
pare her for a cruise as a privateer. The intentions of the
owner must be fixed and not conditional, or dependant on
some future event. The legality or criminality of the act
must depend a good deal upon whether the adventure was
of a commercial or warlike character. If any violation of
international law had been committed, the United States
Government were entitled to say to our Government, " You
have laws, the violation of which may be injurious to Us
and we submit to you a case of such violation ;" and the
Government were always ready to listen to any evidence of
a violation of such laws. But let not the house be misled,
and he trusted the Americans would not be misled so far as
to suppose there was any reason for complaining of an in-
fraction of international law, merely because ships of war
which carried on their belligerent operations came from this
country. There was no such reason for complaining.
(Hear.) The United States Government would have reason
to complain if her Majesty's Government, directly or indie
rectly, were concerned in fitting out such belligerent ships.
But when individuals did so, there was no infraction of in-
ternational law. His hon. friend had said that the Alabama
was not the first ship which had escaped from this country.
(Hear.) It was true that the Oreto did so, but under
what circumstance ? On the 18th of February the first in-
formation was communicated to our Government by Mr.
Adams respecting that vessel, and such a case was made
out as clearly called for inquiry. Accordingly the Commis-
sioners of Customs were called on to make inquiry on the
24th February, and the circumstances which they learnt
tended to show that she was going to Italy and not to the
United States. At that time she was not fitted for the re-
ception of guns, and had only coals and ballast. There was
no case to justify her detention, nothing beyond suspicion.
Well, the Oreto sailed on the 22d March, and from infor-
mation laid before the Government, after her departure, by
Mr. Adams it became perfectly clear that she was intended
for the service of the Confederate States, and that the Go-
vernment immediately sent out to Nassau, hearing she was
taking in stores, and although the case was very doubtful,
still to prove our good faith the Oreto was seized. What
was the result? She was tried and acquitted. There was
no evidence against her. Did we show any want of good
faith in this ? Now, with respect to the Alabama, the main
facts were these. It was true that on the 23d of June Mr.
Adams first called the attention of Government to informa-
tion which he had received about the building of the Ala-
bama. Now, down to that time, it had often been :aid
that there were many ships being built in this country for
the Confederate service ; but no evidence was ever produced
built except in the case of the Grote ; and, what was more, there
the Government
was no ground for supposing that there wore any more ships
for the
Confederate S ta
directed
t e .
h t Well, e e
uponommAmis
sn
1 r.Ai
odaemr so'
iof
Customs Customs to make an inquiry with respect to the Alabama.
The inquiry was made, and on the Ist
of July a report was
delivered, in which it
was stated that it was perfectly evi-
dent that the ship was a ship-of-war, and it
was believed
that she was for a foreign Government ; but the
builders
would give no information, and there was no other reliable
source or intelligence on the subject. Were they wrong in
not seizing upon the vessel then? Let them recollect the
decision of Justice Story—the circumstances being exactly
similar in both cases. There being nothing but suspi-
cion, it would be perfectly unwarrantable in the law to seize
her. Lord Russell communicated this to Mr. Adams, and
said that, if Mr. Adams could furnish any better evidence,
lie would proceed to action. Now the Government had been

accused of unnecessary delay. Was there ever a more un-
just accusation ? Mr. Adams's first information was on the
23d June. He should have been ready with his evidence
from the beginning. Lord Russell sent Mr. Adams the re-
port of the commissioners on the 4th July. How long did
Mr. Adams take to collect his evidence and submit it to
Lord Russell ? From the 4th July to the 21st—a period of
17 days, and it was not completed until the 24th, and Mr.
Adams's letter was not received by the Government until
the 26th. Well, in the meantime Mr. Adams had got two
opinions from the hon. and learned member for Plymouth
(Mr. Collier). Of the six depositions transmitted on the 26th
July only one was good for anything ; that was one from a
man named I'assmore, and that, in his (the Solicitor-Gene-
ral's) opinion, was quite sufficient to prove the material
facts. Two more depositions, corroborative of Passmore's
evidence, were received on the 24th. Now what was the
delay of which the Government was accused ? The com-
pleted evidence was not in Lord Russell's hands until the
26th—that was on the Saturday. Sunday was on the 27th,
and on Monday, the 28th, he told Mr. Adams he would
communicate with the law officers of the Crown. He did so,
got their opinion on the 29th, and the same
.day the noble
lord sent down a telegraphic message to stop the ship. He
was willing to make allowance for the natural irritation
which existed among the people of America, and he was as
anxious that the Governments of the two nations should
stand straight with each other. But he was shocked at the
perversion of mind which, in the face of these facts, could
accuse our Government of unreasonable delay. His hon.
friend had referred to the case of the Morea, as an example
of the good faith of the United States during our war with
Russia. But if they examined it it would appear that they
did nothing whatever which was not exactly parallel
to what we had done in the case of the Atabama.
Information was given by the British Consul on the 11th
of October, 1855, that this was a ship of war intended for
tee Russian service. 'I he United States Government tele-
graphed immediately to the proper office at New York,
"not to give her a clearance at present." Did we give a
clearance to the Alabama ? She sailed without a clearance.
We were not guilty of any delay in arresting her departure.
It was only by stratagem, by violating the ordinary laws of
the port that she was enabled to escape. So far there was
a difference between the two cases When was it that the
Morea was really arrested ? Not till the 17th—a longer
delay than happened in the case of the Alabama. He men-
tioned this circumstance to show that each Government
had acted with promptitude and despatch, and that there
was no reason to suppose that either one or the other had
been guilty of delay. His hon. friend had asked what we
proposed to do with respect to other ships that were sup-
posed to he building in this country for the Confederate
States, and whether they considered the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act was only to be enforced at the instance of Foreign
Governments. He had no hesitation in answering that the
Government by no means looked upon it as an act to be en-
forced at the instance of foreign Governments. Her Ma-
jesty's Government were most anxious to enforce that act
to the best of their power, but of course they must have
legal grounds for acting upon it, It would not do to tell
them that six iron-clad vessels were going to be built in
this country, unless the Government had the means of
knowing where and by whom, and evidence to show that
by being so built they involved parties in viola-
tion of the law. (Hear, hear.) The Government
would be glad to receive information on that sub-
ject from any quarter ; and he did not fear to express his in-
dividual opinion, as being in accordance with that of his
hon, friend, that it would be well if the merchants of this
country who might be invited to become parties to violate
the law, and at the same time calculated to involve the Go-
vernment in dangerous relations—at least in relations which
might lead to the interruption of amicable and friendly
feelings—he repeated that it would be well and desirable
that they should reflect that merchants, as well as others,
should respect the laws of the country, and have regard to
the interests of peace, and some regard, at all events, to the
feelings of foreign belligerent nations. He believed that the
Government, without partiality and favour, whenever they
discovered a clue to any such proceedings, would be pre-
pared and anxious to put the law into force as against any
persons in respect to whom they had such evidence as
would lead to a conviction. If the law was defective it
ought to be altered; but as it was the same as the law of the
United States, which Mr. Adams said did not require altera-
tion, our Government did not see that it would be desirable
to alter it unless the United States altered their law in this
respect. It would be unjust to blame a Government for all
the acts of individuals. Who, for example, would blame the
United States Government for the filibustering expedition
of Walker ? In times of excitement, and when the love of
adventure and commercial speculation strongly animated a
people, no Government could restrain them. It would be
quite unfair to hold our Government responsible for what
the Alabama had done—a ship that did not receive her
armaments until she arrived at a foreign port. The people
of this country had reason to congratulate themselves
that, so far as their Government were concerned, the strictest
neutrality had been observed, and that with two exceptions
the people had been strictly neutral also. (Hear.) He
believed that there were a great many British subjects
who had entered the service, not of the Confederates, but
of the it ederals. (Hear.) Mr. Seward, in his letter, passed
very lightly over the conduct of an American capt sin
who had induced British subjects to enter the service of the
United States, y et our Government made no complaint about
the matter. He hoped the house would be satisfied that our
Government had acted in good faith, and that what had been
said that evening would tend to remove false impressions
from th© Americans and their Government, (Hear.)
Mr. BARING regretted the tone of the hon. and learned
gentleman's speech, because he thought it would not tend
to calm the indignation of the American people. It was more
an indictment of their policy than an apology for our own.
Mr. BRIGHT said there was a great difference between
that speech and another made by the Solicitor-General last
year, and he should think the effect of it would be to bring
to Mr. Seward's mind what he would have done in another
court with a brief in his hand. The hon. gentleman then
read two letters which he had received, one from a Mr. W.
L. Nicholson, of the United States survey, dated Washing-
ton, March 5, complaining that the Oreto had seized a ves-
sel while flying the British flag, and had afterwards run up
the Confederate colours. Captain Small, the master of the
vessel, had, only in 1858, been presented with a silver-
mounted telescope by the British Government, for saving
lives when an English vessel was in distress, and he thought
it hard that the Alabama should be allowed thus to violate
the British flag to do damage with impunity. The other
letter was from a Liverpool merchant, and mentioned the
names of a number of rams and vessels of war, with their
builders, which vessels, the writer said, it was well known
in the trade were for the Confederates. There was only
one other point to which he would call attention. The
Solicitor-General thought he had gained a great triumph
over the hon. member for Bradford, when he stated it was
not necessary to make any alteration in the Foreign En-
listment Act. It might not be necessary in the sense in
which the hon. and learned gentleman regarded it, but
it was a common thing for all Governments to make or
alter a law to suit special cases. He recollected that the
Government of which the present Foreign Secretary was
the head had brought in a bill for making "open and ad-
vised speaking" felony, which before was only sedition. In
the year 1837 the United States Government found that
their Enlistment Act did not give them power to act as sum-
marily as they liked to prevent any difficulty between them-
selves and this country with reference to the affairs of Ca-
nada; and they accordingly passed an act to meet the exi-
gencies of the case. The hon. and learned gentleman had
said that the Foreign Enlistment Act had nothing to do
with the law of nations, and that the alteration of it would
not prevent the building of ships. He did not know whether
this was true as regarded this country, but it was not so as
regarded the United States. He would not go into further
details ; but he was satisfied the speech of the hon. and
learned gentleman would not give greater satisfaction to
many persons in this country than it would to very many in
the United States. He was further satisfied that if anybody
in this country was building a ship of war, and there was a
suspicion it was intended to help the revolutionary party in
the little kingdom of Portugal—Portugal was always a pet
kingdom with the English Government—he had not the
slightest doubt the Government would step in and stop it.
He said, then, that their neutrality was a cold and unfriendly
neutrality; and the time had come when the Government
should look this question in the face, and exert all their in-
fluence in preventing this country from being embroiled
with the United States—a nation, of all others in the world,
they had the greatest interest in being on terms of peace
with. Let them not think that because the United States
were in a great calamity they would not come out of it a
great nation. Let them not believe that acts like these would
be forgotten, either now or hereafter. There were people in
America who were interested in creating ill-feeling towards
this country. Why, there were two millions of Irishmen in
America; and wherever an Irishman planted his foot in a
foreign country there stood an enemy to England. (Great
laughter.) Lord North had made a speech at the time of the
first American war, in which he stated that those who were
most hostile to England were the emigrants who had gone
from Ireland. (Hear, hear.) There were elements of hos.
tility also in this country, and he would say the man was
not worthy the name of a Minister who, instead of speaking
with a cold and unfriendly tone, did not know that all the
living world and all posterity would judge and condemn
him if he omitted anything he could do to preserve the
peace between the United States and England. He was not
afraid to stand there, not to defend Mr. Seward's despatches,
but in defence of the great claims which the people of the
United States had upon the generous forbearance and sym-
pathy of Englishmen. The hon. member then referred to
the enthusiastic meeting held the previous evening in St.
James's Hall, where upwards of 3,000 of the most intelli-
gent of the artisans of London assembled to express their
sympathy with the Northern States, and concluded by ap-
pealing to the noble lord at the head of the Government,
who, after a long life, ruled the affairs of the country with
greater concurrence of opinion than perhaps any Minister
had enjoyed, to rise in his place and utter such friendly
words—words which he knew so well how to utter—as
would give greater confidence to the friends of peace, not
only upon the other side of the Atlantic, but to the vast
number who hung upen his utterances in this country.
(Cheers.)

Mr. LAIRD—Alter the discussion that has taken place
about the Alabama I shall not trouble the house with
many remarks. I can only say, from all I know and all I

have heard, that from the day the vessel was down to her
completion everything was open and aboveboard in this
country. (Cheers.) I also further say that the officers of
the Government had every facility afforded them for in-
specting the ship during the progress of building. When
the officers came to the builders they were shown the ship,
and day after day the Customs officers were on Ward, as
they were when she finally left, and they declared there was
nothing wrong. (Hear, from Mr. Bright.) They only left
her when the tug left, and they were obliged to declare that
she left Liverpool a perfectly legitimate transaction. (Hear,
hear.) One point has been overlooked in this discussion.
If a ship without guns and without arms is a dangerous
article, surely rifled guns and ammunition of all sorts are
equally— (cheers)—and even more dangerous. (Cheers) I
have referred to the bill of entry in the Custom houses of
London and Liverpool, and I find there have been vast ship-
ments of implements of war to the Northern States through
the celebrated house of Baring and Co.—(loud cheers and
laughter)—Brown, Shipley, and Co., of Liverpool, and a
variety of other names, which I need not more particularly
mention, but whose Northern tendencies are well known to
this house. (Hear.) If the member for Rochdale, or the
hon. member for Bradford, wishes to ascertain the extent to
which the Northern States of America have had supplies of
arms from this country, they have only to go to a gentleman
who, I am sure, will be ready to afford them every informa-
tion, and much more readily than he would to me or to any
one else calling upon him—the American Consul in Liver-
pool. Before that gentleman the manifest of every ship is I
laid, he has to give an American pass to each vessel, he is
consequently able to tell the exact number of rifles which
have been shipped from this country for the United States—
information, I doubt not, which would be very generally de-
sired by this house. (Loud cries of Hear, hear.) I have ob-
tained from the official Custom-house returns some details
of the sundries exported from the United Kingdom to the
Northern States of America from the Ist of May, 1861, to
the 31st of December, 1862. There were :—Muskets, 41,500
(hear, hear); rifles, 341,000 (cheers); gun-flints, 25,500; per-
cussion-caps, 49,982,006 (cheers and laughter) ; and swords,
2,250. The best information I could obtain leads me to be-
lieve that from one-third to a-half may be added to these
numbers for items which have been shipped to the Northern
States as hardware. (Hear.) I have very good reason for
saying that a vessel of 2,000 tons was chartered six
weeks age for the express purpose of taking out a cargo
of "hardware" to the United States. (Cheers.) The
exportation has not ceased yet. From the Ist of
January to the 17th of March, 1863, the Customs bills
of entry show that 23,870 gun•barrels, 30,800 rifles, and
3,105,800 percussion-caps were shipped to the United States.
(Hear.) So that if the Southern States have got two ships
unarmed, unfit for any purpose of warfare—for they pro-
cured their armaments somewhere else—the Northern States
have been well supplied from this country, through the
agency of some most influential persons. (Hear.) Now it
has been stated—and by way of comparison treated as mat-
ter of complaint—that during the Crimean war the Ameri-
cans behaved so well. The hon. member for Bradford and
the member for Birmingham both lauded their action as
compared with that of our own Government. Now I have
heard that a vessel sailed from the United States for Petro-
paulovski. (Cries of "Name.") If hon. members will
allow me I will go on, and first I propose to read an extract
from the Times, written by their correspondent at San
Francisco, dated the 29th of January. 1863 :
" Now this case of the Alabama illustrates the saying
that a certain class should have a good memory. During
the Crimean war a man-of-war (called the America, if I
remember) was built in America for the Russian Govern-
ment, and brought out to the Pacific, filled with arms and
munitions, by an officer of the United States navy. This
gentleman took her to Petropaulovski, where she did service
against the allied squadron ; and she is still in the Russian
navy. (No, and hear.) We made no such childish fuss
about this act of hostility by a friendly Power, which we
could not prevent, as our friends are now making about the
Alabama, whose departure from England our Government
could not stop."
The America was commanded by a Lieut. Hudson, who—
if my information is correct, and I have no doubt that it is
—was then, or had been just previously, a lieutenant in the
American navy; he was the son of a most distinguished
officer in the same service, Captain Hudson. lam further
informed that some doubts having arisen about the charac-
ter of this ship, the American men-of-war in the different
ports she called at protected her; and, on her arrival in
Russia, the captain who took her out was, I know, very
handsomely rewarded for his. services. (Hear.) Now, I
will go a step further about the Northern States. In 1861,
just after the war broke out, a friend of mine, whom I have
known for many years, was over here, and came to me with
a view of getting vessels built in this country for the Ame-
rican Government—the Northern Government. (Hear.)
Its agents in this country made inquiries, plane and esti-
mates were given to my friend, and transmitted to the
Secretary of the American navy. I will read an extract
from this gentleman's letter, dated July 30, 1861. It is
written from Washington, and states:—
"Since my arrival here I have had frequent interviews
with our ' Department of Naval Affairs,' and am happy to
say that the Minister of the Navy is inclined to have an
iron-plated ship built out of the country, (Hear.) This
ship is designed for a specific purpose to accomplish a defi-
nite object. I send you herewith a memorandum, handed
me last evening from the Department, with the request that
I would send it to you by steamer's mail of to-morrow, and
to ask your immediate reply, stating, if you will agree to
build a ship as desired, how soon, and for how much, wi'h
such plans and specifications as you may deem it best to
send me."

(Loud cheers.) The extract from the memorandum states
that "the ship is to be finished complete, with guns and
everything appertaining." (Renewed cheers and laughter.)
On Aug. 14 I received another letter from the same gentle-
man, from which the following is an extract :
" I have this morning a note from the Assistant-Secre-
tary of the Navy, in which he says, ' I hope your friends will
tender for the two iron-plated steamers.' "

(Hear, hear.) After this, the firm with which I was lately
connected, having made contracts to a large extent with
other persons, stated that they were not in a position to
undertake any orders to be done in so short a time. This
was the reply :

" I sent your last letter, received yesterday, to the Secre-
tary of the Navy, who was very desirous to have you build
the iron-plated or bomb-proof batteries, and 1 trust that he
may yet decide to have you build one or more of the gun-
boats."

(Loud cheers) I think, perhaps, in the present state of
the law in America, I shall not be asked to give tie name
of nay correspondent—(hear)--but he is a gentleman of the
highest respectability. If any hon, member wishes, I
should have no hesitation in handing the whole correspon-
dence, with the original letters, into the hands of you, sir,
or the First Minister of the Crown, in strict confidence, be-
cause there are communications in these letters, respecting
the views of the American Government, which I certainly
should not divulge, which I have not mentioned or alluded
to before. But seeing the American Government are
making so much work about other parties, whom they
charge with violating or evading the law, though in reality
they have not done so, I think it only fair to state these
facts. (Cheers.) As I said before, they are facts, (Hear,
hear.) Ido not feel at liberty to state those points to which
I have referred, as being of a confidential character; but,
if any hon. gentleman feels a doubt regarding the accuracy
of what I have stated, I shall feel happy to place the docu-
ments in the hands of the Speaker, or of the First Lord of
the Crown, when he will see that they substantiate much
more than I have stated. (Cheers.) Ido not wish to oc-
cupy the house longer; but I must say this, that to talk of
freedom in a land like the Northern States of America is
an absurdity. Almost every detective that can be got hold
of in this country is employed. (Hear, hear,) I believe
there are spies in my son's works in Birkenhead, and in all
the great establishments in the country. A friend of mine
had detectives regularly on his track in ccnsequence of
some circumstances connected with his vessels. It that be
freedom, I think we had better remain in the position in
which we now are. (Cheers and laughter.) In conclusion,
I will allude to a remark which was made elsewhere last
night—a remark, I presume, applying to me, or to some-
body else, which was utterly uncalled for. (Hear.) I have
only to say, that I would rather be handed down to pos-
terity as the builder of a dozen Alabamas than as the man
who applies himself deliberately to set class against class—
(loud cheers) --and to cry up the institutions of another
country which, when they come to be tested, are of no
value whatever, and which reduce liberty to an utter
übsurdity. (Cheers.)

happened ; for it was notorious that Federal officers had
declared that they had received iirdett from Washington,
to capture particular vessels, and they must do so, When-
ever and wherever they could catch them ; and there could
be no doubt that Commodore Wilkes only acted in accord-
ance with instructions when he captured the Peterhoff. The
hon. member for Birmingham had spoken with considerable
asperity of certain captures in neutral waters, and this was
an additional fact against the United States Government,
that this capture took place in neutral waters, first by the
Alabama, and afterwards by Commodore Wilkes. No doubt
her Majesty's Government would say that, under the cir- .
cumstances, she must be left to the decision of the prize
court. He, however, was not disposed to go into the prize
courts of the United States; and where those courts were
above all suspicion, and there was a certainty that the law
would be impartially and justly administered, it was but
little satisfaction to the owners. The hon. gentleman re-
ferred to the delays in the United States prize courts, and
observed that he confessed he had no faith in obtaining jus-
tice from them. He urged that, from the correspondence
that had been laid on the table, it was evident that they
were not in possession of all the information it was in the
power of her Majesty's Government to give them, and that
something which had been kept back had passed between
Earl Russell and Mr. Adams relative to these captor es, and
that a plan had been spoken of by them as emanating from
Mr. Seward, and communicated to Earl Russell, for the
guidance of Federal officers in the captures of British ships,
which the noble lord spoke of as satisfactory. He censured
the Government for withholding the information, and com-
plained that the house had not been treated fairly with re-
gard to the correspondence generally. All they had been
furnished with was the papers relating to the Alabama ; the
despatches between Mr. Mason and Earl Russell ; and a
reprint of the information by the United States President to
Congress so far back as December last. There were matters o
great importance of which the house ought to be informed,
viz., the refusal of clearances from New York to Nassau,
and the convention between this country and America with
the view to an adjustment of the claims to neutral rights.
It wati evident that something had passed between the two
Governments with regard to raising recruits in this country,
but no information had been given to them on it It was
also evident that information relative to the ship Peterhoff
had been kept back, and it was curious that in the list of
suspected vessels communicated to Earl Russell; when the
satisfactory arrangement for their capture was communi-
cated to him, were the names of the Springbok, the Adele,
and the Peterhoff, all of whom had been captured ; and to
the last-named ship was attached a note stating that she
was loading for Matamoras. No doubt her Majesty's Go-
vernment were responsible for the seizure of this vessel. In
the course of last year representations were made to Earl
Russell, either by the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce or
(.r by a body of Liverpool merchants, that the Federal Go-
vernment had established what was in effect a blockade of
the port of Nassau. Well, Earl Russell replied that Nas-
sau had been made a depot for the reception of contraband
of war, and he, therefore, recommended the Liverpool mer-
chants, as their best defence against capture, that they
should not engage in trade with Nassau. Now that was a
letter conceived in the spirit of insult ; it had nothing to do
with the matter complained of, namely, that the legitimate
trade of these gentlemen had been interfered with. The
noble lord was perfectly aware what was the law on the
subject; nevertheless, he evaded the question. If, how-
ever, the noble lord, instead of lecturing those Liverpool
merchants, bad declared to them that all such illegal acts
would be resisted, did any one suppose that the conduct
complained of would have been repeated ? He had no
doubt that they should hear that evening that the Govern-
ment regarded this as a most serious case, and that they had
acted with respect to it with great energy. He did not doubt
that they had; for the case was so gross and so grave, that
no Government could maintain itself in office which acted
otherwise ; but it would have been far better to have pre-
vented its occurrence by evincing in the outset the determi-
nation of the Government to uphold British merchants in
the exercise of their legitimate commerce. He hoped that
all the papers bearing upon the general question would be
produced as speedily as possible.
Mr. CRAWFORD was able to give some information
with respect to the cargo of the Peterhoff. The vessel was
advertised to sail in the usual way, with a general cargo,
for the port of Matamoras. She carried a mail, and her ar-
rangements for taking in a supply of coals at the West
Indies weresuch as to satisfy any one that her intention was
make as speedy a voyage as possible. Her owners had
placed in his hands the " ship's manifest," as well as other
documentary evidence on the subject, which made it quite
plain that the cargo was of a most miscellaneous character.
The Mexican law required that in the case of a cargo sent
to any of the ports of that country, the full particulars of
every package in the ship should be distinctly stated. Well,
he had had an opportunity of perusing the ship's manifest,
and therefore he could state that he was quite satisfied as to
the character of the cargo. But, moreover, he had the full
assurance of gentlemen connected with the ship, who had
waited upon him, that there was nothing whatever of a con-
traband character on board. He might add that there was
a reason which occurred to him to account for the ship
having been stopped, and that was, that the American Go-
vernment desired to prevent all interference with the very
extensive trade just now carried on between the port of New
York and Matamoras.

Mr. GRIFFITH asked whether her Majesty's Govern •
ment•had received any information of the passage of Rus-
sian troops through Prussian territory in order to attack
the Polish insurgents, and whether it was true, as was
stated, that a British subject had been seriously injured
by the Russian troops while pursuing his lawful avoca-
tions in Poland. This person, whose name was Ludwig
Finkeston, and who was furnished with a passport signed
by Earl Russell on the 27th March, 1862, had been seized
while travelling in a carriage, had 25 to 26 bayonet
wounds inflicted on him, and had been robbed of 5,000 or
6,000 roubles (L 1,000), and then taken on to Cracow in a
very much injured state.

Mr. LAYARD rose to answer the question put by the
hon. member for Horsham, and to reply to two or three ob-
servations he had made which required contradiction. As
regarded the Peterhoff, the facts which he had mentioned,
and which had been submitted to the Government, were the
ex parte statements of the owners of the vessel. Of course
he did not mean to call in question the accuracy of those
facts; but he thought the house would agree with him
when he stated that her Majesty's Government could take
no immediate action on statements of such a nature. The
facts as stated by the owners had been submitted without a
moment's delay to the law officers of the Crown. When
their opinion was known, such representations would be
made to the Government of the United States as seemed
desirable. The hon. gentleman said that her Majesty's
Government had shown no energy in the matter. Now, as
this case had only been brought to their attention two days
since, he should like to know from the hon. member what
more could have been done than had already been done. The
hon. member talked about an arrangement made between
her Majesty's Government and the Government of the
United States regarding the proceedings of the American
cruisers in stopping English vessels. He had stated that
Earl Russell had admitted a list of suspected vessels, con-
ceding, as it were, the right of the United States to stop
those vessels. The hon. member was labouring under an
entire delusion as regarded this arrangement. He (Mr.
Layard) had never heard of any such arrangement what-
ever. The hon. member had quoted certain papers laid be-
fore the United States Legislature, which had been reprinted
by her Majesty's Government, in which allusion was made
to certain arrangements made by the United States as re-
garded their own cruisers. It was perfectly true that her
Majesty's Government had strongly objected to the pro-
ceedings of the cruisers of the United States, and, as a
consequence of these objections and protests, the United
States Government had issued orders to their cruisers,
which orders Earl Russell had considered more satisfactory
than they had been previously. With regard to the list of
suspected vessels that had come in an enclosure from Mr.
Adams, they did not commit her Majesty's Government,
who had nothing whatever to do with the matter. He dis-
tinctly denied that any such arrangement had baen made by
her Majesty's Government and the Government of the
United States as the hon. member had alluded to. With
respeet to the question put by the hon. member for Devizes
(Mr. Griffith), he must say it related to one of the most
disgraceful and cowardly outrages he had ever heard of.
It appeared that Mr. Finkeston and a lady wanted to cross
the frontier to go into Cracow, and got his passport pro-
perly vised. They tell in with some Russian troops convey-
ing Polish prisoners, who took them into custody. They
were kept all night, and the next day, on being sent on,
some insurgents came in sight. Some firing took place,
upon which the Russians immediately killed the whole of
the Polish prisoners at the cart wheel, bayonetted the lady,
and left Mr. Finkeston for dead on the ground. Whether
the lady was killed is not known ; but Mr. Finkeston, being
found by some of Langiewicz's party not dead, was sent on
to an hotel. There was some doubt about this gentleman
being an English subject ; but Lord Bloomfield had sent a
person to take down his statement, and make further in-
quiries, and, if it were correct, no doubt compensation would
be obtained. (Hear.)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.
Mr. VAN SITTART rose to call attention to the removal
of the seat of Government of the North-Western provinces
from Agra to Allahabad, and produced a despatch ordering
that removal. He wished to know how the right hon. gen-
tleman (Sir C. Wood) reconciled that with the answer he
had given on Tuesday, that he had not ordered it to be re-
moved.

Sir C. WOOD said the hon. gentleman had asked, as
he thought, whether he personally had done so, and he
replied literally "No," which was the fact. The truth
was, that the alteration had been made by the Indian Go-
vernment on its own responsibility, without asking the
Secretary of State.
POLAND AND AMERICA.
Lord PALMERSTON said,—Sir, with regard to the
question put to me by the hun. member for King's County
as to Poland I am afraid I can add very little to what I
stated to him on a former occasion. As I then told him,
her Majesty's Government have made a communication to
the Government of Russia on the subject of Poland, very
much to the same effect as the opinions which I expressed
to the house when the question came under consideration.
We are also in communication with the Government of
France, with a view to joint action in the matter—(hear,
hear)—action, of course, of a diplomatic character ; for I

do not understand that the hottse has recommended any
other sortof action. (Hear, hear.) We ate also in corres-
pondence with other Governments who are parties to the
Treaty of Vienna, for the purpose of ascertaining whether
thei will be disposed to support the views which we have
offered. (Hear, hear.) It would be inexpedient for me to go
into detailed explanations of the particular comrattnications
which have been made; but I hope that after Easter mat-
ters will be in such a state that we shall be able to lay on
the table papers showing what has passed. I trust that
whatever may have taken place up to that time will be
deemed satisfactory to the house. Now, sir, turning to the
much mote important and practical question raised by my
hon. friend the member for Bradford, I cannot but express i
my regret at the tone of his remarks, and still more at the
tone of the hon. member for Birmingham. There is no con-
cealing the fact, and there is no use in disguising it, that
whenever any political party, whether in or out of office in
the United States, finds itself in difficulties, it raises a cry
against England—(hear, hear)—as a means of creating
what in American language is called "political capital."
Tbat is a practice, of course, which we must deplore,
(Hear, hear.) As long as it is confined to their internal
affairs we can only hope that, being a rather dangerous
game, it will not be carried further than is intended. When
a Government or a large party excite the passions of one
nation against another, especially if there is no just cause,
it is manifest that such a course has a great tendency to en-
danger friendly relations between the two countries. We
understand, however, the object of these proceedings in the
present instance, and therefore we do not feel that irritation
which might otherwise be excited. But if this cry is raised
for the purpose of driving her Majesty's Government to do
something which may be contrary to the laws of the country
or which way be derogatory to the dignity of the country in
the way of altering our laws for the purpose of pleasing
another Government, then all I can say is that such a
course is not likely to accomplish its purpose. (Hear, hear.)
I very much regret, therefore, that the speech of my hon.
friend the member for Bradford, and more particularly
that of the hon. member for Birmingham, are calculated
to encourage those complaints which I think are totally un-
founded on the part of the American Government. (Hear,
hear.) I should have hoped that gentlemen bringing this
question before the house would rather have triel to allay
the irritation, instead of making out, as they endeavour to
do, that the Americans have season to blame England and
the English Government. (Hear, hear.) My hon. and
learned friend the Solicitor -General, in that admirable
speech which we all listened to with the greatest delight
(hear, hear), has demonstrated indisputably that the
Americans have no cause of complaint against us. He has
shown that the British Government have done, on the
report of the American Minister here, everything which the
laws of the country enabled them to do. I can easily under-
stand that in the United States, where the civil war has
produced so much agitation, and where the course of prac-
tice has been to set aside the law, men have been led to for-
get, in a great degree, the obligations of the law, and are
not disposed to give that weight which is due to our argu-
ment—that we cannot go beyond what the law prescribes
and authorizes. Yet I think that the house at least will
see that the statement of my hon. and learned friend proves
that we have, in enforcing the Foreign Enlistment Act,
done all that the law enabled or permitted us to do (Hear,
hear) Hon. members have argued as if the seizure of a
vessel were equivalent to its condemnation. They ask,
" Why did you not seize the Alabama when you were told
that it was knowr and believed that it was intended for
warlike purposes on the part of the Confederates." Now,
in the first place, you cannot seize a vessel under the
Foreign Enlistment Act unless you have evidence wanting
in this case. The American Minister came to my noble
friend the Foreign Secretary and said, " I tell you this
and I tell you that ; I'm sure of this and I'm sure of that ;"
but when he was asked to produce evidence on oath, which
was the only thing on which we could ground any pro-
ceedings, he said that the information was furnished to
him confidentially, that he could not give testimony on
oath, but that we ought nevertheless to act on his
suspicions. What would happen if we were to act in that
way? When a vessel is seized unjustly and without good
grounds there is a process of law to come afterwards (hear,
hear)—and the Government may be condemned in heavy
costs and damages. Why are we to undertake an illegal
measure which may lead to those consequences, simply to
please the agent of a foreign Government (Hear, hear.)
I say if there was any fault it was on the part of those who
called on us to do a certain act, and yet withheld the ground-
work on which that act could alone be based. (Hear.) I
have myself great doubts whether if we had seized the Ala-
bama we should not have been liable to considerable da •
mages. It is generally known that she sailed from this
country unarmed and not properly fitted out for war, and
that ehe received her armament, equipment, and crew in a
foreign port. Therefore whatever suspicions we may have
had—and they were well founded, as it afterwards turned
out—as to the intended destination of the vessel, her condi-
tion at that time would not have justified a seizure. (Hear.)
I can assure the house that her Majesty's Government have
no indisposition to enforce the provisions of the Foreign
Enlistment Act. The hon. member for Birmingham re-
proaches us with exhibiting a cold and unfriendly neutrality.
I do not know what the meaning of those terms may be,
but they appear to me to be a contradiction in themselves.
(Hear.) If neutrality is more than friendly towards one
party, it is acmething very different towards the other—
(laughter, and hear)—and cease to be what, in common par-
lance, is meant by neutrality between contending parties.
But whether our neutrality is warm or cold, friendly or un-
friendly, is is sincere and honest. (Hear.) I can assure
nay hon. friends and the house that whenever it is in our
power to enforce the Enlistment Act legally and justly we
shall not be found wanting in the performance of our duty.
It is a great mistake to suppose that we can view with plea-
sure any transactions which have a tendency to violate not
only the letter but even the spirit of the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act. It would have been much more agreeable to us
if all the supplies that have been so well enumerated by the
hon. member for Birkenhead, and which have been furnished
in abundance to one party and very scantily to the other—
(hear)—had been withheld, and if the whole of the United
Kingdom had remained in a state of perfect neutrality. But
when we are blamed so heavily for not having acted on sus-
picions, is it fair to say that as far as suspicions go, we have
been informed, perhaps erroneously, that not only have
arms been despatched to the Northern part of the United
States, but that efforts have been made in Ireland to enlist
persons to serve in the Federal army and navy? (Hear.)
Unquestionably a great many cases have occurred in North
America in which British subjects have been seized and
attempts made to compel them to serve against their will in
the civil war. Feeling as we must do the greatest desire
that the most friendly relations should continue to be main-
tained between this country and the United States, regret-
ting exceedingly any circumstances of any kind which
should have caused irritation in the minds of the people ,of
the Northern Union, we can only say that it is impossi-
ble for us to go beyond the law. The law is in this case
of very difficult execution. (Hear, hear.) This is not
the first time when that has been discovered. When the
contest was raging in Spain between Don Carlos and
Queen Isabella it was my duty—the British Government
having taken part with the Queen—to prevent supplies
from being sent to Don Carlos from this country. There
were several cases of ships fitted out in the Thames, but,
though I knew they were intended to go in aid of Don Carlos,
it was impossible to obtain that information which would
have enabled the Government to interfere with success,
(Hear) I hope, therefore, that those gentlemen who have
made themselves in this house the mouthpiece of the North
will use the influence which they are entitled by the course
they have taken to exert to prove to their friends on the other
side of the Atlantic that the charges made against the British
Government are not founded in reason or in law. (Hear.) I
trust they will assure them that her Majesty's Government
will continue, as I maintain they have done hitherto, to en-
force the law whenever a case shall be brought before them
in which they can safely act upon good and sufficient
grounds. There must, however, be a deposition upon oath,
and that deposition must be made upon facts which will
stand examination before a court of law, for to call upon us
arbitrarily and capriciously to seize vessels with respect to
which no convincing evidence can afterwards be adduced is
to ask the Government to adopt a course which would cast
discredit upon them, and lead to much subsequent difficulty
and embarrassment. (Hear, hear.) I hope the people and
Government of the United States will believe we are doing
our best in every case to execute the law, but they must not
imagine that any cry which may be raised will induce us to
come down to this house with a proposal to alter the law.
(Hear, and a laugh.) I have had some experience of what
any attempt of that sort may be expected to lead to—
(laughter)—and I think there are several gentlemen sitting
on this bench who would not be disposed, if I were so in-
clined myself, to concur in any such proposition, (Cheers.)
Lord FERMOY thought the natural consequence of
what was taking place would be the complete independence
of Poland. (Cheers.)
Sir F. GOLDSMID believed that, under the existing
state of things, if there were not treaty obligations on this
country, there were moral obligations from which no first-
rate Power could recede without injury to its own position.
Mr. NE WDEGATE objected to the course taken by the
advocates of Poland, and he believed that the causes of the
misery of that country must be ascribed to its internal dis-
sensions. There was no middle class there, which was the
essential element of constitutional government—and more-
over there was the same disturbing cause which 'prevented
England from producing content in Ireland.
Sir H. VERNEY said the hon. member was trying to
turn the insurrection in Poland into a religious war, but
the people of this country would not be led away by such
an argument. Those in England who defended the Poles
believed that they were acting right in their endeavours
to gain their freedom and independence. He hoped this
country would combine with France and Austria in order to
give to Poland one frontier upon which she could depend,
and that some good would result from tho course about to
be pursued by her Majesty's Government.

Sir H. STRACEY, in referring to the observations of
the hon. member for North 'Warwickshire, said that if we
supported the treaty of 1815 we must support the religion
and the clergy of Poland. Much delicacy had been shown
towards Prussia, but why, he was at a loss to know, seeing
that Prussia was as culpable, or nearly so, as Russia. The
nationality of Poland had not been preserved in Prussia.
Mr. H. GRENFELL said, that, notwithstanding what
had been said by the hon. member opposite, he believed the

noble lord at the head of the Government was perfectly able
to satisfactorily deal with the cause of Poland, and they
might leave in his hands, with safety, any negotiations
that might be undertaken in behalf of the oppressed Poles.
He objected to any other action by this country than that
of giving sound constitutional advice.
The motion for the adjournment of the house to Monday,
April 13, was then agreed to.
SUPPLY—THE CHATHAM MURDER.

On the motion for going into supply,
Mr. BLAKE called attention to the recent trial of Bur-
ton for the murder of a child at Chatham lines, and asked
if an application was not made at the trial for the examina-
tion of the prisoner by Dr. Forbes Winslow or some other
physician of experience in insanity, and refused by the
judge ; and whether, taking into consideration the fact then
stated of Burton's mother being confined in a lunatic asylum
and his brother not being of sound mind, it was his inten-
tion to order such an examination to be now made.
Sir. G, GREY said he had never heard of such an ap-
plication as that referred to in the first part of the ques-
tion. The jury, after hearing the evidence, and under
the direction of the learned judge, had found the prisoner
of sound mind, and guilty of murder; and no facts had been
laid before him (Sir G. Grey) to justify him in ordering
such an examination as that referred to.

The motion was agreed to, and the house went into com-
mittee of supply pro forma.