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

estimated amount, he should take the muse of th 3 house
upon the matter.
THE CITY AND METROPOLITAN POLICE.

STAGE COACH DUTY.

In reify to Sir C. DouGLAs,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that it was his intention to mitigate the present inequality
of taxation, and hence he had proposed a duty of
£1 I ls. 6d. The hon. member for the Tower
Hamlets had a notice on the subject on the
paper, but he desired to state that in the present state of
the revenue he could not consent to forego the tax on
stage carriages. He apprehended that the plan he had
proposed would work well, especially in local districts. The
tax would not fall upon those who did not now pay it.

RIOT AT THE ROMAN CATHOLIC REFORMA-
TORY IN LEICESTERSHIRE-DIMISSAL OF
THE VISITING PRIEST OF DARTMOO-i, PRI-
SON.

In reply to Mr. NEWDEGATE,
Sir G. GREY replied that he had received information
to the effect that a riot had broken out in the St. Bernard's
Reformatory, Whitwich, Leicestershire, among the inmates,
and that the police had been called in to suppress it. He
had desired Mr. Sidney Turner, one of the inspectors of
reformatories, to investigate the affiir, and to report thereon.
That report had not yet reached the Home-office. Mr.
Henderson, the visiting Catholic priest at Dartmoor Pri-
son, had been susy-nded for lacking that temper and dis-
cretion requisite for the proper dim( harge of his duties.
OSTEND AND DOVER MAILS.

In reply to Mr. BERKELEY,
Mr. F. PEEL explained ihe nature of these mail con-
tracts, and said an eligible contract had been accepted for
these mails.

SAILORS' HOMES.
On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Sir H. STRACEY brought under the attention of the
house the subject of these homes, and moved that the Board
of Trade be empowered to aid them with some of the means
belonging to the Mercantile Marine and Seamen's Fund.
Mr. M. GIBSON opposed the motion, and it was nega-
tived without a division.
THE CASE OF JESSIE MACLAUCHLAN.
Mr. STIRLING rose to move for copies of the prcceed •
ings at this trial, and of the subsequent proceedings before
Mr. Young which led to the commutation of the sentence.
He stated the circumstances of the case, which are well
known ; the result being that after the trial and conviction,
it having been thought that some suspicion of the murder
attached to Fleming, petitions were sent to the Home Secre-
tary, who ordered an inquiry to be made, ex-officially and
in private, into the matter. He urged that the Home Secre-
tary had no right, in the exercise of his prerogative, to re-
view and revise a sentence in a capital case, and that by
means of an irresponsible and private tribunal, collecting
and acting upon evidence in its own discretion. He wished
to know what share the Lord Advocate had in the trans-
action, as he thought, as public prosecutor in Scotland, that
functionary ought not to have any share in the exercise of
the prerogative of mercy. He complained of the treatment
to which Fleming had been subjected by its being implied
that he was guilty, owing to the course which had been
taken by the Home-office.
Sir G. GREY could not accept the doctrine that the
Home Secretary was bound to accept as final every verdict
and to refuse to inquire into facts which might have arisen
calculated to impeach verdicts; on the contrary, he was
bound to take that very course; and in the case in ques-
tion it was plainly his duty to do so. On the evidence at
the trial of Maclachlan the jury could not have found any
other verdict than that which they brought in; but the
statement of the prisoner taken down five or six weeks be-
fore the trial, and not inconsistent with the evidence then
given, produced a profound impression on the public mind
that justice had not been done, and that, admitting her par-
ticipation in the crime, suspicion attached to others. Being
of opinion that a further inquiry was necessary, he left the
mode of conducting it to the discretion of the Lord Advo-
cate, who took the best means in his power to test the truth
of the prisoner's statement, and in the result he came to the
conclusion that the capital sentence should not be carried
out, but that, as a participator in the crime, the prisoner
should be subjected to other punishment. As by Scotch law
Fleming, having been a witness in the case, cculd not be
tried afterwards, he had no other course to take than that
which he had adopted consistently with his sense of duty.
In answer to Mr. DENMAN,
The LORD ADVOCATE said that according to the
law of Scotland a person having given evidence on a criminal
trial, could not be tried for the offence in question.
Some discusgion followed, and Sir G. GREY said he would
consider whether he would give the papers asked, and the
subject dropped.
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. Horsfall) 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 case of hardship,
which he thought it his duty to bring before 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 prizo 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 Ca., 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 60-herse
power, capable of steaming from nine to ten knots an hour,
and was designed and fitted out and adapted fora 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. Wed, 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 com-
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.ofthe lie
police, who
the solicitors then waited upon the head
who told them, however, that the de-
positions had been transmitted to the mayor, and
sancthat they could not be seen without his previous
tion. 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 s':izare of the Alexandra had 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-
,
vornment, and that the decision on the matter would be
communicated to them with as little delayas possible. Well
further communications took place betw!eii Fletcher an&

Hall and the mayor, they asking, on behalf of 11.1essra:
Fawcett and Co., to be allowed to finish the vessel, as well

asevetrh,easnarmegaesrdoefdthbeotpharrteigesuemstsaktihngeythmeetdep
with
os a
itionreef.usaHl.owA-t
this juncture they received a letter from the collector of
customs informing them that the depositions were .12
I
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 was 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 propr 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 tl:e 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, he bad 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
quite sure their countrymen would take the statement of

such a house in preference to the statement of the anony-
mous parties WllO applicd this information. (lieu, hear.)

But in order to show how far this seizure was made consis-
tently with the provisions 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 mistake,
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 emp'oyed in the
service of a foreign Gsvernment. The hon. member hay-
-1 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 condition of things
that it was permitted to them to supply whole batteries to
the known agents of both Governments, while they were
not allowed to build and complete an unarmed vessel, be-
cause it was supposed she might be resold to the Confedee
rate States. (Hear) The hon. re 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-
nicatioa 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
field 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 any 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 of the arms which had been so shipped since
his hon. fritnd the memla:.r 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 barrels. The hon. member then
read a long statement so 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 Irish 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 for in. A.mcrica. hear.) It wee eeia the I,`.....eicsn
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
Government to amend it accordingly. (Hear.) In conclu-
sion, the hon. member protected 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 mast 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 tho 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 assume that the seizure
of the Alexandra had not been unadvised by those who were
responsible for the advice tendered to the executive, The
vessel lies 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 bo 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 is
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. He 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 lion. 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. (Hear.)
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, he 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 equally 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 ports 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 thendia

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, was not a breach
_ _

of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Thus the construction pul
by the Americans on their Foreign Enlistment Act was, dial

it was necessary that a vessel to be liable to seizure must bo
equipped for war with the intention of being employed in
the service of a foreign nation. He agreed with the Soli-
citor-General, that Great Britain ought to enforce the
Foreign Enlistment Act on proper evidence, not only for its
own sake; to Support ils dignity, but for the sake of other
nations, to do to them what we should expect from them.
He would, for the moment, suppose Great Britain involved
in a war with America, and blockading her ports. Could it
for a moment be supposed that she would allow the ports of
other European nations to receive American privateers?
If such were dono 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 expect 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 one 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

_ .
:hat the law officers of the Crown could not have acted in
;he 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 been
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.
(Cheers.) He did not counsel submission. If the Ameri-
leaawn, Gleotvcierrneraatt
Bntriwtaeinreegnsuoilrtcycoifts bri;rliactlaie:
other grounds of complaint, it Was not to fail to enforce
sb
uotf in
becausete rIla;
ti °hnaadl

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 wets had been done by them; but we should be es
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 irri.ating 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 home 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 lord at the head of the Go-
vernment on a for mer occasion said that he felt what sie u'd
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—a e
ought not to suspend er stretch the laws we had to paci,y
or gratify a foreign Power. (Hear, hear) No explanation
had been given of theproceedingsatLiverpool,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 hon. and
learned gentleman said the most orainary 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 Atte' ney-
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 tut 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
nen .. than a fortnight. a formal document was served upon
them declaring we seizure of their vessel, ana teee it naa
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, He (Sir H. Cairns), on seeing it, said there
must be some mistake,as the main portion had been left out,
and there was not a clerk iu a solicitors office but would
say there had been some mistake in its composition. This
was not a question about the Foreign Enlistment 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, furnished, 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 ships that were to be 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 he was wrong in saying these gentlemen had had
notice served upon them, for up to the present time no notice
had been given to them ; but that document had been ob-
tained by their solicitors from the Ccurt 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-
clusive 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 he himself could have contemplated such a
result as that the question would be confined to the mere
technical aspect. He 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
interests of this country, for he wished to consider British
interests in the observations he should make with reference
to the Foreign Enlistment Act. He maintained there was
no other country in the world that had one-quarter of the
interests at stake in upholding a system of international
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 totally distinct. He had referred to the practice
ofbu ybiunyginagndansdellsing and exporting arms and munitions ofelling and exporting arms and munitions of
war. There was no law in this country to prohibit the
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 in that country had clearly laid clown
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 ho wrote so much that ho must necessarily write
uron 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 only one reason why ho 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 puflishment for violating the block-
ade was in the hands of those who maintained it through
their prize courts, it was well the country should know
that it was going on wholesale ; because if the crowds of
steamers that were now for the flirt time carrying on com-
merce in the West Indies, one or two were irrevocably
seized, he thought Mr. A.dams had so far done good, and
was entitled to toleration at the hands of this country.
(Cries of No, no.) fie would deal with the question of
blockade more fully at another time. But, coming to the

real question before them, the enfringement of the Foreign
Enlistment Act of this country, he thought the Government
should exercise the utmost vigilance in preventing the vio•
lation of that law, because they of all others had the greatest

interests at stake; and he hoped to scp the Government sup-
ported by the public opinion in upholding the law, and the
Americans had a right to expect this, for they had at all
times exercised rec;procity towards this country when ap-
plied to (Cries of No.) He liked to hear an opponent say No ;
but if he would listen to him, he would challege him to show
any record in the diplomatic correspondence between the two
countries complaining of an unrcdressed grievance under
the Foreign Enlistment Act of the ijoit.ed 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 cm
of France, the American people, in opposition to their own
sympathies, did justice 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. (Laughter.) 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 colonists as to what was
passing on the frontiers of the United States. He quoted
the speech of the noble lord on that occasion, when he was
Foreign Secretary, which washighly in favour of the United
Stales. 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 cfficials were to seize
all vessels, Scc., which they suspected, and detain them for
ten days, to give them time to produce proofs, and if they
failed, then the ship was to be set at liberty, but subject to
fresh capture as soon as they obtained that proof. During
the Crimean war America, at the joint request of Eng-