The New York herald., 1869-06-09

dices and his gout and deploring the degeneration
the world, hobbies to his seat at Westminster al Tn
risk OF his ife vote against the ragamuffins VIII
| would disturb the old order OF Things would II no
be far better TO substitute In his place as egisato
| his seventh or eighth son. who has Knocked abou
the world for fifteen or twenty years, living as
pauper upon his rich relations, but VIII,
wires been constructed tnat cables have bound
| continents and peoples together that serfdom ha,
has spread among the masses and that the human
| race Is everywhere rising into the position tn,
Creator designed for those made. after His owl
imagef Let the House OF Lords still be composed o.
men who are IN possession of that desirable qualin
:aton-'a stake In the nation;" let its members be
confined TO the nobility to dukes, marquses, earls
and their descendants; but let the people elect the
Peers as lhey elect the Commons, and give them the
whole range or the nobility young and old 70 choose
from by such radical reform only can the country
be freed from an EVIL which thousands beginning
awaits ony the frst practical manifestation To be
| swept away by revolution.
it Is with sach a conviction pressing upon their
| minds tnat people are now asking, What Will the
House OF Lords do with the Irish Church bill The
friends OF the Church-or, more properly speaking
tne Irlehds OF It's special privileges, wealth and
sothlulnessare using all their efforts TO induce the
rejection or the measure on Its second reading but
many persons VINO ought TO be well informed pre-
diet that the Peers viii prefer the less direct method
OF saughterlng II by amendments to which the
lnihisterial ana liberal party In the House will be un
able to agree. All concur In the statement that the
Lords are bitterly opposed 10 dsestabishment and
dlsendowment, and that If their assent should be
eventually won 1t would only be under cOmpulson,
as 1t We're. and from the apprehension that would
not be altogether safe TO attempt TO stem the
rent OF popular opinion. few may be
| 1ound who believe the Lords will actually
pass the bill without material amendment ana these
trust TO Lord SaliSbury's wisdom and moderation
to guide the Peers from the dangerous rock OF oppo
sitlon TO the Will OF the people Last year Lord
Salisbury declared that in his view an hereditary
body was from Its very nature deoarred from de-
featlng measure upon which the nation had already
SCI the marx OF approval, and 1t Is hoped by some
thai thls liberal and Just sentiment Will control the
acGon OF the Upper House the Irish Church bill.
II does not seem probable however, that these hopes
may prevent the Lords from rejecting ON its second
reading measure winch has carried recently
large majority into the House OF Commons, and
which mas met such decided support from the
popular branch OF Parliament III all It's stages; but
the chances are that the bill Will be materially modi-
ued and tnat before II Is finally dispose OF It Will
be the subject OF conference between the houses
The Difficulty with America Relative to the
Alabama Claims.
The London Times OF the 2Sh ult. has an editorial
reviewing the letter Of the Messrs Laird regarding
the building OF the Alabama from which we make
the following extracts:-
The truth Of the matter is-and by this time the
Americans must be well aware OF it-that our
offence, any Vas committed by US, consisted in the
defects or a law which allowed so much to be done
as is here confessed to have been done by Messrs.
Laird 1t VIII not escape the notlce OF the public
that though the builders or the Alabama confined
themselves prudenty to tue terms oil their contract
although they sold and delivered simply empty
ship, and kept themselves aloof from all the pro-
ceedings which ultimately turned her into man
OF war, they did nevertheless know they were build
ing shlp Tor the Confederate navy, and that they
mad delivered her into the hands OF those who would
complete her for its service 1t is likewise admitted
that though Mr. Laird, The member for Birkenhead.
was not actually at tnaG time partner in the frm
he also knew OF the building OF the Alabama and of
| the purposes for which she was built. The ques-
ton, therefore, and the only question: Ia whether
| the omission In our jurisprudence which per-
| mltted these proceedings renders US liable for
| any or the consequences which followed them.
| we may almost venture 10 say-though we
| should not object 10 have the point debated-that
| there was no negligence on the part OF govern
| Inent under the law as it Stood We doubt very
much II the Alabama could nave been seized save at
| the peril OF the government, and It Is more than
PROBABLE that The authorities, II they had ventured
| on OBTAINING her. would have been compelled
| as afterwards III the case of the Alexandra, TO
| pay the costs or an arbitrary and unlawful act
But, this being the state OF the case it may
possibly be argued that we owe compensation FOR
the defects OF our law not or Che carelessness of
those VINO administered IL. We cannot but see
as constituting KIND OF case against ourselves
that, notwithstanding all Messrs. Lalrds disclaimers
were building. That she was designed for a vessel
OF war was never so much as disguised; that she
was universally understood. Officai inspectors and
| private spies were watching her. and were enabled
prove the publicity OF all these proceedings, for In
fact there was no need Of secrecy SO long as the YES.
Sci was neither armed nor equipped she not come
under the cognzance OF the law, but everybody did
suspect her. and the suspcions were certainly well
founded. II needs however no proof ut ALL
because, as have before Observed it Is nowhere
really believed that between the escape OF the Ala.
Dama, as now detailed by MeSsrs Laird, and the
proclamation OF neutrality as denounced by Mr..
sumner there was absolutely connection what
ever. 1t Is very doubtful II there was any negll-
gence at all, and most assuredly there was was no
willul or malicious negligence on tue part OF our
authorities In permitting the Alabama to get sea.
All we can admit 10. that II II nad really ILLEGAL
TO build such vessel, or not illegal to seize her
when built Ii might have been better, not only for
the federals but for ourselves Also The precedent
might be very mischievous one for US 10 time OF
war II the ehipDuilders OF other countries were to
take such contracts as Messrs. Lard took at
Blrkenhead The fact is, the more our cor:
respondents insist on the regularity and
openness Of the Transaction, the more
completely they expose the weakness OF the law.
Tney did, to all lntents aud purposes build ship.
of-war for the American insurgents with full
knowledge OF what they were doing. They made
no attempt at concealnent, because concealment
up to q certain point unnecessary. They could
not be prevented from building The hull OF
man-oiwar to order, and they took care to do no
more. They were never informed by the pur-
chaser or the Alabama OF the arrangements he mad
made for manning arming, equippng aud commits
sionng that vessel AZ foreign port" OF not.
Both parties wise enough keep clear OF such
condolences: but Messrs. Laird do not show US by
their elaborate explanations how much was TO be
done with complete impunIty IN such matters as
these We accept in their literal truth they tell
Us about the terms or the contract. We do not sup
pose they exacted any exorbitant conditions from
the purchaser for there was no reason why they
should, Guarding Themselves as they took care 10
do they ran no extraordinary risk. They neither
manned the Alabama nor equipped her; nor did they
inquire now she was To be manned, or where she
was 70 be equipped. They only prepared her COM
pletely Tor receiving her equipment and crew, and
tnen they took the money and washed their hands OF
the job. In all this there was nothing Illegal, and
1t l. precisely because there nothing illegal that
our government denied ITS respons bilty for the
sequencles. But although II may be very doubtful
how lar one state Is accountable TO another for the
incOmplcteness Of s laws. II IL clear that In the
case before us the law did leave great deal unpro-
vided for.
ERhNNF