The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1873-02-10

1t had been One-slded. He observed tnat Inc
speech from The throne made no reference TO
the army. This omission was especially to be
regretted at thIs time, when desertiens from
the ranks were more frequent than ever.
The motion for the address to the Queen
was adopted, and their Lordships rose.
mt HOUSE OF COMMONS
the az ,in reply to the Queens speech was
moved uy the Hon. Charles Lyttelton, men,
ber for East Worcestershire, who, 10 his
speech, congratulated the House and the
country on the settlement of the disputes with
the United Statea. Although the decision
was uniavorable 10 England, there was not
the slightest ground for impugning the jmdg.
ment Of the Geneva arbitrators or the Ger
man Emperor. No nation should be slow to
follow Englands example.
MIR. VIM. Stone, member of Portsmouth,
seconded the motion.
Mr. Dlsrael rose and was loudly cheered.
He said he had heard with alarm many things
In the Royal speech. He would not in the
slightest degree criticise the sovereign and
the arbitrators who had given awards adverse
to England. He had approved of the nego..
tiatona at Washington, but could not but
condemn The prospective rules adopted. The
government pretended that they had followed
Palmerston; out that statesman would never
have placed England In such dangerous and
undlgniaed position. The Geneva judgment
showed that the government was totally
wrong. What would be Its effect on the tu-
ture position OF the country? What was the
scope OF the term ''due dligence?' Was 1t In
accord with our municipal law, or, as the ar
bltrators said, such as to totally prohibit the
evil complained of? Was England absolutely
bound 10 stop vessels violating the neutrality
laws, whether suspected or mol! In the case
OF commissioned vessel that would be
AN ACT OF WAR,
involving us In hoslilites Immediately. The
Washington Treaty bound the government 10
adopt new laws and ur5e them on other conn
tries. Did the government Intend to adopt its
own Interpretation or that OF lne ,, Geneva
Board! These were most Important ques.
lions; they involved the highest Interests and
the honor of England. He did not question
the Crowns prerogative 10 negotiate treaties,
but he objected 10 the ministry entering upon
o treaty which compelled the alteration OF our
municipal law.
Mr.. DIsraeli next turned his attention TO the
paragraph In the Qaeen's speech concerning
the negotiations With Russia Tor the preserva-
tion OF peace In Central Asia. He hoped the
papers on this subject which the government
had promised to lay before The House would
be full and satisfactory. Should Russia at
tempt to seize Coustanli0Ople and conquer
India che would and must be resisted. DE
hoped diplomacy would settle the question,
but war must If necessary.
The Right Hon. Mr.. Thurman severely crit
icIsed the governments foreign policy, which
was involving the country 10 new and serious
complications. The Geneva decision was one
sided and humillating. He hoped the case
was an exceptional one, and as such was to
be accepted by force OF necessity.
THE ARBITRATION ooNDEMNED.
Mr.. Bernard Osborne condemned the arbi-
tration, but believed The less said about 1t the
better. Any outlay which secured the good
will Of America was profitable Investment.
He thought that result might have been at.
tanned without sacrifice and humiliation.
The Hon Charles While upheld the govern
ment and denounced certain Liverpool par
Ties, who preferred private gain TO public
honor.
Mr.. John Laird. the member for Birken-
head, warmly protested against such remarks.
His firm had always been desrous of the full
cst inquiry during the building OF The Ala
bana, but their requests for Investigation
were neglected.
Mr.. Gladstone followed with general de-
fence OF the royal speech. Replying TO the
criticisms on the manner In which the DIS
putes with America had been settled, he de-
clared that II similar case should arise, arD-
traiion would again be resorted 10. Honor
was not sacrificed, and the ieariHl hor rors OF
war had been averted. No alteration oil the
municipal law was required.
The debate was continued by the Hon. ia.
thorne Hardy, Mr.. Vernon Harcourt and
nIhpra