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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MARCEI 2s, 1861.

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 the'm, 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, 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 on
at the risk of those engaged in it, under the liabilities and
penalties prescribed by the law of nations." (Cheers,)
There they bed 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 as 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 calue 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 4red 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 it had been violated America
had no more right to complain of that than they had toipre-
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 Lreach 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 enforee 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 ? lie 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
during 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
cl,.ctrine laid down in that case was—if the defendant, who
was accused of having violated the Foreign Enlistment
Act, was entitled to an acquittal it these facts should ap-
pear :—lf it were found that when the ship was being fitted
out and equipped at Baltimore, the owner aad 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 fer 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 indi•
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 attontion of Government to inforrna-

Lion which he had received about the building of the Ala-
bama. Now, down to that time, it had often been eaid
that there were many ships being built in this country for
the Confederate service ; but no evidence was ever produced
except in the case of the Oreto ; and, what was more, there
was no ground for supposing that there were any more ships
built for the Confederate States. Well, upon Mr. Adams'
information, the Government directed the Cornmmissioner of
Customs to make an inquiry with respect to the Alabama.
The inquiry was made, and on the let 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 oases. There being nothing but suspi-
clef], it would be perfectly unwarrantable in the law to seize
her. Lord Russo)] Communicated this to Mr. Adams, and
said that, if Mr. Adams could furnish any better evidence,
he 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
I anxious that the Governments of the two nations should
stand straight with each other. But he was shacked 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 Mores, 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 Alabama.
Information was given by the British Consul on the 11th
of October, 1855, that this was a ship of war intended for
the Russian service. Ihe 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
Mores was really arrested ? Not till the 17th—a longer
delay than happened in the case of the Alabalaa. Ho won-
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 be 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 net 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 Federals. (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 the 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 ho 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 bad 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 theirneutrality 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 en 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 ofthe
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. Ho 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 upon his utterances in this country.
(Cheers.)

Mr. LAIRD—After tho 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 board, 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
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 beat 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
weeko ago 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-

pauloveki. (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 hero, 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, plans 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 kuld 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 the name
of nay correspondent—(hear)—but he is a gentleman of the
hon. member wishes, I
shhigohniedstharveespneocthabesiliittaytionlifn
haaanding
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 lave 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 tefore, 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. gentlerr an feels a loubt 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 employel. (Hear, hear,) I believe
there are spies in my son's waits in Birkenhead, and in all
the great establishments in the country. A friend of mine
had detectives regularly on his track in consequence 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 doeen 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.)