Papers Relating to Foreign Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Message of the President to the First Session Thirty-eighth Congress, Part I

[Extracts.]

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward.

No. 359.]

Legation of the United States, London, March 28, 1863.

Sir: In transmitting herewith a copy of The Morning Star of to-day, containing a report of the debate of last evening in the House of Commons, I can only express my regret that the substance of it should fall so far short of what I had been led to expect.

* * * * * * * * * *

The result is rather to undo in the popular mind the effect of Lord Russell’s speech than to confirm it. In truth, this exhibition furnishes another illustration of the horizontal manner in which our struggle is dividing opinion in Great Britain.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS,

Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

The fitting out of ships-of-war in British ports for the Confederate States.

Mr. W. E. Forster rose “to ask the first lord of the treasury whether the attention of her Majesty’s government had been called to the danger, to our friendly relations with the United States resulting from the fitting out in our ports of ships-of-war for the service of the self-styled Confederate States, in contravention of the foreign enlistment act and of the policy of neutrality adopted by this country.” He said that a danger did really exist, because many persons, British subjects, or acting under the protection of British law, and in the defence of the Queen’s proclamation and of the statutes of the realm, were breaking the law, and were engaged in efforts to break it to an extent which did certainly endanger this country being involved in war. This was notorious from the papers that had been presented in the case of the Alabama. From these papers there arose two questions: the first was, whether her Majesty’s government had done all that they could—had used every possible exertion—to prevent these breaches of the law; and the second, whether they were impressed with the necessity of the duty of doing their utmost to prevent them for the future? And he must acknowledge that his object in addressing the noble viscount the question now was, that he thought there was great danger, and that they could not separate for the recess without obtaining an answer, more especially with regard to the second question as to the future. With regard to the past it would have been more convenient had discussion on it been postponed, because his honorable friend, the member for Brighton, had a motion for other papers which would throw additional light on the subject. But in the present state of public feeling there might be advantage in the government being able to give at once some explanation which the facts as presented in these papers seemed to demand. He would endeavour briefly to state the circumstances of the case. On June 23 the American minister, having already had experience of one armed vessel leaving their shores and being engaged in the destruction of American ships, wrote to the foreign secretary to the effect that he was under the painful necessity of addressing his lordship with reference to a new but still more powerful war steamer which was nearly ready for departure from the port of Liverpool on a similar errand. The American minister, in confirmation of this, enclosed a statement from the American consul at Liverpool, who said: “The evidence I have is entirely conclusive that this vessel is intended for the confederate government.” The despatch was forwarded on the 21st of June, and the foreign minister sent it to the custom servants at Liverpool, who replied that they were unable to take any steps to prevent the departure of the vessel. One point on which they required information was as to the steps the custom officers had taken to find out the truth or falsehood of the American minister’s statement, which was so fully justified by the result. The next letter was dated July 22, in which the American minister again wrote to Lord Russell, and enclosed sworn depositions which abundantly proved that the vessel was on the point of sailing, fully armed.

Mr. Roebuck. Only partially armed.

Mr. Forster said that one of the depositions—that of a seaman who had been enlisted by the confederate agent—stated that she had a magazine, shot and canister racks on deck, and was pierced for guns, and was built and fitted up as a fighting ship in all respects. It was also proved that the building of the vessel was superintended by Captain Butcher, the confederate agent. The next point to which he would allude was the opinion given by the honorable and learned member for Plymouth, (Mr. Collier,) who wrote :

“I have perused the above affidavits, and I am of opinion that the collector of customs would be justified in detaining the vessel. Indeed, I think it is his duty to detain her, and that if, after the application that has been made to him, supported by the evidence which has been laid before me, he allows the vessel to leave Liverpool; he will incur a heavy responsibility—a responsibility of which the board of customs; under whose directions he appears to be acting, must take their share. It well deserves consideration whether, if the vessel be allowed to escape, the federal government would not have serious grounds of remonstrance.”

The validity of this opinion appeared to have been approved of by the law officers of the crown; but one point on which they needed information was, why five or six days elapsed after obtaining Mr. Collier’s opinion before any step was taken. It appeared that Lord Russell had been informed that the vessel was ready to sail; he had the strongest ground for suspicion that the vessel was going out to be employed in the service of the Confederate States; and he (Mr. Forster) should like to know why that long time elapsed before any steps were taken? [Hear, hear.] On the 22d September, some time after the vessel sailed, Lord Russell wrote :

“The report of the law officers was not received until the 29th of July, and on the same day a telegraphic message was forwarded to her Majesty’s government, stating that the vessel had sailed that morning.”

They should know why the foreign office was so long in taking steps in the matter. They should know why the customs, whose duty it was to take steps to prevent a breach of the law quite independent of the foreign office or of the American government, took no steps whatever. [Hear, hear.] They should know why it was that, having information given to them, they did nothing. [Hear, hear.] Lord Russell writes that instructions were sent to detain the vessel if she should go into Queenstown, and that similar instructions were sent to the governor of the Bahamas if the vessel should put into Nassau; but he should like to know why orders were not sent to detain her in Port Royal. [Hear, hear.] If such orders were sent, why were they not acted upon? [Hear, hear.] Lord Russell stated that she started on the day the law officers gave their opinion. [Hear, hear.] It appeared that the representations made by the American ambassador had merely the effect of enabling the owners of the vessel to find that it was necessary to depart at once. [Hear, hear.] It was a curious coincidence that the very day the opinion was obtained was also the very day on which the vessel went away. [Hear.] Earl Russell said there was a very subtle contrivance to elude the act, but if it were subtle, he was afraid it might also be said that the customs in Liverpool were not strict with regard to smuggling. [Hear, hear.] The statement Was, that the vessel went on a pleasure excursion, and the customs did not think it necessary to find out if this pleasure excursion was, as it turned out to be, an actual departure. [Hear, hear.] She sailed out with the British flag, and was joined subsequently by two other vessels also hoisting the British flag. She was supplied with arms and stores, and they were informed that from that time she ceased to hoist the British flag and hoisted the confederate flag. They should know what steps the government had taken to ascertain when she made the change from the British to the confederate flag. [Hear, hear.] Upon the 16th of September she captured and burned ten vessels—[hear, hear]—and how she lured them to destruction by hoisting the British flag in every case in which the vessels were destroyed. [Hear, hear.] It was hardly surprising that the announcement that this vessel, coming from a British port and hoisting the British flag, had seized on prizes, should have created a very strong feeling in America. [Hear, hear.] The first protest which he would read was from several merchants in America, stating that in September last, on the high seas, a number of American ships were captured, plundered, and burned, and the crews subjected to brutal treatment by an armed vessel called the Alabama; that the vessel was built in an English port, and the crew came from an English port; that at the time the outrage was committed she had been in no other than a British port, and that she carried no other than the British flag until the prizes were within her grasp, when she hoisted the rebel flag of the Confederate States. They stated also that it was notorious in England that other vessels for the same service were in process of construction, and for the loss thus occasioned the memorialists believed the English nation to be responsible. He (Mr. Forster) did not say they were responsible—[hear, hear]—but they could not be surprised that American merchants, and the American people generally should think them responsible. [Hear, hear.] In a similar case they would think the American government responsible. This was altogether a British transaction; there was nothing confederate about it, with the exception of two or three officers and some promises as to pay and stores; the vessel was built by English ship-builders and manned by a British crew, drew prizes to destruction under a British flag, and was paid for by money borrowed from British capitalists. [Hear, hear.] When they considered that this was not the first vessel that was so employed, they could not be surprised at the feeling existing in America with regard to it. [Hear, hear.] He had now given to the House a brief statement in regard to the Alabama, and if one ship merely had been so employed he would not have brought the matter then before the House. He should not like to make a case against the government, and would think it best to let the matter alone; but when it was expected that this ship would be followed by many others, it became a question affecting their interests, the interests of the country, and their friendly relations with America. [Hear, hear.] He should not have troubled the House without having reason to suppose that other ships intended to follow this example. As early as the 30th September there was a letter from Mr. Adams, stating his strong reasons for believing that other enterprises were in progress in the ports of Great Britain of a similar kind, and had attained such notoriety as to be openly announced in the newspapers of Liverpool and London. [Hear, hear.] In the month of October the chancellor of the exchequer made several speeches in the north, and there was one statement of his which excited more attention than even his eloquent statements have generally done. The right honorable gentleman stated that the south had an army, and in a very short time would have a navy. He could not be aware at the time of such a speedy realization of his prophesy, or that its fulfilment was then attempted by the agent of the Confederate States. [Hear, hear.] In the same month of October an official letter was intercepted from the secretary of the confederate navy to the agent of the confederates in England, in which he says:

“Mr. Saunders has, as you are aware, contracted with this department for the construction in England of six iron-clad steamers.”

This was, in fact, the construction of a fleet to sail from the shores of England to attack the United States on the part of the Confederate States. The noble lord the member for Sandwich would jump at such an addition to the English navy. [Hear, hear.] It was not the case of one or two vessels sailing out to break the blockade or catch one or two merchant ships, but English ports were made use of for the purpose of carrying on a private war in size and importance almost equal to a public war with the United States. [Hear, hear.] Now there came the question, what was to be done? He did not ask the gov-government to infringe the rights of any British subject, or to infringe the law, or to do anything detrimental to what was supposed to be the British interest; but he asked them to carry out the law; and if the law were not sufficiently powerful, they should come to that house and demand further powers. [Hear, hear.] If they did so they would follow the example of the United States, which demanded and obtained similar powers when this country made a request in a similar case. He did not actually know that the English government had made such a request, but if not the American government did what they considered necessary without it. [Hear, hear.] At the time of the rebellion in Canada, the American foreign enlistment act not being sufficient to prevent the transgression of the frontier between Canada and the United States, and the passage over it of their men—precisely the same thing as the passage of a vessel from the English shores to America—the American government passed a temporary act, enlarging the powers of their foreign enlistment act. [Hear.] He believed the American foreign enlistment act was similar to the English foreign enlistment act, and the cases were also similar. [Hear, hear.] Both acts contained two provisions: one to prevent the recruiting of armed men or the marching of an army over the frontier; the other was to prevent the equipping of vessels or the departure of a navy from its ports. [Ironical cheers from the opposition benches.] Notwithstanding that ironical cheer from the opposite side, he would say that they would be only following the example of the friendly conduct of America in a similar situation if the government would obtain further powers by passing a temporary act for the purpose. When making that suggestion he was only stating what appeared to be the sentiments of Earl Russell during a part of last year. The noble lord wrote to Mr. Adams that he was prepared to make an amendment in the foreign enlistment act, to render the law more effectual to prevent the fitting out of vessels, if the United States would do the same. The only other information they had was that on the 14th of February Earl Russell wrote to Lord Lyons—

“On a second point, namely, whether the law with respect to the equipment of vessels for hostile purposes might be improved, Mr. Adams said that his government were ready to listen to any proposition her Majesty’s government had to make, but they did not see how their own law on the subject could he improved. I said that the cabinet had come to a similar conclusion, so that no further proceedings need he taken at present on the subject.”

Why did the United States government say they did not think an amendment of the law was necessary? Because they had found the law effectual under similar circumstances. [Hear, hear.] Eight years ago, when this country was engaged in a war with Russia, a similar case to the present one occurred. They blockaded the ports of Russia, as the United States were blockading the confederate ports. They believed they had shut in the Russian navy so as not to interfere with British commerce, but they had an anxiety lest the United States should send out privateers under the Russian flag. They feared that the Americans might do to them what they were now doing to the United States. Their consuls and ministers received the same instructions as the American ministers and consuls now receive—to watch everything that was done. But it might be truly stated with confidence that, notwithstanding the strong temptation presented to American merchants to fit out privateers to prey on English commerce, not one single privateer or vessel-of-war left American ports to aid Russia during the whole of that war. On the contrary, he could mention two instances” in which American subjects showed that they would not break the neutrality law. [Hear, hear.] He believed it was supposed that a ship called the General Admiral did leave an American port to assist the Russian government. The fact really was that Mr. Webb, a great ship-builder in America, received an order. from the Russian government to build this ship before the breaking out of the war. He stated that he returned to New York in 1853, and commenced the work; that after the breaking out of the war between Russia and England and her ally, with whom the United States government was at peace, the legality of his continuing the prosecution of the work became questionable, and the result was the suspension of the work and the postponement of the fulfilment of his contract until after the restoration of peace; and they had got part of the correspondence that passed between Mr. Webb and the Grand Duke Constantine on the subject. [Hear, hear.] There was a still more extraordinary case, that of a war schooner which was suspected by the British consul, and his suspicions appeared to be almost identical with the suspicions felt by the American consul with regard to the Alabama. What did the American government do? Upon the receipt of a deposition, nothing like so strong as that upon which the foreign office took four or five days to act, and then acted when it was too late, the American government at once detained the vessel until the British consul was convinced that she was not intended for the service of Russia; and that, in fact, she had been armed with a view to resist pirates in Chinese seas. It was rather a curious coincidence that that vessel belonged to a very eminent American merchant, Mr. Lowe, who had suffered most from the depreciations of the Alabama; and it was also a curious fact that he was one of the largest, if not the largest, subscriber to the relief of the distress in Lancashire. [Hear, hear.] Therefore the House would not be surprised if his case had excited great sympathy in America. Well, in consequence of the arrest of the Morea, the New York Chamber of Commerce, having a feeling, which he feared was not shared much in England, that if the charge had been true, such a breach of the laws of neutrality would be disgraceful to their characters as merchants, appointed a committee to examine into the case, and they came to the conclusion that an apology was due to Mr. Lowe for the ungrounded suspicions. What was the nature of the resolution they passed?

“That the merchants of New York, as part of the body of merchants of the United States, will uphold the government in the full maintenance of the neutrality laws of the country, and will acknowledge and adopt, and always have regarded, the acts of the United States in preserving this neutrality as binding in honor and conscience as well as law, and we denounce those who violate them as disturbers of the peace of the world, and to be held in universal abhorrence.” [Hear, hear.]

With such a resolution come to in the year 1856, the House could not be surprised at the resolution recently passed by the same Chamber of Commerce, in which they express their indignation at the fact that armed vessels had been allowed to leave British ports for the purpose of acting against the commerce of the United States. He did not ask the government to infringe the right of any British subject, but he was quite sure that if the customs of Liverpool acted with anything like the same vigilance as the customs authorities at New York acted in the case of the Morea, the Alabama would never have been permitted to leave the port. [Hear, hear.] And if they acted with anything like the vigilance that was now used to prevent smuggled tobacco coming in; he believed that the vessels that were now being built would never be able to get to sea. [Hear, hear.] If, during the Russian war, the Americans had acted towards us as we were now acting towards them, he believed the indignation that would be caused in this country would be so great that it would have been difficult for any government to have maintained peace with the United States. [Hear, hear.] There was only one more point which he wished to impress upon the attention of the government. He could not help thinking, from the perusal of these papers, that the custom-house authorities, whose business primarily it was to see this law put in force, were acting in some respects on a wrong principle, for they seemed to suppose that it was not their business to put it in force until the American government took action in the matter. That was not the case. This was not a question of sympathy as between the north and the south, but it was a question of obedience to British law, and of carrying out the foreign enlistment act, the preamble of which said that the equipment or fitting out of vessels in British ports was to be prevented, because it was prejudicial, and calculated to endanger the peace and welfare of the kingdom. It might be said by some honorable gentlemen that the United States had now so much to do that these things could be done with impunity. Suppose that to be the case. Let the House remember what a precedent this country was creating. [Hear, hear.] We were neutrals now, but we had been belligerents, and may be belligerents again; and if so, could we expect that the United States would retire into their old position of neutrality, and act again as they did during the war of the Crimea? [Hear, hear.] But he doubted that a nation of 20,000,000, roused up to a pitch of great excitement, would be restrained from hostilities merely because they were engaged in another war. If there were anything in our own history of which we were proud, it was this, that when engaged in war with one nation, we were ready to resent any insult or injury just as strongly as though we were not an adversary ourselves. [Cheers.] He would only add that during this war, which had caused so much misery in this country, we had hitherto preserved neutrality under great temptation, and he was willing to acknowledge under no little provocation, for the sake of those whose interests they most cared for, namely, their industrial population. [Hear, hear.] Having done so, and having now a hope, as he trusted and believed they had, of seeing an end to this terrible war, surely the government would do their utmost to preserve that neutrality from being violated by private interest in order to put money into the pockets of a few ship-owners and contractors, however wealthy they might be, or however high their station. [Cheers.]

The solicitor general said his honorable friend who had just set down had referred to the strong feeling which existed in the United States on the subject of the Alabama, and the important interests which he thought might be compromised if this country did not exert the powers which it possessed to prevent the fitting out of similar vessels; and he had said that we could not be surprised that the American merchants and the American public should hold this country responsible for the acts of that vessel. He (the solicitor general) should take the liberty of saying that we should have very just reason to feel surprised that so extraordinary an error should have prevailed in the general mind of the American public, if it did not happen fortunately that we were able to trace that error in some respect to its sources. The accusations that had been made against her Majesty’s government with respect to the Alabama, and which he hoped to show the House were entirely groundless, were but a part of a series of accusations of systematic breaches of neutrality which, unhappily, the government of the United States had permitted itself to make against this country from, he might almost say, the beginning of this war. [Hear, hear.] In their diplomatic communications, made through Mr. Adams to her Majesty’s government, and which he deeply regretted to add constituted no small part of the contents of the book which he held in his hand, and which had been laid by the American government before Congress, he found repeated over and over again a catalogue of grievances against this country, of which the matter of the Alabama was only a single item. He regretted to say it was indispensably necessary, in order that the House should appreciate the truth concerning the Alabama, to see how utterly destitute of solid ground were the complaints which had been made with respect to the conduct of the government as to the Alabama, that he should show the House in what company those charges were found. He would only mention two or three examples. On the 13th of February last year they had Mr. Seward writing to complain of the exportation from this country of munitions of war and arms, and which he represented as a breach of the duties of neutrality, and which the government, if sincere in their neutrality, were bound to prevent. On the 1st of May, 1862, Mr. Seward complained that money had been provided by subscription in Liverpool, and employed in the purchase of arms and munitions for the confederates. On the 12th of May Mr. Adams wrote to Earl Russell complaining of the supply of men and ships, which he mixed up with arms and money, to one of the parties in the war. Upon the 2d of June Mr. Seward sent to Mr. Adams a report of a gentleman, who gave a long account of the purchases of arms, munitions of war, and military stores which had been shipped from England to the Confederate States; and only as late as the 13th 6f December, 1862, Mr. Adams, while engaged in correspondence with Earl Russell on the subject of the Alabama,] annexed to his despatch a great number of documents giving an account of a large quantity of military and other stores which had been exported from this country to the Confederate States. It was true that Mr. Adams then endeavored to give some color to that complaint by connecting it with the question of blockade, but he reiterated the complaints referred to, and that was the manner in which, from first to last, in their diplomatic correspondence with this country, the government of the United States had not thought it unworthy of them to complain of this country as guilty of breaches of neutrality. They had in that correspondence done no more nor less than to deny the application to this country in this war of those principles as neutrals which had been invariably recognized by all nations, and by no nation more strongly than by the United States themselves. [Cheers.] He had given the House the dates of the several complaints. He would now mention another date. In November, 1862, the Mexican minister at Washington addressed a complaint to Mr. Seward to this effect:

“I have the honor to inform you that my government has given me instructions to communicate to that of the United 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 wagons for transporting the cannon, war materials, and provisions to the interior of Mexico. My government thinks that if such purchases should be realized, the neutrality which should be observed would be violated by the sellers.”

Now, what was the answer of Mr. Seward upon the 24th of November to that remonstrance? Mr. Seward, in his reply, quoted sundry extracts from well-known authorities, and those, he considered, constituted his answer to this complaint. What were those extracts? The first was an instruction to the collector of customs, issued by Alexander Martin, the Secretary of the Treasury, August 4th, 1793, as follows :

“The purchasing and exporting from the United States, by way of merchandise, articles called contraband, being generally warlike instruments and stores, are free to all parties at war, and ought not to be interfered with. [Cheers.] If our citizens undertake to carry them, they will be abandoned to the penalties which the law of the country authorizes.”

Had this country not abandoned to the penalties which the law. of the country authorized all the 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, and was from Mr. Webster:

“It is not the practice of nations to undertake to prohibit their own subjects from trafficking in articles 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.” [Hear, hear.]

According to Mr. Webster’s instructions, if American merchants, in the way of commerce, had sold munitions of war to Texas, the government of the United States, nevertheless, were not bound to prevent it, and could not have prevented it without a manifest departure from the principles of neutrality. [Cheers.] The next extract was from Mr. President Pierce’s message to Congress, in 1855:

“The laws of the United States do not forbid their 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 property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of international neutrality, and do not of themselves implicate the government.” [Cheers.]

He would quote one authority more. They had heard of complaints of loans of money, as well as of the sale of munitions of war. Mr. Webster wrote to Mr. Thompson, in 1851–‘52, to the effect that no government could undertake to restrain such loans. He (the solicitor general) thought, therefore, that the House would see that the American government was not prepared to appreciate justly and truly the specific value of any complaints on the subject of the Alabama, in consequence of the application which they themselves had made of the general principles of international law. With reference to the particular case of the Alabama, it was necessary, in order that the bearings of that question of international law and the mutual relations of the governments of the two countries should be understood, to clearly see what were the rights which the United States government had in the matter. The House of Commons certainly had the deepest interest in the maintenance of their own laws, and were sincerely determined to enforce them on the constitutional principles on which laws were administered in this country. He had come to the conclusion that if it had not been that we, in order to prevent the violation of our own neutrality by other governments as against ourselves, had thought fit to pass the foreign enlistment act, it would have been impossible on their own principles, for the government of the United States to treat the sale of a ship-of-war as in any sense unlawful or contrary to international law, more than the sale of any other kind of munitions of war. He would show that from their own authorities. They had a foreign enlistment act as well as ourselves, and, as it had been in existence longer than ours, a greater number of decisions had taken place upon it. He would examine, first, the principles of interpretation which had been given to that act, and secondly, the general principles of law which, independently of that act, would exist between nations. In 1815 there was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States, and what were the doctrines which were then laid down? Those doctrines were, that a neutral nation might, if it felt so disposed, without a breach of her neutral character, grant permission to both belligerents to equip their vessels-of-war within her territories; but that without such permission subjects of belligerent powers had no right to equip vessels-of-war, or increase or augment their forces, either with arms or men, as such unauthorized steps would violate her sovereignty and her rights as a neutral. That was the principle on which the foreign enlistment act was passed—not that it would be a violation of neutrality if we chose to permit the equipment of vessels here, but that it would be a violation of our neutrality if foreign governments sought to do acts of that kind which were calculated to entangle us with other nations. Nothing could destroy that statement of the Supreme Court of the United States; and but for our own laws, enacted for our own defence, we should not be violating our neutral character if we permitted both belligerents to equip their vessels within our territory. A priori ships were munitions of war, and might be sold to a belligerent power. The extent of the right derived by a foreign government from the enlistment act was merely that it could appeal to the friendly disposition of a neutral State to enforce its own laws, according to its own principles, within its own territory; but it could not complain if those laws were enforced in the usual way in which they were enforced as against English subjects; that is, upon evidence, not suspicion—[hear, hear]—according to law, not presumption—[hear, hear]—not on a mere accusation because it was made by a foreign government, any more than we should enforce our own laws against a person because he was accused by any person interested on the side of our own government. It was no right of foreign governments to require the enforcement of the enlistment act any more than other acts. The case of the Alabama was not like the recent case which happened in the Brazils, where the property of British subjects was plundered on the shores of that country. The only ground. of offence, if offence there was, was because our laws had made it such; and if any foreign government had an interest in enforcing our laws, they must be content to do so according to the ordinary mode of procedure in this country. [Hear, hear.] With regard to the law itself, it was in no degree desirable or proper that he should enter into an explanation of the difficulties attached to its execution. It was a great mistake to suppose that it was intended to proscribe all commercial dealings whatever in ships or munitions of war with belligerent countries. Two things should be proved in every case: first, that there should be what the law considered a fitting out, arming, equipment; and secondly, that that should be with the intent that the ships should be employed in the service of a foreign belligerent power.

Again: he would refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, which would prove what on their own showing might lawfully be done, so as not to be struck at by the foreign enlistment act, and at the same time give no cause of international complaint. There had been one or two remarkable cases before that court. One occurred in 1822, and was determined by no less a personage than Mr. Justice Story. 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 her capture she was turned into a frigate and was sold, and for a short time was used for purposes of commerce. Then, a war having broken out between Spain and her revolted colonies in January, 1816, she was loaded with great munitions of war by her owners, who were inhabitants of Baltimore, and was armed with twelve guns, which constituted part of her original armament. She was sent from that port, under the command of a native 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 authorized 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 Buenos Ayres, She assumed the flag and character of a public ship, and from that time was employed in war, the same captain and a greater part of the same crew navigating her, Well, what was the judgment of Mr. Justice Story in that case? He said it was apparent that if she was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure, she in no shape violated the laws of international neutrality; but that if she had been captured by a ship-of-war during her voyage, she would have been 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 to foreign ports for sale. That was a commercial adventure which no nation was bound to prohibit, and which only exposed the person engaged in it to the penalty of confiscation. Supposing the voyage of the ship in question to have been for a commercial purpose, and that the sale to the Buenos Ayres government was a bona fide sale, there was no pretence for saying that the original adventure was illegal. He (the solicitor general) would refer to another American decision, namely, that in the case of the DeQuincy. The doctrine laid down in that case was that the defendant, who was accused of having violated the foreign enlistment act, was entitled to an acquittal if it were found that when the ship was being fitted out and equipped at Baltimore the owner and equipper intended to go to the West Indies in search of funds with which to arm and equip the vessel, and had no present intention to employ it as a privateer, but intended when it was equipped to go to the West Indies to endeavor to raise funds to prepare her for a cruise as a privateer. The intention of the owner must be fixed and not conditional, or dependent 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 of a 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.” The government was 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 long misled—so far as to suppose that there was any reason for complaining of an infraction of international law merely because ships-of-war with which the Confederate States might carry on their belligerent operations came from this country. There was no such reason for complaining. [Cheers.] The United States government would have reason to complain if her Majesty’s government directly or indirectly were concerned in fitting out such belligerent ships. But when individuals did so there was no infraction of international law. If the people of the United States government could be relieved from their prejudices which might have been produced by the continued representations of their own government, they could perceive that the things complained of were not unlawful. [Cheers.] If their minds could be disabused of the impressions so created he felt sure that no candid man in the United States could think there was any want of good faith on the part of the government in any step taken with regard to the case of the Alabama. As his honorable friend had said that was not the first ship which escaped from this country. The first ship was the Oreto. She left this country clandestinely. The first and only information on that subject communicated to our government was given by Mr. Adams. He stated a case which clearly called for inquiry. And accordingly the commissioners of customs were instructed to make an inquiry. They stated circumstances which tended to excite suspicion, but there was no evidence whatever to justify the detention of the vessel. There was nothing upon which the government could act unless it were maintained that the government could act upon vague rumors. The Oreto sailed on the 22d March. The circumstance of her departure and the contemporaneous representations of Mr. Adams to the government made it probable that it really was true that the vessel was intended for the service of the Confederate States. But it was by no means clear that there was evidence upon which a court of law would have held the fitting of this vessel to be a violation of the foreign enlistment act. The government, however, immediately sent out orders to Nassau; the vessel was consequently watched, and there being on board portions of stores which might be considered munitions of war, although it was doubtful whether they could have been so proven in evidence, still the government, to prove their good faith, strained a point, and acted upon such evidence as there was. The result was that the Oreto was tried and acquitted. The evidence was not sufficient to secure a conviction. Was any want of good faith shown in that? With regard to the Alabama the material facts were these. It was true that on the 23d of June Mr. Adams called the attention of the government to information he had received respecting the building of this vessel. Down to this time it had often been said, but there was no evidence of it, that many ships were being built for the confederates; and what was more, with all the papers before them, there were no legal grounds for suspicion. But on the 23d information was given to the government, and the government took the proper and legal steps in consequence—they directed the commissioners of customs to have the case inqured into. On the 1st July the commissioners of customs made their report to Lord Russell. They said it was perfectly evident that the ship was a ship-of-war, that it was reported and believed she was built for the purpose of war, but the builders would give no information as to her destination, and that there was no other reliable source of information. Were the government wrong in not seizing the vessel under these circumstances? Did the house recollect the decision of Judge Story and the Supreme Court? The circumstances of the two cases were exactly the same; and it was evident that if there had been a seizure it would have been totally unwarranted by law. The Alabama might have been built for a foreign government, and being a ship-of-war she was a legitimate article of merchandise; but Lord Russell in communicating the report to Mr. Adams said that if Mr. Adams could furnish any better evidence it should immediately receive the attention of the government. Then the government had been accused of unreasonable delay. But was there ever a more unjust or a more unworthy accusation? Mr. Adams’s first information was given to the government on the 23d June; but a period of seventeen days elapsed before he furnished any evidence whatever, and he did not complete it until two days afterwards. In the meantime Mr. Adams had obtained two opinions from the honorable and learned member for Plymouth, (Mr. Collier.) On the 16th Mr. Collier said there was a case of suspicion upon which he advised that the vessel might be detained, and on the 23d he thought there was a sufficient case for the detention. On that evidence the advisers of the crown came to the same conclusion. But he (the solicitor general) wished the house to understand there was really in that evidence a very great mass of merely hearsay matter which was good for nothing. Of the six depositions transmitted on the 22d July, only one was good for anything, that of Passmore, which proved the material facts. Two more sent on the 24th in some degree corroborated Passmore. Now, what was the delay of which the government was accused? The 26th was Saturday, and the 27th Sunday; and the complete evidence was not sent to Lord Russell until the 26th. On the 28th it was referred to the law officers, who made their report on the 29th, and the same day a telegraph message was sent to stop the vessel. [Hear.] He was quite shocked at the perversion of this case in the United States, though he made every allowance for natural irritation of feeling, under the circumstances, in the minds of the American nation. No one could be more anxious than he was for us to stand straight with them as they with us; no one could more regret their perversion of mind consequent upon an irritated state of feeling, but no human being could say that the British government had not acted in this matter with the promptitude that it ought to act. [Hear.] There was, however, one theory upon which the opposite view might be maintained; it was this, that because the ordinary safeguards of liberty had been suspended in the United States, therefore they should be suspended in this country too, [hear, hear,] and that the officers of this government, and the government itself, should violate the law by acting upon mere accusations and mere suspicions, and not upon legal evidence. [Hear.] His honorable friend had made reference to the case of the Morea, which was fitted out in the United States when we were at war with Russia. The facts showed that the United States government, in that case, took exactly the same time in dealing with it, in answer to our complaints, that we had in the case of the Alabama. In the case of the Morea the delay was from the 11th to the 17th October, and in the case of the Alabama from the 22d to the 29th July.

Mr. Forster: There was Mr. Adams’s first letter.

The Solicitor General: The first letter was without any evidence whatever. [Hear.] Could the government, without any evidence whatever, proceed to violate the law of the country? Mr. Adams himself did not expect that. [Hear.] But in a matter of this sort they were not proceeding by hours or days. It was sufficient to show that each government in the respective cases acted with reasonable promptitude and diligence. He could not think there was any member of the house who did not believe that the government had acted in good faith. His honorable friend had asked what they proposed to do with regard to other ships which were supposed to be building, and whether they considered the foreign enlistment act was only to be enforced at the instance of foreign governments. He (the solicitor general) had no hesitation in saying that the government by no means looked upon that act as one to be enforced at the instance of foreign governments. They were anxious to enforce the act to the best of their power; but they must have legal evidence and legal grounds to act upon. It would not do merely to tell them that six iron-clad vessels were building in this country. The government must know where, and by whom, and they must have evidence that their being so built was in violation of law. [Hear.] They would be glad to receive any information on those subjects; and he would express his entire concurrence in the remark of his honorable friend, that it would be well if the merchants of this country, who might be invited to be parties to acts which might violate the law, and at the same time involve the government and the country in relations tending to disturb amicable intercourse between two countries—it would be desirable, he said, that such merchants and others should consider that it was their duty to respect the laws of their country and to have regard to the interests of peace. At all events, the government would, without partiality or favor, follow out any clue which they might possess to discover such practices, and, undoubtedly, they were prepared to put the law in force against any person violating, if they had evidence likely to lead to a conviction. If the law was defective, it was for the house to consider whether or not it should be improved. If the government had reason to believe it so they would be willing in concert with the government of the United States to consider the question. But the government of the United States were not of opinion that their law required alteration; and it could not be supposed that the British government would propose to parliament an alteration in our law unless the government of the United States were prepared to place their law on a similar basis. The foreign enlistment act of the United States might have been put in force so as to prevent acts injurious to this country. The circumstances of some wars had more tendency than others to facilitate the violation of rights. The house would recollect the case of the insurrection in Canada. He did not say the American government were unwilling, but, if willing, were they able to prevent such acts as the direct invasion of Canadian territory by the ship Caroline? Most undoubtedly operations were carried on for a considerable time and the government of the United States were totally unable to prevent them. He need not refer to other cases. They had heard of the expedition of a person named Walker to Honduras; they had heard of many other things that had happened there. He only drew this inference that in times of excitement, when; the spirit of commercial speculation strongly actuated the public mind, violations of international law would occur, which, with all the good faith in the world, the governments of the nations concerned might not be able entirely to prevent. [Hear, hear.] He had referred to these cases in order that the house might compare them with what was urged against us. All that could be alleged as a breach of international law or of our own law was that two ships had slipped out under the circumstances mentioned. But the house would recollect it was only when the Alabama reached the Azores that she received her armament and hoisted the flag of the Confederate States. These being the only two things alleged we had reason to congratulate ourselves, so far as the government was concerned, that our neutrality had been strict, impartial, and honest, and, so far as our people were concerned, that no other violations of law were proved to have occurred. He believed there had been a great many enlistments of individuals not in the service of the confederates. [Hear, hear.] The house would recollect a remarkable letter at the end of these papers, in which Mr. Seward spoke lightly indeed of the act of certain officers of the American government who had used great inducements to British seamen brought into their ports to enter the belligerent service of the United States. [Hear, hear.] We could make allowance for the circumstances under which these things were done, and although disapproving them, and fairly entitled to remind the government of the United States that they had not respected neutrality where the violation of it was for their own interest, we did not say that amicable relations ought to be disturbed on that account. The honorable member for Bradford asked an explanation why, when orders were sent out to stop this ship at Queenstown, she actually went to Port Royal and was not stopped there. He (the solicitor general) was not aware of the circumstances under which she was at Port Royal, but he believed the time was as late as January last. He might, however, again appeal to the United States authorities to this effect. Although it may be legal, if you can catch a ship which had been guilty of violating our foreign enlistment act in any British port, to confiscate her for that violation, yet it must be during the same cruise or voyage, because the offence was at an end, and, for all purposes of action, blotted out when the particular voyage was completed. He did not know what notice there was, or what opportunity to give instructions at Port Royal to deal with the case, but he knew this, that the Alabama going there in December, when she was undoubtedly the property of the Confederate States, grave and difficult questions would have arisen if it had been attempted to proceed in Jamaica for a violation of the foreign enlistment act at a former period. [Hear, hear.] He hoped the house would be satisfied that the government were free from blame in this matter, and if what had been said should tend to remove any false impression in the United States that we had been conniving at breaches of neutrality, then he should regard the introduction of this subject by the honorable gentleman as a circumstance for congratulation. [Cheers.]

Mr. T. Baring said that he had listened to the speech of the honorable gentleman with great surprise. He was sure he did not wish to produce irritation, but by having confined his speech to charges against the federal government, he thought he had unfortunately damaged our position. The honorable gentleman hoped that America would be brought to reason by this discussion. He (Mr. Baring) thought the speech would be read in America as an indictment against their misconduct in past times. [Hear, hear.] If ever there was a period at which angry feeling ought to be put aside, and forbearance shown, it was now, when public feeling had arisen to such an excited state on the other side of the Atlantic. He did not consider the course taken by the government with regard to the Alabama was such as to give confidence that due precaution would be taken for the future. It did not appear to him that the decisions of Story which had been brought forward at all applied to this case, inasmuch as the Alabama had never gone into a confederate port, or been delivered to the confederate government. The case was a most unfortunate one, because it would lead Americans to question the sincerity of our friendly relations. It was unfortunate, also, because it would involve a great destruction of property, which would react upon British commerce. No one could tell to what the feeling of animosity which it had produced would grow. Power had been given to the President to issue letters of marque. If these were issued, could any one say that frequent collisions would not occur which would endanger the peace of the two countries? There had been already seizures of British vessels by the blockading squadron, originating in the idea that we were not careful in our conduct, or scrupulous in the performance of our duty. If the case of the Alabama were considered as parallel to those which had been cited, why did the government send out an order to arrest this vessel? By their own act they had admitted that the case had no similarity with those which had been justified, as not coming under the foreign enlistment act. The question was, did they use proper precautions? Seeing that the matter was brought to their consideration on the 23d June, and then referred to the customs inspectors, it was impossible to acquit the government of delay in obtaining information, and those who were employed by government of shutting their eyes to facts which were notorious to others. [Hear, hear.] He did not wish to accuse the government, or provoke feelings of opposition to them, but he wished that government should give something like a declaration to the United States that they were anxious to prevent a recurrence of similar circumstances.

Mr. Bright: I have been very sorry to hear the speech of the honorable and learned gentleman. I agree with the honorable member for Huntingdon, that however unfortunate the position of affairs is with regard to this question, it will be rendered only more so by the speech which has just been delivered by one of the chief law officers of the crown. The honorable and learned gentleman began by pointing to the inconsistencies of Mr. Seward with regard to what neutral nations may do in cases of this kind. He pointed out inconsistencies which are clear to all of us. Because there can be no doubt whatever that the complaint which has been made by Mr. Seward and by Mr. Adams with regard to the furnishing of munitions of war, is one which, under ordinary circumstances, at least, is not usually made, because we know governments have generally agreed not to interfere with the furnishing of such materials of war by neutrals. But Mr. Seward made a much greater mistake than that of inconsistency. He was of opinion, when this matter began, that he might calculate, to some extent at least, on the friendly feeling of this country toward the country of which he is minister; because, although this government has allowed the belligerent rights of the southern confederacy, still it pretends to have done that without any feeling of hostility toward the north; and as we have an American minister here, and as we have a minister in Washington, and as the United States government in that town is the only government we acknowledge, Mr. Seward perhaps might have some foundation for the hope that, in a case like this, he might have calculated upon some forbearance and friendship from her Majesty’s government than his country has hitherto received. But I do not wish to follow the speech of the honorable and learned gentleman, though I am quite sure that the effect of it, to any one who reads it carefully, will be to bring to his mind the sort of speech which the honorable and learned gentleman would have made if he had been in another court and held a brief. I propose to read to the house two letters which have been forwarded to me, not because they will make any difference in the views of the government, or the course which the government will take; but I should wish, at any rate, that the people of this country, who, I am persuaded, have no wish that any calamitous contention between England and the United States should arise—that they at least should know what is the effect produced by the conduct of some of their countrymen, and what are the results that may possibly follow. I have a letter here, signed “William Thomas Nicholas, of the United States Coast Survey.” It is dated “Washington, United States of America, March 5, 1863.” He says:

“To-day appeared at the office of the United States Coast Survey, in which service I have the honor to be engaged, Captain F. A. Small, late of the American brig Corris Ann, of Machias, State of Maine, who made application (indorsed by members of Congress) for a set of charts to supply his wants, occurring in this way.

“On the 22d of January last he was in command of his vessel, on a private trading voyage from Philadelphia to the port of Cardenas, north coast of Cuba. Toward dusk of that day, when off the mouth of the harbor, and between the Rock Key, on which the light-house stands, and Mono Key, within a mile of the land, he was met by a steam vessel having the British union-jack flying at the mizen, which vessel, with that flag so flying, fired a shot across his bows, thereafter hauled down the British flag, and ran up a flag of the so-called Confederate States, and then fired another shot passing between his masts, and caused him to heave-to. His vessel was boarded by an officer, his papers called for, and he was told his vessel was taken by the confederate steamer Florida. His charts and chronometer were plundered from him, and he was given only a few minutes to get aboard, with his crew, his small boat, to make as best they could the shore, when the vessel was set on fire by the captors, and drifted a burning wreck on shore. This occurred in full sight of the vessels at the outer anchorage, and of the town of Cardenas, and not a protest or attempt at succor was made by the Spanish authorities.

“I leave the question of international law, of this so reported flagrant breach of the sanctity of a neutral’s territory (or water) to the United States Secretary of State to deal with the authorities of Spain; but I appeal with the indignation of a native-born Briton against this renewed instance (not the first, if I am rightly informed) of the desecration of the flag of Old England—of that ‘meteor flag,’ so long the pride and the boast of her people.

“The confederate steamer Florida is understood to be the same vessel that cleared from a port of Great Britain under the name of the Oreto, and is said to have been built, purchased, and fitted out therein for the service of the rebel leaders of the south, and is commanded by Captain Moffit, formerly of the United States navy.

“The captain of the destroyed vessel tells me that, had he not been deceived by the show of the British flag, and had he known what vessel was approaching him, he would have attempted to run her down, as he was going some ten knots an hour.

“Please note this also—this same Captain Small, (when master of the schooner Sahwa,) in the year 1858, for his gallantry in rescuing the crew of a British vessel (the Halifax) in a sinking condition, was presented by the British government, through the hands of Lord Napier, with a silver-mounted telescope; and now, confiding in the sign of that same flag, his own vessel is destroyed.

“And this at a time when the people of New York and other northern ports are generously despatching vessels freighted with supplies for the starving operatives of England—for those noble men and women so patiently bearing the sufferings brought upon them by no fault of theirs, but resulting from the mad ambition, the foul conspiracy of a few disappointed slavery propagandists of this country.”

Well, he goes on to tell us what is the effect on that country of acts of that nature. The other letter is one I have received on the point to which the honorable and learned gentleman has referred, namely, as to what is now being done. It appears that two ships have gone out; that the government did not know anything about the one, and that the other was too sharp for them. This letter is from a gentleman in Liverpool who publishes a shipping list, which he sends me. He says:

“Liverpool, March 26.

“I send by this mail two of our shipping lists—the Telegraph. It publishes all the vessels in our port, and gives the docks where they lie. By looking over those in the Toxteth dock you will see a steamer entered, ‘Alexandria, gunboat, 120.’ This vessel was launched from the yard of W. C. Miller & Son, on Saturday, the 7th March. This is the same firm that built the Oreto, now called the Florida, the same that recently burned the Jacob Bell. The gunboat Alexandria has been built by this firm for the confederate government, to cruise and make war against the United States. Fawcett, Prescott & Co. make the engines and armament. They are now getting her ready for sea. There is no doubt about the character of this vessel, or the parties for whom she is intended.

“This same firm launched on Saturday last another steamer called the Phantom, owned by Fraser, Trenholm, & Co. She has three port-holes in each side. They pretend she is to run the blockade, but I understand they will put arms on board after she gets out to Nassau. She will be fast, and make not less than seventeen miles per hour.

“The two rams (iron-clad) building by Lairds, at Birkenhead, for the confederates, are most formidable. They will each have two turrets, or towers, similar to the American monitors. They are not yet launched, but will be finished about June next.

“George and James Thomson, at Glasgow, are building a monster ram ironclad for the confederate government. She is over 3,000 tons burden. This vessel is not yet launched.

“A steamer, owned by Fraser, Trenholm & Co., called The Southerner, has been launched from the yard of Pierce & Co., at Stockton. I have not much doubt but that this vessel is also intended as a privateer, though she will most probably carry out from here a cargo of merchandise, and fit out at Nassau.”

I heard only three weeks ago, when I was in the north of England, at Newcastle, from a gentleman who a few years ago was a member of this house, that this vessel is building and will soon be ready. He mentioned to me the name of one of the confederate agents, whose name appears in the intercepted despatches, and who was concerned in the Alabama, as being down at Stockton superintending this matter, or engaged in making arrangements on behalf of the Confederate States. That is the state of things, as far as this gentleman knows, and I believe that the building of those ships is just as nefarious as the building of the Alabama was. [Hear, hear.] There is only one other point to which I shall ask the attention of the house for a moment. The honorable and learned member thought he had a triumph over ray honorable friend the member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) when he spoke of the United States government and their foreign enlistment act. Well, generally speaking, I should say it is not necessary for our government to alter the foreign enlistment act of this country, but it is a very common thing for all governments—and it has been as common for this as any other—to make laws and to alter laws to meet special cases. I recollect the government of which the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) was a member, the present foreign secretary being prime minister, bringing in a bill for the purpose of making what was called “advised speaking”—which had been “sedition”—felony, and the House of Commons very judiciously, in my opinion, limited that alteration of the law to a period of two years, because it was thought that although there might be some propriety in the law at a time of great excitement like that, yet it was not necessary to alter the law of England for all time. [Hear, hear.] Now, in this case the United States government passed the foreign enlistment act 1818. I think our act was passed in 1819. It was founded upon their act and is in point of fact, almost the same. In 1837 the United States government found that that act did not give them the power to interface summarily as they thought was desirable to prevent difficulty between the United States and England in reference to affairs in Canada, and therefore they passed another act, a few words of which, if the house permit me, I will read. [Hear, hear.] The statute, in section 2, says that the several officers mentioned in the foregoing section shall be authorized and required to seize any vessel or vehicle crossing the lakes or endeavoring to make its way to the frontier with arms, and all arms or munitions of war about to pass the frontier of the United States to any place within any foreign State or colony conterminous with the United States, where the character of the vessel or vehicle, the quantity of arms and ammunition, or other circumstances, shall furnish probable cause to believe that the said vessel or vehicle is intended to operate against a friendly power—(I am not quoting the words of the act, but such is its effect)—and bring the country into difficulty. I will not read more of the act. I have referred to it to show that the alteration was intended to give the government greater power to interfere and put the onus probandi rather upon the delinquents, which is a very common thing in this country. I am not sure whether honorable gentlemen opposite, when they came last year to deal with the matter of the possession of pheasants, did not require the delinquent to give proof that they came by the game honestly. Surely, then, I don’t see why, in a case involving such a vast issue as war, the government would not be justified in going at least as far as that. [Hear, and laughter.] The other section of the act provides that the party whose ship is seized shall have a fair hearing, and that his property shall, under certain circumstances, be returned to him. The honorable and learned gentleman said that the foreign enlistment act had nothing to do with the law of nations, and that if we chose to repeal that act anybody might build ships and sell them to any power in the world. Weil, I don’t know whether that is so with regard to England, but it is not so with regard to the United States; for the act of the United States says expressly that it is intended to carry out that which was understood to be, and which they acknowledged to be, the law of nations, for the purpose of preserving the peace amongst the nations. [Hear, hear.] I shall not go into any further details with regard to this matter. I am satisfied that the speech of the honorable and learned member will give no greater satisfaction to very many persons in this country than it will give to very many in the United States. I am satisfied further, that if anybody in this country was building a ship-of-war, and there was a fair suspicion that it was intended to help a revolutionary party in the little kingdom of Portugal—which is always a pet kingdom of this government—I have not the slightest doubt but the government would interfere and stop the sailing of that ship. I say, sir, that our neutrality is a cold and unfriendly neutrality; and I say that, considering the natural alliance between this country and the United States, and the enormous interests which you jeopardize, it does become the government fairly to look this question in the face and to exert the influence they have, and which I believe the people of this country universally would support them in exerting, to prevent the sailing of these vessels, which can by no means whatever have any effect, so far as we are concerned, but to embroil us with that nation with which of all others in the world we have the greatest interest in remaining at peace. [Hear, hear.] Do not for a moment believe that because the United States are in this great calamity, out of which they still will come a great nation—[hear, hear]—do not believe for a moment that acts like these can be forgotten now or forgotten hereafters There are people in America interested apparently in creating ill-feeling to England. There are two millions of Irishmen in America, and whenever an Irishman plants his foot on any foreign country there stands an enemy of England. [“Oh, oh,” and “Hear, hear.”] I could read to you a speech delivered by Lord North in this house, in which he lamented that among those that were most hostile to England during the revolutionary war were those emigrants who had gone from Ireland. [Hear, hear.] Well, if there be in that country elements of hostility to England, there may be and possibly are elements of hostility to America in this country. Why, a man who is worthy to be a minister, instead of speaking with this cold and unfriendly tone, ought to know that all the living world and all posterity would judge him and condemn him if he permitted anything to be undone which he could do that would preserve the peace between the United States and England. [Hear, hear.] I am not afraid to stand here in defence, not of Mr. Seward’s despatches, but in defence of that great claim which the people of the United States have upon the generous forbearance and sympathy of Englishmen. If you had last night looked in the faces—[“Hear, hear,” and “Oh, oh”]—of three thousand of the most intelligent of the artisan classes in London as I did, and heard their cheers, and seen their sympathy for that country for which you appear to care so little, you would imagine that the more forbearing, the more generous, and the more just the conduct of the government to the United States, the more it would recommend itself to the magnanimous feelings of the people of this country. [Hear, hear.] if the noble lord at the head of the government, who is a man of unequalled experience in politics, and who, though he sometimes drives the coach very near the edge of the precipice, cannot, I should think, intend to drive it over—[hear, hear]— if the noble lord who has now for so long a time administered the affairs of this country with a greater, degree of concurrence in this house than perhaps any minister ever enjoyed during his recollection—if the noble lord would now come forward with kindly words and generous acts, in a manly, genial spirit, towards a great and kindred people—he has it in his power to perform services to both nations and to the world at large not exceeded by any that his warmest admirers could say he had rendered during his long and protracted career. [Cheers.] This night, by that table, on this floor, the noble lord, in five minutes of those genial and friendly words which none know so well how to utter, might send a message to the United States that would allay much irritation, and would give great confidence to the friends of peace not only on that side of the Atlantic but to a vast number who hang upon his utterance in this country. [Loud cheers.]

Mr. Laird said that every transaction connected with the building of the Alabama, from the laying down of her keel to her launch, had been perfectly straightforward and above-board. Her Majesty’s government had every facility afforded them for inspecting the ship, and when she left the dock she had a custom-house officer on board. It had therefore been a perfectly legitimate transaction throughout. There was, however, one point that had been lost sight of during the discussion. If a ship without guns were regarded as, so dangerous, guns, muskets, and ammunition of all sorts must be allowed to be much more so. [Cheers.] Now he (the honorable member) had been to the custom-house, and looked up the records relating to the shipping of implements of war to the northern States. [Conservative cheers.] He found amongst those who had engaged in transactions of that kind the eminent house of Baring Brothers. [Loud and long-continued laughter and cheers.] He found also the Inman Company, Brown, Shipley & Co., and many other well-known firms. Perhaps the house would like to know the extent to which the United States had had supplies of arms and munitions of war from us; and gentlemen opposite would doubtless be able to obtain much more information on the same score from the consul at Liverpool than he could hope to procure, for that official saw every manifest and had to give a pass to every ship sailing to America. He (Mr. Laird) found from the official records at the custom-house that from the 1st of May, 1861, to the 31st of December last there had been shipped to the northern States no fewer than 41,500 muskets, 341,000 rifles—[cheers]— 23,500 gun-flints, 49,200,000 percussion caps—[cheers]—and 2,205 swords. [Loud cheers.] To this must be added at least a third more for articles, like swords, rifles and the like, exported under the name of “hardware.” [Laughter.] He had very recently heard of a ship of 2,000 tons taking out a whole cargo of this “hardware.” [Hear, hear.] From the 1st of January to the 17th of March he found that 2,387 gun-barrels, 3,105,005 percussion caps, and 30,802 rifles had been sent out, in addition to the immense quantity of warlike stores which he had read to the house. [Cheers.] If, therefore, the southern States had got two ships unarmed, and not fitted while in that state for purposes of war, the northern States had been very well supplied with the most efficient means of warfare from this country. [Cheers.] The house had been told that the United States had behaved well to us during the Russian war; but he had heard that a war vessel was built for the enemy in America, and actually sailed to Petropaulovski. But that was not all. In 1861 letters were written to a firm with which he (the honorable member) was connected, proposing that they should build iron-plated vessels-of-war and gunboats for the northern government. As to the remarks of the honorable gentleman, the member for Birmingham, he (Mr. Laird) would rather go down to posterity as the builder of a dozen Alabamas than as a man who had striven to set class against class—[great cheering]—and who had cried up the institutions of another country which had proved nothing, but failed the moment they came to be tested, and which made the very name of liberty absurd. [Cheers.]

THE CAPTURE OF THE PETERHOFF.

Mr. S. Fitzgerald, who rose to call attention to the case of the Peterhoff, said he could not agree with the criticisms which the honorable member (Mr. Bright) had offered upon the speech of the solicitor general. There was scarcely a word in it from which he (Mr. Fitzgerald) dissented; and, in fact, a speech which for its argument was more unanswerable, for its talent more unequalled, and for its tone and temper more becoming the government of which the learned gentleman was a member, had never been pronounced in that house. He considered that those who had appeared that night as the advocates of the American government must feel that they had taken very little by the motion. [Hear.] With regard to the speech of the honorable member for Birmingham, he could not but express his regret—he might almost say his indignation—that the honorable gentleman, taking advantage of his position before the public, should have uttered words that would go forth on his authority to the United States—words in which, forgetting the sufferings of our starving population in the north, he had ventured to assert that we had exhibited towards the northern States a cold and unfriendly spirit. [Cheers.] He thought, too, the honorable member for Bradford would regret having brought forward the subject. He thought his honorable friend the member for Bradford was singularly unhappy in the American instance that he had adduced as one that should act as a guide to our own government, because the United States government acted upon suspicion and not upon evidence. And what was the result? It was found that they had detained an innocent vessel and had inflicted loss upon innocent persons. [Hear.] He would now come to the case of the capture of the Peterhoff, of which he had given notice on the paper. In speaking of that case he desired not to use strong language, although he felt strongly as regarded the course pursued by the federal cruisers. He was very sensible of the gravity of the case, and although he stood there to vindicate the rights of British commerce, and to call upon her Majesty’s government to take such steps as were necessary for that purpose, he had no wish, by strong language, to increase the irritation which must be felt by every class of her Majesty’s subjects when the facts of this case were known. It was not a case such as those of which they had often heard, where there had been an attempt to break blockade. Such cases as those ought to be dealt with fairly upon their own merits., The owners knew well the risks they ran. But the case of the Peterhoff was entirely different. Some months since the firm of Filde, Spence & Co., of the city of London, advertised a line of steamers to start regularly from this country to Matamoras, in Mexico. There had long been a trade of great value between this country and Matamoras. The Mr. Spence of the firm in question was no relation of the distinguished Mr. Spence now in Liverpool, whose tendencies towards the confederate cause were well known. [A laugh.] Some time ago the firm of Filde, Spence & Co. and despatched the first of a line of steamers to Matamoras, and that vessel returned safely to this country. But the second vessel despatched by them, the Peterhoff, was captured. He had looked carefully through the whole of the documents relating to that ship, and from beginning to end there was nothing in them to indicate the slightest desire to engage in an improper trade; on the contrary, every single circumstance of the case showed that the voyage was a bona fide straightforward commercial transaction. He believed his honorable friend the member for the city of London had examined the manifest of the vessel, and would bear him out in saying that there was nothing whatever in it of a contraband nature. The vessel obtained proper clearances from the city of London, and with the view of taking every precaution it was delayed fifteen days longer than usual to obtain the clearances of the Mexican consul. She was commanded by a gentleman of considerable reputation—a lieutenant in the royal reserve—and, therefore, one not likely to be engaged in a contraband trade. But she was stopped by the confederate cruiser the Alabama; she was boarded; all her papers were examined, and they were indorsed by the commander of the confederate cruiser with the statement that they were in proper order. She was then allowed, to proceed on her voyage; but, unfortunately for her owners, the notorious Commodore Wilkes subsequently captured her. There could be no doubt that he had received instructions from his government to do so. It was idle to tell the owners that they had a remedy by applying to the American admiralty court. When he remembered how the judges in America had been deterred by their government from administering the laws impartially, he had not much confidence in the result of any appeal that might be made to them by the owner of a British vessel captured by their government. But even if in the end, after years of delay, the vessel were restored to the owner, how much injustice would have been inflicted upon him by the capture. There were circumstances associated with the capture of the vessel which greatly concerned her Majesty’s government, for he found that there must have been certain communications between the American and her Majesty’s government, the nature of which must have a very serious bearing on it. There was not, however, from the beginning to the end of the papers which had been furnished to them a single trace of such a correspondence. They were entirely in the dark as to the arrangement which had been made between Earl Russell and the representatives of the American government, and he did not think that that was a position in which they ought to be placed. Her Majesty’s government ought not to leave them in entire ignorance of the arrangement which had been entered into. The secrecy on the part of her Majesty’s government in connexion with American affairs was very unsatisfactory, if not discreditable. The government had furnished the house with no information in reference to our relations with America, except such as had already been printed and one or two documents of trifling importance. He considered that the house ought at the present time to be in possession of the fullest information with which it was in the power of her Majesty’s government to furnish them. He was of opinion that her Majesty’s government was in a great degree responsible for the capture by the Americans of the British vessels sailing to neutral ports, owing to the course they had pursued. Then, when an influential body of Liverpool merchants represented to Earl Russell that their trading operations were put a stop to by the federal government, the answer which his lordship returned to them was more of an insult than anything else. Earl Russell offered advice on the contraband trade with America, but he ignored the fact that the American government had interfered with their legitimate trade. His lordship was quite aware at the time that the complaint of the Liverpool merchants was well founded, and that the cause of it was contrary to international law, but he passed it by unnoticed; If, instead of lecturing the Liverpool merchants, Earl Russell had expressed the firm opinion of the government that such detention of vessels going to neutral ports was illegal, he (Mr. Fitzgerald) ventured to say his lordship would have been supported by both the house and the country at large. [Hear, hear.] If his lordship had done so, could they suppose that the repeated cases in which British vessels had been captured while engaged in legitimate trade would have happened, and that it would have been necessary for him now to call upon her Majesty’s government to give effectual protection to British vessels, and not allow those trading to a neutral port to be interfered with by the violent and illegal conduct of Commodore Wilkes? They would perhaps be told that her Majesty’s government intended to act with energy in the matter. He did not doubt they would do so, because he did not believe they dare refuse proper protection; but it would have been far more satisfactory if such a degree of vacillation had not been exhibited at the foreign office. At the first the intentions of the British government should have been shown, and they should not have sought, as they had done, to pacify those whose fair pursuits in trade and commerce had been injured by telling them, in the stereotyped form of all governments, that the matter should receive their earliest attention. . Her Majesty’s government ought to give an assurance to the house that they would make the views of the British government so well known that cases of this kind should not again occur. With respect to the despatches and various other documents which had been referred to, he hoped that her Majesty’s government would lose no time in presenting them to the house.

Mr. Crawford said he should have been content to leave the case of the Peterhoff in the hands of the government, knowing that the opinion by which they were guided would be that of the honorable and learned gentleman who had so ably addressed the house. But there were one or two circumstances showing the bona fide character of the voyage in which the Peterhoff was engaged which he was enabled to communicate. This vessel was advertised to proceed to Matamoras. She carried a mail made up at the general post-office, and her arrangements for obtaining a supply of coal at the West Indies were such as to satisfy any one that her object was to perform a speedy voyage to her destination. He (Mr. Crawford) had taken care to ascertain the nature of the cargo. The persons lading the ship had placed in his hands the ship’s manifest and other documentary evidence, by which he had learned the general character of the cargo. It was of a most miscellaneous description. The Mexican law required that the fullest particulars of every package intended for importation, with its contents and measurement, should be clearly stated in the manifest. He had, therefore, the fullest opportunity of satisfying himself as to the character of the goods. He also put this question pointedly to one of the gentlemen who waited on him on behalf of the shippers: Is there anything in the description of these goods of a colorable character, in the nature of hardware, intended to cover such articles as rifles and muskets? The answer was there was nothing of a contraband character, and nothing but what was stated in the manifest. The vessel was engaged in carrying legal goods under legal circumstances to a legal port. He had little to say as to the peculiar mode in which the vessel had been treated. There were in the city gentlemen who had northern proclivities as well as southern, and there were those who said that the ultimate destination of these goods being probably the southern States, there was a reason why the northern cruisers should stop this vessel. This was a question for the law officers of the crown. But there was one point worthy of observation, that at the present time a large trade was carried on in American vessels between New York and Matamoras precisely of this character; therefore there must be some other reason for the seizure of the Peterhoff. It would seem that the government of the northern States had no objection to this trade being carried on for their own benefit, but they had an objection to any benefit being got out of it by the merchants of this country. The material point for the consideration of mercantile men was this. Here was this vessel captured whilst under the prosecution of a legal voyage. Other vessels bound to the same destination were loading in the ports of England carrying similar cargoes. Some of these vessels were about to sail, but the owners were now in a state of doubt. What were they to do? He had no doubt the question would receive the immediate attention of government, and he was content on the part of the owners and shippers, whom he represented, to abide the result.

Mr. Layard wished to say a few words in reply to the questions of the honorable member for Horsham and to the honorable gentleman who just sat down. An ex parte statement of the owners of the Peterhoff had been submitted to her Majesty’s government. Of course he did not mean to call in question the accuracy of those facts; but the house, he was sure, would agree with him that the government could not take any immediate action on a statement of that nature. What had been done in the case was what was always done in a similar case. The facts were stated to the law officers of the crown, and when the opinion of the law officers was known such a representation would be made to the government of the United States as seemed to her Majesty’s goverment to be necessary. He did not know what the honorable gentleman wished them to do. He said they had shown no energy, but the case had only been brought under their consideration within two days, and he should like to know what, in the opinion of the honorable gentleman, the government ought to do. The only course open to them had been taken, and when the opinion of the law officers was known the necessary action would be taken in the case. The honorable gentleman had travelled beyond the case of the Peterhoff, and talked of arrangements made between her Majesty’s government and the government of the United States respecting the stoppage of English vessels by American cruisers. His honorable friend was laboring under a delusion respecting those arrangements. [Hear, hear.] He (Mr. Layard) had never heard of such an arrangement as he had mentioned. It was true they had strongly objected to the proceedings of cruisers of the United States; and in consequence, partly of their protest, the American government had issued to their cruisers certain orders, which he believed were published in the United States papers. [Hear, hear.] Earl Russell considered that this was not an arrangement between her Majesty’s government and the government of the United States, but simply an arrangement made by the government of the United States for the direction of their own cruisers. They had nothing to do with any suspicion the American government might have as to any vessels leaving its coasts, and he distinctly denied that any such arrangement had been made between her Majesty’s government and the government of the United States as his honorable friend had alluded to. [Hear, hear.] The honorable gentleman said they were guilty of discreditable proceedings in presenting papers they had laid on the table——

Mr. S. Fitzgerald denied that he had used the word “discreditable.”

Mr. Layard resumed: When the notice of motion of his honorable friend Mr. Forster was put on the paper he told him he would place on the table such papers as he thought would be interesting to the house. He stated that if the papers which his honorable friend required were not included in the correspondence laid before the house he would be ready to furnish any other papers that were required. He thought, therefore, that the honorable member for Horsham had treated him unfairly when he said he was guilty of a discreditable proceeding in laying these papers on the table. He did not know what papers his honorable friend wished to have laid on the table. He referred to vessels running the blockade, and asked why they were not furnished with information about such vessels. He (Mr. Layard) could assure the house that if they gave a return respecting the vessels that had run the blockade they would add greatly to the printing expenses of the house, and would be of large bulk. It was equally useless to lay on the table papers respecting mere questions of law that were under discussion. He would reply to the question of the honorable member for Devizes, whose sources of information in the foreign newspapers were so inexhaustible that it was impossible to keep pace with him. [Laughter.]

MINISTERIAL REPLY.

Viscount Palmerston then rose and said:

In regard to the much more important practical question which has been raised by my honorable friend the member for Bradford I cannot but express some regret at the tone of his remarks, and still more at the tone taken by the honorable gentleman the member of Birmingham. There is no use of concealing the fact—there is no use disguising it—that whenever any political party, whether in or out of office, in the United States finds itself in difficulty it raises a cry against England—[cheers]—as a means of creating what in American language is called political capital. That is a course which we must very deeply regret, but so long as it is simply confined to their internal affairs we can only hope that, being rather a dangerous game, it may not be carried further than they intend. [Hear.] But when a government or a large party excite the passions of one nation against another, especially if there is no just cause, it is manifest that such a course has a great tendency to endanger the friendly relations existing between the two countries. We understand the object, and we do not feel that hesitation on the subject which we should otherwise have been justified in feeling; but if that cry is raised for the purpose of driving the government of this country to take some course which may be contrary to the law of the country, or which may be contrary to the dignity of the country in the way of altering our laws for the purpose of pleasing another country, all that I can say is, that such a course is not likely to accomplish its purpose. Still, sir, I very much regret the speech of my honorable friend the member for Bradford, and more particularly the speech of the honorable member for Birmingham, which are calculated to encourage that irritation which I think is totally unfounded on the part of the American people. I should hope that gentlemen bringing that question before the house would rather try to allay the irritation, instead of making out, as they endeavored to do, that the Americans have just cause to complain of the conduct of England and the English government. With regard to the cause of the complaint my honorable and learned friend, the solicitor general, in that admirable speech, [cheers,] which I listened to with the greatest delight, has demonstrated that the Americans have no cause to complain. He has shown that the British government have done, upon representations made to them by the American minister, everything which the law of the country enabled them to do. Although I can very easily understand that, in the United States, where, owing to the great irritation and animation produced by civil war, men’s minds have been led to forget, in a great degree, the obligations of law, they may not give that credit which is due to the arguments which we used, that we cannot go beyond what the law prescribes and authorizes. Yet I think this house will see at least that the statement of my honorable and learned friend shows that we have done, with regard to the foreign enlistment act, everything which the law enabled and authorized us to do. Gentlemen have argued as if seizing a vessel were equivalent to the condemnation of a vessel. It was said: “Why did you not seize the Alabama? You were told that it was known or believed that she was engaged for warlike purposes on the part of the Confederate States.” Well, in the first place, you cannot seize a vessel under the foreign enlistment act unless you have obtained evidence upon oath authorizing just suspicions. We did not obtain such evidence. The American minister said: “I tell you this—I tell you that—I am sure of this—I am sure of that;” but when he was asked to produce the evidence upon oath, which was the only groundwork: for proceeding, he says: “No; the information was given to the Americans consul, and I cannot give you the evidence upon oath; but, nevertheless, you should act upon my assertions and suspicions, which I maintain are well founded.” What would happen if you seized a vessel unjustly and without good grounds? There is a process of law to come afterwards, [hear, hear,] and the government would be condemned in heavy costs and damages. Are we going to undertake an illegal course, which would lead to these consequences, simply to please the agent of a foreign government? We say that if there is any fault, the fault is on the part of those who called upon us to do an act, but would not give us the groundwork upon which that act would have been justified. I myself have great doubts whether, if we had seized the Alabama in the condition in which she was, we should not have been exposed to considerable damages, because it was stated, and generally known, that she sailed from this country unarmed, apparently unfit for war, and that her armament, equipments, and crew were afterwards given to her in a foreign port. Therefore the probability is that, whatever suspicions there may have been, and well-founded as the result proves, of her intended destination, circumstances would not have justified a court of law in proceeding to take her from her owners and prevent her from quitting port. I can assure the House that her Majesty’s government have no indisposition to enforce the conditions of the foreign enlistment act whenever just cause may occur. The honorable gentleman, the member for Birmingham, reproaches us with exhibiting a cold and unfriendly neutrality. I don’t know exactly what the meaning of such terms may be. They appear to me to be a contradiction, [laughter and hear,] because if a neutrality is warm and friendly to the one party, it must be something very different towards the other, [laughter and cheers,] and ceases to be that which, in common parlance, is called neutrality between contending parties. Whether our neutrality is warm or cold, friendly or unfriendly, it is sincere and honest. [Cheers.] I can assure my honorable friend and the House, that whenever it is in our power to enforce the provisions of that act legally and according to justice, we shall not be found wanting in the performance of our duty. It is a great mistake to suppose that we can see with pleasure any transactions going on in this country which have a tendency to violate not only the letter but the spirit of the foreign enlistment act. [Hear.] It would have been much more agreeable to us if all those supplies which have been so well enumerated by the honorable member for Birkenhead, which have been furnished so abundantly to the one party and so scantily to the other, [hear,] it would have been much more agreeable to us if the whole of the United Kingdom had remained in a state of the most perfect neutrality between the two parties, and if no supplies of any kind had been furnished. But when we are so much reproached for not having acted upon suspicions, it is fair to say that, so far as suspicions go, we have been informed, it may be quite erroneous, that not only have arms gone to the northern part of the United States, but that endeavors had been made in Ireland to enlist persons to go and serve in their army and navy. [Cheers.] And unquestionably a great many cases have arisen in North America of British subjects who had been seized, and with regard to whom attempts have been made to compel them to serve against their will in the war now raging between the contending parties.

Now, sir, feeling, as we must do, the greatest desire that the most friendly relations should continue to be maintained between this country and the United States, and regretting exceedingly that any circumstances of any kind should have created any irritation in the minds of the people of the northern Union, I can only say that we cannot go beyond the law. The law is one which is very difficult of execution, and this is not the first time that that has been discovered. When the contest was raging in Spain between Don Carlos and Isabella, it was my duty—the British government having taken part with the Queen of Spain, to prevent supplies of arms from reaching the Carlists from this country. I can assure the House that there were two or three ships fitting out on the Thames, which we knew perfectly well were intended to go in aid of Don Carlos, but it was impossible for us to obtain that information which would have enabled the government successfully to seize them. All I can say is, that I do hope that those gentlemen who are warm advocates of the north—I am not now speaking in favor of one or the other—that those who make themselves in this house the advocates of the north, will use that influence to which they are entitled, by the course they have taken, to prove to their friends on the other side of the Atlantic that really the charges made against the British government are not founded in reason or law, and to assure them that her Majesty’s government will continue, as I contend they have done hitherto, to execute the law whenever a case shall be brought before them in regard to which they can safely act upon good and sufficient grounds. But there must be a deposition upon oath. That deposition must be made as to facts that will stand examination before a court of law; and I say that to call upon us arbitrarily and capriciously to seize vessels with regard to which no great, convincing, and proper proof can afterwards be established, would be urging this government to adopt a course which will cast discredit upon them, and only lead to difficulties and certain embarrassment. [Hear, hear.] Sir, I can only say, therefore, that I do trust that the people and the government of the United States will believe that we are doing our best in any case to execute the laws, but that they will not imagine that the cry raised will induce us to come down to this house to alter the law. We have had, I have had, [laughter,] experience of those cries, but I think by the murmers of gentlemen who are sitting on these benches that they would not be disposed, even if I were so, to concur in any proposition of the kind. [Hear, hear.]

Lord Fermoy thought that the noble lord’s speech was in accordance with the general feeling of the country. He was glad that the noble lord had retired from the advanced position he had taken in former debates on the subject of Poland. Twice this session had he justly stigmatized the conduct of Russia. He (Lord Fermoy) considered that as Russia had deliberately violated the treaty of Vienna, Poland was released from all her obligations. He hoped that the European powers would interfere and summon a general council to confirm the independence of the struggling kingdom.