The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-25 00:00:00

THE SEIZURE OF THE ALEXANDRA.

Mr. HORSFALL rose to call attention to the recent
capture of the Alexandra, and to move for papers and cor-
respondence relative thereto. He said that in calling the
attention of the house to the seizure of the Alexandra, of
Liverpool, he had no desire to provoke., a general discus-
sion, either on the Foreign Enlistment Act or the state of
affairs in America, and if the hon. member for Rochdale,
who had a motion on the paper, considered it right to do so
be (Mr. Hordell) had no right to take exception to it. He
ventured to express a hope that the house would not allow
itself to be carried away in general discussion on a general
principle in considering an individual caee of hardship,
which he thought it his duty to bring Mote the house.
His case was the seizure of a British vessel on the ocean by
an American cruiser, not the capture and subsequent con-
demnation of a British vessel in an American prize court,
but the calm and deliberate act of her Majesty's Govern-
ment that he complained of, which had inflicted most se-
rious injury to the owners of the ship Alexandra. He
would state as briefly as possible the facts connected with
the building, launching, outfitting, and seizing of the vessel.
She was built by Mr. Miller, of Liverpool, for Messrs.
Fawcett, Preston, and Co., a firm of 50 years' standing in
Liverpool, and was being fitted out in the docks, when a
Custom-house officer went on board her on the 6th of April
last and handed the builder a notice to the effect that, in
pursuance of instructions from the Commissioners of Cus-
toms at Liverpool, the Alexandra was seized pending fur-
ther directions from the commissioners. After that notice
was served he received a communication from Messrs.
Fawcett and Co., giving a general outline of their position
with regard to the vessel. They stated that, having had
many inquiries for a vessel of her description, they had
had her built as a speculation. She was completing her
outfit when she was seized by the Custom-house officers.
She was a three-masted vessel, of 300 tons and. GO-herse
power, capable of steaming from nine to ten knots an hour,
and was designed and fitted out and adapted for a passenger
vessel, a mail-boat, or a yacht. At the time of the seizure he
was at Liverpool, and he went on board of her and examined
her, and he could truly say that the result of his observa-
tions was to be able to confirm every word contained in her
owners' letters. The hon, gentleman then proceeded to read
a letter forwarded by the owners of the vessel to the com-
missioners of customs, in which they declared they would
hold him liable for any loss or damage arising from the sei-
zure. Weil, that letter was dated March 7; and having
waited until the 9th without receiving any reply to it, they
addressed a further letter to the commissioners. The hon.
member read the letter, which set out the protest of Messrs.
Fawcett and Co. against their being prevented from finish-
ing the vessel, and demanding to be furnished with the evi-
dence on which the proceedings against them were taken
On the day following they received this reply from the corn-
missioners—" The Alexandra has been seized by order of
the Government, and the usual proceedings will ensue.
Your letter of this day, protesting against the seizure, I
will transmit to the board." Upon that, Messrs. Fawcett
and Co. instructed their solicitors, Messrs. Fletcher and
Hall, to ask the collector to be allowed to see the deposi-
tions on which the proceedings were based; but the col-
lector told those gentlemen that he had no discretion in the
matter, and that the depositions were in the hands of the
police. Well, the solicitors then waited upon the head
of the police, who told them, however, that the de-
positions had been transa itted to the mayor, and
that they could not be seen without his previous
sanction. Accordingly, Messrs. Fletcher and Hal
applied for that purpose to the mayor, and also to
the town-clerk, but their application was refused. They
then addressed a letter to the mayor, stating that they had
been informed that the seizure of the Alexandra bad taken
place in consequence of depositions made at the instance of
the Consul of the United States, and they requested the pe-
rusal of these documents. To that letter the mayor replied
saying that he had communicated their request to the Go-
,
vornmont, and that the decision on the matter would be
communicated to them with as little delayaa possible. Well
further communicatiuns took place between Fletcher and
Hall and the mayor, they asking, on behalf of Messrs,
Fawcett and Co., to be allowed to finish the vessel, as well
as the names of the parties making the depositions. How-
ever, as regarded both requests they met with a refusal. At
this juncture they received a letter from the collector of
customs informing them that the depositions were in
the hands of Mr. Hamill, the solicitor to the Crown, and
submitting that they should apply to that gentleman to be
allowed to see them. Having done so, Mr. Hamill referred
' them to the answer given in that house with respect to the
seizure of the Alexandra, viz., that the matter wss under
consideration. Now he was one of those who thought that
although so far as regarded the seizure of vessels by Ame-
rican cruisers it was quite proper that such an answer
should be given; yet, that where her Majesty's vessels had
thought proper to seize a vessel, they should have consi-
dered first and seized afterwards. (Loud cries of " Hear ,
hear.") But then Mr. Hamill went on to say that Messrs.
Fawcett and Co. would be furnished with the information
which they requested at the earliest possible moment it
might be required for the preparation of their defence.
Messrs. Fletcher and Hall heard no more of the matter
until they received a note that the Alexandra had
been exchequered. Well, the vessel was charged
with being intended for the service of persons presuming to
exercise powers of government. Now, ho had already read
a statement made by Messrs. Fawcett and Co. that no such
intention was entertained, He had read what was stated by
them to be their object in building the vessel, and he was
I quite sure their countrymen would take the statement of
such a house in preference to the statement of the anony-
mous parties who supplied this itlfvrxudtivn. (Ilear,,lacar.)

But in order to show how far this seizure was made consis-
tently with the previsions of the Foreign Enlistment Act,
he would state the view taken by the Solicitor-General of
the provisions of that Act, It would-be a great• iislake,
said the learned gentleman, to suppose that the Foreign
Enlistment Act was intended to prevent all dealings in
ships of war. Two things must be proved to render such
a transaction illegal; there must be a fitting out and an
equipment of an armed ship of war; and, secondly, that
must be done with the intent of her being employed in the
service of a foreign Gsvernrnent. The hon. member hav-
ing read a further passage from the speech of the Solicitor-
General, proceeded to lay before the house an extract from
a letter addressed to himself by Messrs. Fawcett and Co.,
in which they said it was an anomalous tondition of things
that it was permitted to them to supply whole batteries to
the known agents of both Governments, vhite they were
not allowed to build and complete an unarmed vessel, be-
cause it was supposed she might be resold to the Confede••
rate States. (Hear) The hon. =ember then read a poet-
script to that letter, and to which he directed the particu
lar attention of the house, and which referred to a commu-
nication addressed to Messrs. Fawcett and Co. by Messrs.
Peabody and Co., confirming an order given to Messrs.
Fawcett by General Fremont for the supply of twelve
fle'd pieces, and the payment for which, namely £1,700,
Messrs. Peabody guaranteed. (Hear.) Now, to follow up
that statement, he would ask the Government had may steps
been taken to arrest the shipment of arms from Liverpool
to America. (Loud cries of Bear, hear.) He held in his
hand a return cf the arms which had been so shipped since
his hon. fiend the member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird)
addressed the house on the subject; and he found that at
Liverpool, instead of shipping rifles as rifles, they shipped
them as bundles of gun bane's. The hon. member then
read a long statement R 3 to the quantity of percussion caps
and gun barrels exported to America from Liverpool be-
tween the 24th of March and the 23d of April. But that
was not all. Not satisfied with sending rifles to America,
they were sending there the hands to use them, for up to
the present moment the emigration of Irizh labourers to
America from Liverpool was greater than at any period
since 1853. Well, they had no right to stop that emigra-
tion, but they had a right to know by whom all these people
were sent. He had been told that their passage-money was
paid far in America. (Hear, hear.) It was said the Foreign
Enlistment Act only applied to ships, and that it did not
apply to arms. Well, if that was so, it was the duty of the
G.vernment to amend it accordingly, (Hear.) In conclu-
sion, the hon. member protested against the system of es-
pionage which had been introduced into this country, and
which was furnishing fictitious information to the Ameri-
can consuls, and which was leading the merchants of our
country into the most serious difficulties. (Cheers )

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that even if it had
been compatible with the forms of the house for the hon.
member to have moved for the papers to which he had re-
ferred, the hon. member must himself be sensible that it
was impossible for the Government to consent to their
production. The house would aseume that the seizure
of the Alexandra had not been unadvised by those who were
responsible for the advice tendered to the executive, The
vessenies now in the hands of the law, and that being so,
nothing was more calculated to subvert the ends of justice
than to supply the accused parties with the materials on
which the charge against them proceeded. In his opinion
a discussion on the case of the Alexandra at that moment
would be most inopportune. The hon. member complained
that the Government, so vigilant with respect to that vessel,
had shut its eyes to other flagrant violations of the law.
Now, he begged to tell the hon. member that it was not
competent for the Government to interfere with the ship-
ment of arms from Liverpool. There was no provision in
the Foreign Enlistment Act which would enable the Go-
vernment to interfere with the shipment of arms, and there-
fore the complaint of the hon. gentleman, that the Govern-
ment had not interfered by force to prevent the shipment of
arms, though they had interfered to prevent further in-
fringement of the law in this vessel—the accusation being
that the Government winked at transgression of the law in
one case, and visited it with condign punishment in the
other—fell entirely to the ground. With reference to the
other allegation that, under the name of emigrants, men,
who were really recruits for the Federal armies, were being
forwarded to America, he could assure the hon. member that
if he would furnish reliable and reasonable evidence of such
a fact, the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act would
be carried into effect. In the absence of any such evidence
it was not fair for the hon. member to charge the Govern-
ment in one case with undue severity, and, in the other
case, with failing to put the law into execution.
Mr. WHITESIDE thought the motion one of a very
serious kind, and did not see. that the Attorney-General
had answered the point. The transaction appeared to be
a very simple and honest one. Some shipbuilders had built
a ship upon contract, the Government had seized her, and
the owners had had the presumption to inquire the reason
why. (Laughter.) They had not, however, been so for-
tunate as to get an answer to that question. He did not
understand the Attorney-General to say that there was
anything to justify the imputation that the owners of the
Alexandra intended to violate the Foreign Enlistment Act.
What was the offence ? The merchants in Liverpool asked
upon what ground their property had been seized ; and the
officials, in their wisdom, had refused to say. Ho wished to
know whether this crime differed from all others. When
depositions were made against the meanest criminal, the
person accused had a right to get a copy of the accusation.
(Hear.) Surely, therefore, the Government should not
withhold from the merchants of Liverpool the advantage of
having a copy of the information to enable them to make
such an answer to it as they could. As the matter now
stood, on the statement of the hon. member for Liverpool
and the statement of the Attorney-General, the case was
clearly with the hon. member for Liverpool and against the
Attorney-General. (H ear.)

Mr. COLLIER said that if the observations of the hon.
member for Liverpool had been confined to the case of the
Alexandra he should have taken no part in the discussion ;
but as the hon. member had referred to other questions of
great importance, namely, under what circumstances it
might be the duty of the Government to prohibit the ex-
port of arms and ammunition, and to put in force the
Foreign Enlistment Act, ho would state in a few words
his views on the question. In dealing with this ques-
tion it would be very undesirable to view it solely from a
neutral point of view. We had been belligerents, and it
was impossible to say how soon we might be belligerents
again. If, therefore, we laid down a rule appli-
cable only to our usual position, that rule might.be used
against us very inconveniently when we became bellige-
rents. It was our duty to ascertain as far as we could what
was really the law applicable to the subject which the hon.
member had introduced, and, having ascertained what was
really the law, to apply it epially to all nations. Upon
principles of international law, every State had a right to
exclusive sovereignty within its own dominions,. It had a
right to prevent the intrusion of any foreign belligerent, and
to prevent him carrying on hostilities within the State.
Such an intrusion was an offence against the sovereignty of
the State, and any individual who aided and assisted the
foreign belligerents in carrying on hostilities within the neu-
tral State was guilty of an offence against the sovereign
power. If, on the other hand, a neutral allowed one belli-
gerent to use his territories for hostile purposes against the
other belligerent, that other belligerent would have ground
of complaint independently of any Foreign Enlistment Act,
which merely provided a'remedy for that which was an of-
fence at common law. It was on that ground that we had
protested, in 1793, against the United States permitting the
French ambassador to use their pcirtsi to fit out privateers
to cruise against our commerce. We had remonstrated
with the American Government on two grounds; first, that
they had permitted the export of arms and ammunition to
France ; and secondly, that they had allowed the French to
equip vessels of war. The American Government thendis-
tinctly repudiated their obligations to prevent the shipment
of arms and ammunition; but they as distinctly admitted
their obligation to prevent the equipment of vessels of war.
It was manifest, therefore, from what the Americans them-
selves had done, that they had no right to object to the ex-
port of arms to either belligerent. Carrying on hostilities in
the territory of a neutral by one belligerent was a breach of
neutrality of which the cobelligerent had a right to com-
plain ; and, therefore, the Americans and ourselves had
passed Foreign Enlistment Acts, which prohibited the arm-
ing or equipping of vessels. The hon. and learned member
quoted decisions under the American Foreign Enlistment
Act, which. he said, was very much the same as our own,
to show that. the American held that building, equipping,
and arming vessels for sale in a foreign port, watt not a breach
of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Thus the construction put
by the Americans on their Foreign Enlistment Act wastthat
it was necessary that a vessel to be liable to seizure must be
equipped for war with tho intention of being employed in
the service of a foreign nation. He agreed with the Soli-
citor-General, that Groat Britain ought to enforce the
Foreign Enlistment Act on proper evidence, not only for its
own sake, to support its dignity, but for the sake of other
nations, to do to them what we should expect from them.
fie would, for the moment, suppose Great Britain involved
i
momentEuro be supposed that she would allow the ports of
fnoraa war with America, and blockading her ports. Could it
other peen nations to receive American privateers ?
If such were done by any nation,
it would be ground for re—
monstrance, even if the foreign country so acting had no
Foreign Enlistment Act of its own. On the principles of
international law, the Americans had aright to excect that
Great Britain would not allow its shores to be made the
seat of operations against them. Non-enforcement of the
Foreign Enlistment Act was not a proper ground for war.
Now, the case of the Alabama was ono fur the enforcement
of the Foreign Enlistment Act, but because the law officers
took a reasonable time to come to their decision, and the
vessel escaped, there was no ground for war. He was sure
that the law officers of the Crown could not have acted in
the case of the Alexandra without clear and distinct evi-
dence on oath, and he would suspend his judgment until he
saw the evidence. Whatever cause of complaint Great Bri-
tain had against the American Government, it had none on
the ground that the Foreign Enlistment Act had not teen
enforced. The first American Foreign Enlistment Act was
passed at our request ; the second in 1818, during our war
with Canada. During the Russian war the American Go-
vernment stopped the building of a vessel at our request.
e
aea Isvh:Gleerotsv.G)e rrneHraa t Bndtriidwt aneirnoet
egneuefoiulrtheysecoilftssubrbirgme
haictashs i;eosbnu.otf
blej
nf t hat
euresneAaitn
ohenrl
t
other grounds; of complaint' it Was not to fail to enforce ,

its own Foreign Enlistment Act. He believed that not
only this :country but .the American people desired peace.
He knew that irritating language had been used and irrita-
ting acts had been done by them; but we should be as
wrong in supposing that every word of the kind that was
uttered there represented the feeling of the people as if it
were supposed that the irritating language used by hon.
members in this house represented the feelings of the majo-
rity. (Cheers.) But if there were to be war, it became us
to demean ourselves so that the opinion of the civilised
world may be with ns, and to show that We had left no-
thing undone to avert that calamity consistently with our
national honour. (Loud cheers.)
• Sir H. CAIRNS was anxious to recall the question from
the erroneous footing on which it had been placed by the
hon, member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier) to the definite
basis on which it had been laid before the house by the hon•
member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall). This was no question
of the Foreign "Enlistment Act, or the duty of the Govern-
ment to enforce it. That act ought to be enforced without
reference to its bearings on other countries. This was simply
a question between the Government of this country and
one of its subjects. The noble krd at the head of the Go-
vernment on a for mer occasion said that he felt what weuld
be the consequence of proposing to alter the laws of this
country at the request of a foreign Power. But there was
another thing which it behoved the house to watch—we
ought not to suspend or stretch the laws we had to pacify
or gratify a foreign Power. (Hear, hear) No explanation
had been given of thept oceedingsat Liverpool,and the Home-
office declined to show the affirmations sworn prior to the
seizure of the Alexandra. Had the Government any prece-
dent for the course which they had taken ? The lion, and
learned gentleman said the most ordinary prisoner was en-
titled,if not always by law, certainly by courtesy and a sense
of justice, to a copy of information sworn against him, and
with respect to which he was to be accused. The house had
not heard a word upon this point from the learned Attorney
General. The Attorney -General said he would not enter
into the merits of the case. He did not want him to do
so ; but he wanted to know the reason why, when the Ame-
rican consul had put this matter in motion, copies of the de-
positions had not been furnished ? And this was the third
and last charge. What was the position of those merchants
at this moment ? That on the 21st or 22d, after the lapse of
more than a fortnight, a formal document was served upon
them declaring the seizure of their vessel, and that it had
been exchequered. The document had been served, and
what was the crime alleged against the owners, for then, at
least, they would see what it was that led to the forfeiture
of the ship. Ho (Sir H. Cairns), on seeing it, said there
must be some mistake,as the main portion had been loft out,
and thero was not e eteen in a solicitor., ~men but would
say there had been some mistake in its composition. This
was not a question about the Foreign Enliatment Act, but
whether any offence had been committed by Messrs. Faw-
cett, Prescott, and Co. Heasked the house to hear the crime
these gentlemen had committed. The document ran thus
" Seized by officer Edward Morgan. Cause of seizure, for
being equipped, fiirniehed, and fitted out with intent to be
employed in the service of persons exercising, or assuming
to exercise, the power of self-government in and over a fo-
reign State." (A. laugh.) Of all the views of law he had
ever heard, this was one of the most extraordinary, (Hear.)
What I were the-shipbuilders of this country to be informed
that if they built shins that were tobe employed by a foreign
State, such ships would be seized ? He had asked the Attor-
ney-General across the table to name the clause of the act,
and he said the 7th; but on reference to it he found the only
part of that clause which constituted an offence was left out
of the document. (Laughter.) The point in the Foreign En •
listment Act was that a ship should be equipped as a trans-
port or storeship, with intent to cruise or commence hosti-
lities against some State with which her Majesty was at
peace. But the whole point of this matter had been left out
of the information. The Solicitor-General might say that
the Government could not be answerable for the way in
which the business had been managed, as it had been ma-
naged by the American consul at Liverpool. (Hear.) But,
in truth, that was enforcing the Foreign Enlistment Act
with a vengeance—(laughter)—and no one could doubt but
that Fawcett, Prescott, and Co. were in a state of great ex-
citement and wonder. It was not unnatural, therefore, that
these members should ask the hon, member for Liverpool
to bring the case before the House of Commons in the hope
of obtaining some explanation as to the conduct of the Go-
vernment. It was no doubt a hard case on merchants that
for a whole fortnight after the seizure of one of their ships
no information on the subject could be afforded them. If an
offence had been committed under the 7th clause of the
Foreign Enlistment Act, the modes of bringing to trial the
alleged offenders were prescribed by it, and penalties were
[ provided which might be enforced in the local courts of
Liverpool. Had that course been taken the whole case might
; have been placed before the public in a few days. Instead
of pursuing that course the Government had resorted to a
, practice not altogether unknown, but very seldom exercised,
of exchequering the ship. (Hear, hear.) The Attorney-
General would no doubt pursue the ship into the Exchequer,
and sue for a condemnation. If he succeeded it would be
upon the merits of the case; but if he failed, who was to pay
the merchants for the damages they had sustained in dis-
charging their workmen, and for not having the ship em-
ployed in the trade for which it had been intended, and for
the expense of having to defend themselves in the Court of
Exchequer. He found, from a document placed in his hands,
that ho was wrong in saying these gentlemen had had
notice served upon them, for up to the present time no notice
bad been given to them ; but that document had been ob•
tained by their solicitors from the Court of Exchequer.
(Hear, hear.) These were the points upon which he desired
information, and not upon the general question of the
policy of the Foreign Enlistment Act. (Cheers.)
Mr. COBDEN said the legal points which had been
discussed were undoubtedly of the greatest importance,
but he apprehended that no one would think that any con=
elusive result would arise from this passage of arms between
gentlemen learned in the law upon a question which was
pending in the law courts. When the hon. member for
Liverpool gave notice of his motion, he (Mr. Cobden) had
no idea that ho himself could have contemplated such a
result as that the question would be confined to the mere
technical aspect. Ho thought a larger question was before
them, for it was not merely a question about the vessel under
consideration, and that these parties had committed an
offence against the statute law. It had been said that many
vessels were being built for the same purpose, and this was
the proper time, when in the interests of this country, for
offering a few remarks upon the subject. He said in the 1
interests of this country, for he wished to consider British
interests in the observations he should make with reference
of maintained
international there was
for the Foreign Enlistment Act. Ile
system
no other country in the world that had one-quarter of the
interests at stake in upholding a
law on which the Foreign Enlistment Act was based.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Liverpool had mixed
up a question which tended to confuse the public mind on
two points Welly distinct. He had referred to the practice
of buying and selling and exporting arms and munitions of
t war. There was no law in this country to prohibit the
buying and selling and exporting arms and munitions of
war ; and no country, as had been stated by the hon. and
learned member for Plymouth and the Attorney-General,
which had furnished such high authorities on the point as
America herself. From the time of Jefferson to the present,
every high authority iu that country had clearly laid down
that the Government was not responsible for the con-
duct of their subjects in dealing with munitions of war,
and that persons 'carried on that traffic at their own risk.
He was astonished that-' Mr. Adams and Mr. Seward
should have mixed up these questions in their correspon-
dence, and yet he was not astonished at Mr. Seward doing
so, for he wrote so much that he must necessarily write
upon every side of a subject. (Laughter, and hear, hear.)
But he was astonished that Mr. Adams should have mixed
up this question with the equipment of ships of war, There
was cnly one reason why he was not sorry that question
had been raised. Mr. Adams had referred to the °sending
of ships of war to the blockaded ports, and that involved the
risk of their being seized by the cruisers of the Federal
States; and as the only punishment for violating the block-
ade was in the hands of these who maintained it through
their prize courts, it was well the country should know
that it was going on wholesale ;bemuse if the crowds of •
steamers that were now for the fast time carrying on com-
merce in the West Indies, one or two were irrevocably
seized, he thought Mr. Adams had so far done good, and
was entitled to toleration at the hands of this country.
(Cries of No, no.) He woulcrlFlrwith the question of
blockade more fully at another time. But, coming to the
real question before them, the enfringenaent of the Foreign
Enlistment Act of this country, ho thought the Government
should exereisn'the utmost vigilance in preventing the vie
lation of that hies; 'because they of all others bad the greatr at
interests at stake; and he hoped to see the Government sup-
ported by the public opinion in upholding the law, and the
Americani had a right to expect this, for they had at ail
times exercised reciprocity towards this country when ap-
plied to (Cries of No.) He liked to bear an opponent say No ;
but if he would listen tolim, he would challege him to show
any record in the diplomatic correspondence between the two
countries complaining of an unredreseed grievance under
the Foreign Enlistment Act of the United States. The
hon. member then read extracts from the speeches of Mr,
Canning And Lord. Castlereagh, to show that in the case of
the Spanish American colonies, and subsequently in the case
of France, the American people, in opposition to their own
sympathies; did justices to England by passing a Foreign
Enlistment Act, forbidding American citizens from assist-
ing those countries. ' 'He was now coming to the strongest
proof of all ; he was going to bring in as a witness the noble
lord at the head of the Government. (Laugher.) In 1837
the rebellion broke out in Canada, and in Jan. 1838, when
that house met, we were in a state of great apprehension as
to the condition of things in the North American Continent,
not so much at the rebellion of our colorists as to what was
passing on the frontiers of the United States. He quoted
the speech of the noble lot d on that ocoasion, when ho was
Foreign Secretary, which washighly in favour-of the United
States. for having not only observed the law of neutrality to
the letter, but in spirit, and in her having passed a tempo-
rary law, to make the operation of her foreign enlistment
law more stringent and more favourable to England. By
that temporary law the United States officials were to seize
all vessels, &c., which they suspected, and detain them for '
ten days, to give them time to produce proofs, and if they I
failed, then the ship was to be set at liberty, but subject to 1
fresh capture as soon as they obtained that proof. During i
the Crimean war America, at thi joint request of Eng- _ 1

land and France, respected the foreign enlistment law.
The American Government had from the first always
shown a willingness to maintain and enforce strict neu-
trality in the wars that had taken place on the European
continent, And at times when popular feeling was
very strong against it. He therefore challenged any hon.
member to-show him in the diplomatic correspondence
between this country and America any complaint that
America had violated the principles of the foreign enlist-
ment laws, and what he asked in return was that we should
act towards America as America had acted towards us.
(Hear.) He next referred to the speech of the hon. and
learned gentleman the Solicitor-General on this subj -at de-
livered a short time since, and combated the principles then
laid down, maintaining it was unsound in law, and would
act most injuriously towards this country if acted upon.
France as well as America had a stringent law upon the
subject, and every one found guilty of breaking it in France
was liable to transportation: (Hear, hr_ar, and oh.) All
he asked for was reciprocity. What, therefore, was to be
done ? Was there no way of protecting the commerce of a
friendly country? It was well known that three ships had
beon built and fitted out in this country that had never gone
to any destination, but had marked their progress by fire
and devastation. (Hear, hear.) There was from 100 to
120 millions sterling of British capital annually floating
upon the ocean, while no other country had 30 millions.
So long as we were attacked only on our own home we had
nothing to fear, but the moment we began a system of
reprisals we were attacked in our most vulnerable part.
(Hear, and No.) He would make those who engaged in
building and.fitting out ships like the Alabama, tlao
Florida, and the Japan liable to fine and imprisonment.
After referring to the manner in which these vessels had
left this country, he alluded to Earl Russell having
elegraphed to Nassau to stop the Alabama. If, there-
fore, he asked, she could have been stopped at Nassau,
why cou d she not have been stopped elsewhere ? (Hear,
hear.) There was a legal difficulty raised in that case,
that we could not stop a vessel like the Alabama after she
had made her first voyage. His answer was, that the Ala-
bama never bad made a voyage.—(hear)—but that she had
been cruising about without a home. (Hear, hear.) such
essels ought to be forbidden from entering any of our ports
—(hear, hear)--Land he called upon her Majesty's Govern-
ment to issue a proclamation to that effect, and outlaw them
so tar as our ports were concerned—(hear, hear)—which
would soon put an end to them by making the speculation
unprofitable. That, he urged, was our duty with reference
to past obligations, and our regard for the future required
its immediate fulfilment. The Foreign Enlistment Act was
passed two centuries ago for the benign object of preventing
wars arra :tavern:tug our eivilisattuu. Tho ancicuto as ...-
Lions were ignorant of such a wo, d as neutrality ; and iu the
Middle ages, when war was carried on indiscriminately, neu-
trality was hardly known. Well, then, would England be
be tha first to turn back—to roll back, as it were, the moral
axis of the world, and recur to the barbarism of the middle
ages by repealing this international code? He could not
help feeling that when the house and the country reflected
upon the facts of the case, both would come to the conclu-
sion that, in so doing, they would be sanctioning a retro-
grade policy, unworthy of themselves, and that they would
he committing a great crime against humanity. (Cheers.)
Mr. HO RSMAN rose, together with the Solicitor-Gene-
ral, but there being loud cries of " Horsman," the Solicitor-
General resumed his seat, and the right hon. gentleman
proceeded to addre: s the house. He said the state of the
American war, and the position of England with regard
to the belligerent parties, had become such that it was
evident at no distant date a very serious and practical dis-
cussion must take place with respect to the duties and
responsibilities of our position. In England war with
America was not desired—(hear, hear)—and since war
with England was entirely against the interest of America,
it was apparent this country could only drift into a
war because the House of Commons neglected its
duty. Up to this he had thought that a discussion on
America was to be deprecated ; but when such a discussion
was raised by the friends and advocates of the North, in a
manner so disparaging to the Government of England—.
(loud cheers)—he felt that nothing but mischief could ensue
from evading:such a discussion. He had come to the con-
elusion, in conformity, he believed, with the majority of the
house, that the Government of England had endeavoured,
with perfect integrity, to carry out a policy of strict and
undeviating neutrality. (Cheers.) He admitted that they
were bound to enforce the Act of the 59th George 111., and
therefore he was not the apologist of those whose illegal
acts had so embarrassed the best interests of the country,
(Hear, hear.) No one would deny that it had been the de .
sire of this country to observe a strict neutrality in this
war—no one would deny that it was her desire to avoid
being engaged in a war with America. (Hear.) The object
of the speech made by the hon. member for Rochdale ho
was unable to see, although he could see that one effect of it
must be to furnish the American press with a justification
for the reprisals of Admiral Wilkes. The House of Com-
mons bad not been anxious to enter upon the discussion of
American affairs, and so long as the issue of the contest
was dubious, Parliament had refrained from expressing
any judgment that might wound American sympathies.
But the case was very different when all uncertainty was
dispelled by the inexorable logic of facts. (Hear, hear.)
! They saw the spirit of the North broken and her army
driven back with nothing to show but failure and humi•
Nation; the:conquest of the South rendered more hopeless
than ever, and Washington in greater jeopardy than
Richmond. (Hear, hear.) They saw the aggressive and
menacing attitude displayed towards England, forgetful of
how she had borne with patience the destitution of her ope-
ratives and the crippling:of her trade; they saw, abov3 all,
the announcement that certificates of license were to be
given to our merchantmen by a foreign Minister, and when
notwithstanding all they themselves,asked that even-
ing to impose fresh fetters upon the Government, by the
exercise of a greater vigilance in obedience to the require-
ments of a foreign Power ; bearing in mind these things he
was not surprised the question was asked, How long were
those inflictions to be endured ? (Cheers.) How long
France and England were to be interdicted from communi-
cating with the South ? How long English operatives
were to be the victims of a deposed and extinct authority,
and of an aggressive and insolent legislature ? (Loud
cheers.) At the commencement of the war the sympathies
of nine-tenths of England tended towards the North, but
as events proceeded our expectations that the war would be
speedily over were falsified,and the South had now brought
the second year of the war of independence to a successful
close. What judgment could they in that Christian as-
sembly pass on the proclamation of President Lincoln with
respect to the emancipation of the slaves than it was one
of the most atrocious crimes against civilisation and huma •
nity the world had ever seen? (Cheers.) And yet an•
other thing that Englishmen hated more than slavery
was cant; and John Bull was far too sagacious to be per-
suaded that a war of extermination was carried on
in the interests of humanity. (Renewed cheers,) The
Government of President Lincoln having played their last
desperate card, which had been followed by failure and dis-
grace, professed now still to cherish the delusion that the
Union was to be recovered by war. The attempt to cement
that Union with blood had broken down the whole Govern-
ment. The free republic had been metamorphosed into a
military tyranny, and the President had become mere of a
despot than the Czar of Russia. Liberty was abolished.
Liberty of motion, of speech, of writing, and of thought,
were all gone. Tho press was coerced and gagged. Tho
State prisons were filled with political suspects, as they used
to be in Italy. In fact, the constitution was at an end.
While such was their political condition, what was their
financial state? In three years they had created a debt half
as large as that of England, with double the rate of interest.
In three years they had the largest debt in Europe, with
the least credit. Their Ming was in process of dissolution,
Their short enlistments expired in June, and were not likely
to be renewed by soldiers whose pay was in arrear. The
Irish and Germans, who were the fighting element, were
either killed or had deserted. The negroes, who were the
last hope of the Union, had proved a failure, because, at the
first volley, these sable warriors had thrown down their
muskets and run away. Suchiwas the political, financial, and
military condition of a country which seemed to think that
• the best way to stop their internal discord was by a war with
England. Coming to the point which the house had discussed,
he did not believe that the Northern States had the smallest
desire to go to war with this country. (Hear.) But ho did
believe that it was the deliberate policy of the Washington
Cabinet to provoke England to put an end to the blockade,
as the readiest mode of escape from their own domestic
difficulties. Submission to England would save them from
the humiliation of submission to the South, and he believed
it was for that reason that boastful assurances of approach-
ing victory and conquest became more loud and confident
as achievement had proved more notoriously impossible.' He
believed it was that foreign Powers might bo represented as
having at the eleventh hour stepped in to be the saviours of
the South, and thus be made the instrument of a disruption
which, without that foreign intervention, it would be said
never could have been accomplished. The question had teen
asked in the house, and elsewhere, how it was that we were
enduring all this for the Northern Stater, when we would
not endure it horn the strongest of the old monarchies of
Europe. The answer to that was twofold. We hadshown
them once that we knew how to silence their bravado. To
repeat it too soon would be to lay us open to the charge of
acting with bravado; therefore we could afford to pass by
such nonsense as involved no materialinjury. Though that
might explain the past, it did not suffice to justify our sub-
mission to injuries so flagrant-and so systematic in charac-
ter as those which were now reported by every packet.
The reasons for the endurat co of that were of a higher
character. The Northern States were passing through a
crisis, the magnitude of which they were not even them-
selves aware of. The war with the Southerners was vir-
tually at an cud, the independence of the South being an
accomplished fact. (Hear.) The prolongation of the war
would aggravate the evils of the North to an intolerable
degree, whilst peace with the South must lead to complete
disorganisation. It was no doubt because her Majesty's
Government foresaw the ruin and anarchy impending over
the North that they feared to facilitate the crisis. It was
not the strength of the North, but its weakness, that the
Government and people of England had to apprehend. It
was not peril, but responsibility, wo should incur. It was
the duty, therefore, of all parties in this country to press
upon the Government the solemn duty of maintaining
under every provocation, an immovable attitude of peace.
(Hear.) Repudiating the idea that the NortherP sYmPs-.

thisere in. this country who had gone to Mr. Adams with
addresses, represent,tel the feelings of this country, the hon.
member said that it behoved that house to takecareand pre-
serve the country from the stain of such misrepresentation,
and to make it known to all parties in America—especially
to those who were raising a still timid voice for peace—that
the apologists for despotism and bloodshed amongst us repre-
sented but an infinitesimal portion of the sentimentof Eng-
land—(hear)—and that the great mass of our countrymen,
of all creeds and classes, were united in one common feeling
of abhorrence and condemnation of the suicidal war that was
destroying the Union and disgracing the nation. (Cheers.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL deprecated the tone
which , the discussion had taken, and expressed doubt
whether the tenor of the speech of the hon, member for
Stroud was quite so peaceful as he des'red it to be. In
that, as in other assemblies, the expressions of individual
members must not be taken as an expression of the
opinion of he assembly itse.f. He had heard with very
great pleasure from the hon, member for Belfast that in
his opinion there was no question about the policy
of the Foreign Enlistment Act, or about the duty
of enforcing it. it would be a great support to the Govern-
ment if that were generally understood throughout the
country. He denied that anything he had said in recent
debates had been inconsistent with enforcing the provisiors
of that act. The Government had all along stated their in-
tention of enforcing it in all oases in which sufficient infor-
mation, supported by sufficient evidence, could be brought
to bear. With regard to, the case of the Alexandra, the hon.
and learned gentleman denied that the Act of Parliament
required that the Government should give the grounds upon
which they seized vessels under such circumstances. The
Government had proceeded on the evidence—on which they
were bound to proceed—that the vessel was being built for
persons exercising government in a foreign State against a
State at peace with this country. The law advisers of the
Crown said that the evidence before them was sufficient to
meet the requirements of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and
in discharge of their duty they were bound to act upon it,
especially if they wished to fulfil the pledges given to the
country. But it was asked, "Why not sue for penalties be-
fore the magistrates ?" Ho would say that though we are
not to go out of our way to comply with the unreasonable
demands of any Powers, they were not to go out of their
way to put themselves under the imputation that they were
not in earnest. Ilad the Government acted on this advice,
and gone to the magistrates, the vessel would have sailed
out of port as in the case of the Alabama. It was the duty
of the Government to act on its own responsit ility under the
guidance of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The hon. member
for Liverpool referred to a system of espionage. He (the So-
licitor-General) disclaimed on the part of the Government
having to do with such a system. Their sole object was to
enforce the law of the country, and this they sought to do
in a fair way ; but if any person not connected with the Go.
vernment resorted to such practices the Government was
not responsible for them. Far be it from him by any rash
word to diminish the chances of maintaining peace and
goodwill, which he was always anxious to maintain. But
it was the duty of Great Britain in the interests of peace
and goodwill between the two countries not to plead guilty
to offencesvehich they had not committed—(hear)—and that
they should not suffer, without remonstrance, charges to be
made against them of offences of which they were not
guilty. If by any unfortunate circumstances there should
be a rupture between the two countries, they must nen by
any admission that it was their duty to do that which they
were not bound to do—they must not, by any deviation from
that position which they were entitled to hold under the
law of nations, give colour to any one to say, " You your-
selves have admitted that you were wrong." This was the
object he had iu view in laying before the house on this oc-
casion the position of this seizure. They were most anxious
to prevent violations of neutrality by their subjects, but
were determined not to accept responsibility which did not
belong to them, or to admit to the United States that they
had been guilty of breaches of international law. Caro must
be had to distinguish between acts of hostility and breaches
of the municipal law of Great Britain, (Cheers.)

Sir F. KELLY pointed out that the Government had
pursued the harshest possible course to the owners of the
Alexandra. They might have indicted them, and thus had
an opportunity of testing the truth of the information, or
have commenced an action for penalties or gone before a
jury; but instead of either of these courses, they seized the
vessel, and left the owners no opportunity of knowing the
character of the evidence given against them. He urged
upon the Government to let the owners know the nature of
the charges against them. He would call the attention of the
hon. gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
and of the noble lord at the head of the Government, to a
subject closely connected with the matter before the house,
and of which he had given notice. The question he wished
to put was, whether the Government had adopted
any measures to facilitate and protect postal communi-
cation between this country and the different ports near the
Gulf of Mexico. Ho had been prepared for vigilance on the
part of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary more espe-
cially when he was under the guidance of the noble lord at
the head of the Government. His surprise was, therefore,
all the more when he found that the Foreign Secretary,
upon application having been made to him by the owner of
a vessel, the Sea Queen, for protection in carrying a sealed
bag of letters from the Post-office, a department of the Go-
vernment, thought proper to relieve the vessel from the
obligation of carrying the mail bag, fro fear of something
that might be done by a nation in amity with this country.
Tt appeared to him that this was a humiliating course for a
Minister of the Crown to pursue—and he was afraid the
result would be that the merchants connected with the
various ports of the Gulf of Mexico and the West India
Islands would henceforth be unable to carry on their cor-
respondence. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. M. MILNES protested against the accuracy of the
facts and the logic of the conclusions of the right hon. gen-
tleman the member for Stroud, and expressed his opinion
that it would be better if that right hon. gentleman would
abstain from making such speeches. One important point
Ind been overlooked, that whilst the United States had the
means of building their own ships the Confederate States
had not, and must rely upon us for a navy to send forth to
burn and destroy. He expressed a hope that the people of
America would not be led away by the speeches that had
been made by those who found fault with the Government.
It was ungenerous to promote a war between this country
and the United States when we were armed to the teeth
and the United States was in tho agony of htr destiny.
(Hear, hear.>

Lord PALMERSTON—Thehon. and learned gentleman
has asked what security there is for mercantile communica-
tion with Mexico, and communication by letter. With re-
gard to merchant vessels, in the first place, the best security,
and I trust a sufficient one, is that the American Govern-
ment will no doubt observe the law of nations ; and if their
cruisers intercept and capture any merchantman with-
out sufficient cause, they are liable to damages in their courts,
and we have no reason to believe that their courts will
not act justly. (Hear, hear.) With regard to bags of
letters that may bo carried by a merchantman, if the ves-
sel is captured upon suspicion of being concerned in an ille-
gal voyage, by that order which my noble friend the Sec-
retary for Foreign Affairs read in another place yesterday,
it will be seen what the American Government prescribes
with regard to bags so found. They are not to be opened,
the seal is not to be broken, they are to be delivered to the
consul of the nation to which they belong when the vessel
comes into port, and that consul is bound to open those
bags himself, and if there should be found anything con-
trary to the good faith of nations and against the Govern-
ment of the Country, then he is bound to give that to the Go-
vernment, but the letters in the bags are to be forwarded by
him to the destination to which they are directed. I appre-
hend, therefore, that there is no necessity for any other pro-
ceedings on the part of her Majesty's Government than
that of calling the attention of the United Statt s Govern-
ment to_the circumstances, and expressing a hope that they
will act in conformity with the orders which they them-
selves have laid down.

Tho house then went into committee, but immediately

resumed.

SUPPLY REPORT.

The report.of supply was then brought up,

Mr. CONINGIIAM asked the noble lord to assure the
house that the Prince Consort memorial would not ex-
ceed £lOO,OOO, He shad reason to believe that it would
cost near pOO,OOO. He moved that the report be post-
poned till they had a full and reliable estimate before
them.
Sir H. VERNEY seconded the motion.

Sir M. PE £0 said that, as it was understood that her
Majesty had given her approval to the form of the memorial,
they were of course precluded from all further discussion as
to the adaptability of the form selected. But he must say
he thought the sum asked for by the Government was in-
sufficient, and therefore he would counsel• the noble lord
at the head of the Ciovernment to take a day or two to de.
terrine on that point.

Lord PALMERSTON said his hon. friend the mem
ber for Brighton had misunderstood the nature of the pro-
posal made by him yesterday. (Hear, hear.) He did
not propose to the house to sanction any particular
plan, but simply that the house should grant a cer-
tain sum, with the distinct understanding that it should
rest with her Majesty to determine what should be the form
of the memorial; but though plans had been exhibited in
parts of that building, he was not aware that her Majesty
had determined as yet upon any particular plan. What
they proposed was that a sum of £50,000 should be tendered
to her Majesty towards the expense of the memorial, in ad-
dition to the private subscriptions, and if it was stated that
any particular design could not be executed for that amount,
he might remind hon. gentlemen that it was easy for a man
of genius either to reduce a plan or the amount of orna-
mentation which it displayed. Under these circumstances
he did not see the reason for postponing the vote, (Hear,
hear.)
After some further discus: ion,
Mr. CONINGIIAM said that, after hearing the state-
ment of the noble lord, he could not do otherwise than
withdraw his motion, but subject of courso to the clear
understanding that the vote was to be a clear gift to her
Majesty, to be dealt with as she might think best.
Tho resolution was then agreed to, as were also the other
resolutions.
SUPPLY.
The report of supply was brought up and agreed to.
POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.

The Lords' amendments for this bill were considered and
agreed to.