said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the naval Command-in-Chief in the Mediterranean is to be confided to a Rear Admiral; and whether this appointment is rendered necessary by the unfitness of the forty-eight active Admirals and Vice Admirals to undertake that command, or in consequence of the reluctance of some of them to incur the expenses incidental to the appointment?

, in reply, said, it was quite true that Admiral Smart was to be appointed Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean. The appointment, however, was not rendered necessary by the unfitness of the active Admirals and Vice Admirals to undertake the command, nor was it made in consequence of the reluctance of some of them to incur the requisite expenses. Rear Admiral Smart had been recommended to Her Majesty by the Government in consequence of his superior merits, and because they thought his appointment would be beneficial to the public service.

said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has entered into negotiations with Messrs. Kelk and Lucas for the purchase of the building of the Great Exhibition of 1862, with a view to remove into it a portion of the collections of the British Museum.

said, he would also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Royal Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1862 intend to publish their final Report; and whether the Commissioners of 1851 intend to insist on the removal of the present Exhibition Building within six months after the closing of the Exhibition.

said, in reply, that the Government had entered into no negotiations with Messrs. Kelk and Lucas, for the purchase of the building of the Great Exhibition of 1862, either with a view to remove into it a portion of the collections of the British Museum, or for any other object. In point of fact, he was not in a condition, as a Minister, to give any information on the subject. His hon. Friend (Mr. Henry Seymour), however, was probably aware that the disposal of the Exhibition building depended upon a concurrence of parties, and not upon Messrs. Kelk and Lucas alone, and that it could only be by an agreement between the Commissions of 1862, the Commissioners of 1851, and Messrs. Kelk and Lucas, that any proposal on that subject could be made. He believed that the Finance Committee of 1851, which was in some sense the organ for such purposes of the Commissioners of 1851, had entertained the question, whether it would be expedient to make a proposal to the Government to take over the building, and might have had, or perhaps had had some communication with Messrs. Kelk and Lucas upon that subject on its own account and responsibility, and not at all on the responsibility of the Government. He might also add, that having heard, not formally or officially, but informally and unofficially, what were the views of the contractors, he did not think, so far as he was able to comprehend them, that those views would be compatible with what the Government would think due to the exigencies of the public service or to the justice of the case. That was all he was able to say. On the part of the Government, indeed, he had absolutely nothing to say, and what he had ventured to say he had said merely to convey to his hon. Friend, in an imperfect form, such information, if it could be called such, as he possessed as a private individual. With respect to the Question of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), he believed the Commissioners of 1862 had prepared what the hon. Gentleman termed their final Report, though it was not, strictly speaking, a final Report, because the publication of their final Report would, of couse, involve the winding up of all their concerns. No doubt, however, the hon. Member meant their principal Report, in which they gave an account of the transactions connected with the Exhibition. That Report was prepared, was ready for presentation, and only awaited one or two necessary formalities in order to be laid before Parliament. With regard to the latter part of the Question—whether the Commissioners of 1851 intended to insist on the removal of the present Exhibition building within six months after the closing of the Exhibition of 1862—he was not aware that the Commissioners had come to any absolutely final conclusion upon that subject, but he believed that directions had been given to issue to the contractors a notice requiring them to remove the building, so as to keep alive the full rights of the Commissioners as they stood under the original agreement.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of Stale for War, Whether Barrack-Masters, of late employed as Public Accountants, Bankers, and Lawyers, having charge of Public Property, paying and receiving Rents, undergo any examination as to their fitness to carry out so many professions, never before united in the same person; whether assistance is given them by educated clerks or by men taken promiscuously from the ranks at 2s. per diem; and whether the Accountant lately appointed to Pimlico with a very large salary has relieved those officers in Western London of their Financial Duties?

said, in reply, that barrack-masters had always been employed as public accountants, and in that capacity had been intrusted with the duty of paying and receiving rents; but they had never been employed either as lawyers or as bankers. They were not required to undergo any examination in regard to their fitness as accountants They received the assistance of certain officials, called barrack-clerks, and also of non-commissioned officers, whose pay averaged about 5s. a day. An accountant had lately been appointed at the Pimlico establishment, with a salary of £410 a year, but his duties were exclusively confined to that establishment, and he had not relieved any officers in Western London of their financial duties.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Report of the Rev. Mr. Watkyns last year, and the Reports of other Inspectors in the last two years, have been altogether suppressed or much altered in the Annual Report from the Committee of Council; and, if so, what were the reasons for any such suppression or alteration; and whether there is any objection to lay such suppressed Reports on the table of this House?

in reply, said, it was the practice of the Education Committee to lay before Parliament every year, in addition to the Report of the Department itself, and in addition to the tabulated Reports about schools, Reports from the twenty-eight Chief Inspectors. In order that those Inspectors might make their Re- ports they were allowed the very ample and, he thought, unreasonable period of fourteen working days to prepare them, the Reports generally not exceeding five or six octavo pages. The result was, that the time of the Inspectors was consumed in preparing their Reports. Considerable difficulty had always been found by the Committee in confining the Reports within what appeared to them legitimate and convenient limits. When the right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) held the office of Vice President, he endeavoured to carry out a scheme for digesting the Reports under heads, as if they were evidence; but the House did not approve that scheme, thinking as the noble Lord now at the head of the Government expressed it, that any Department administered with proper decision and vigour ought to be able to keep down the Reports of its officers without any formal decision of Parliament. Since then the Department had tried to keep the Reports within due limits, and for that purpose several Minutes had been issued, but those Minutes had not fully succeeded in their object. It had also been suggested to the Inspectors that certain paragraphs, thought to be irrelevant or improper, should be omitted, but the Inspectors objected to the omission, because, they said, it was garbling their Reports, and because, if any part were taken away, the Reports would be no longer their own. Under these circumstances, the Committee considered the matter carefully about two years ago, and this was the course they adopted:—They found that, in substance the Minutes previously issued amounted to an instruction to the Inspectors to confine their Reports to the state of the schools inspected by them, and to practical suggestions for their management and improvement, and they embodied that direction to the Inspectors in a new Minute. Then, in order to avoid all difficulty about striking out particular paragraphs, they determined to make the Inspectors their own censors, and the regulation they laid down was this:—Whenever a Report appeared to them to wander beyond the prescribed limits it was to be sent back to the Inspector, with a direction to him to make it conform to the Minute, intimating, at the same time, that if he failed to do so, the Report would not be printed or laid before Parliament. That was the course they had adopted, and the result was, that during the last year three of the Reports which had been sent back to the Inspectors were not amended in a manner satisfactory to the Committee of Council, and they consequently were not presented to Parliament. In the present year, also, three of the Reports had been sent back to the Inspectors, and the amendments not having been considered satisfactory, they would not be printed with the Report of the Department. One of the Inspectors, Mr. Watkyns, appeared in both lists. Last year he sent in a Report containing a great deal of speculative and controversial matter, which it was not thought proper by the Committee to lay before Parliament and have printed at the public expense. Mr. Watkyns declined to make any material alterations in his Report, and it was therefore not printed. This year he had sent in a Report likewise dealing with controversial matter; and as that was not thought within the scope of the Minute, the Report was returned to him with the usual intimation; but he declined to make any alteration in it, and for that reason it would not be printed with the Report of the Department. The right hon. Baronet also asked whether he (Mr Lowe) had any objection to lay these Reports before the House of Commons. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be convinced by what he had just said that such a course would not be proper. The very reason why he had declined to have them printed with the appendix of the Department's Report, was the very reason why he should decline to have them specially printed and circulated among Members of Parliament. It was desirable to keep the Inspectors, in their Reports on the state of the schools, to the points that had been indicated to them, and not encourage them to enter into speculative and controversial matters on such a delicate subject as education. If he were to consent to lay these Reports on the table, and give them the notoriety and publicity of being specially distributed among hon. Members, he should really be offering a premium to the Inspectors to disregard the rules of the Department, and be there by striking at the foundation of discipline. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who had held a far higher office than that which he (Mr. Lowe) had the honour of filling, would not wish him to do that.

said, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of certain Scientific Institutions in Dublin have made a Report; and, if so, whether it will be laid before Parliament?

replied, that the Report had been sent to the Treasury, and the Treasury had been and were still in correspondence with the Department of Science and Art, and with the Irish Government, and he hoped shortly to be able to lay the Report on the table of the House.

said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce, during the present Session, any measure for enabling the Commissioners of Works and Public Buildings to acquire a site for the erection and concentration of Courts of Justice?

, in reply, said, it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill for that purpose. The subject of the erection of new Courts of Justice was under the consideration of the Government, and at a later period he would probably be able to give a more definite answer to the hon. Member's Question.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any objection to recommend Her Majesty to postpone filling up the vacancy in the establishment of Generals of the Royal Engineers, caused by the death of General Alexander Gordon, until a Motion for an Address to the Crown, respecting the claims of certain Colonels, promoted for Distinguished Service in the Crimean War, has been submitted to the judgment of the House of Commons? To make his Question intelligible, he would beg to say that he had given notice of his intention to move an Address to the Crown respecting the claims ef certain Officers who had been promoted as Queen's Aides-de-Camp, in 1855, and otherwise, for distinguished service. Should the House agree to that Address, and the Government adopt the view which he should put forward, one of those Officers would be promoted to fill a vacancy now existing; whereas if that vacancy were filled up immediately, another officer would fill it.

said, in reply, that there would be ample opportunity, during the Session, for bringing forward the Motion of which the hon. and gallant Member had given notice. Under the circumstances of the case, however, he did not feel justified in tendering to Her Majesty the advice which the hon. and gallant Gentleman recommended. He thought the matter had better be left to the discretion of the General Commanding-in-Chief.

said, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Instructions formerly issued by the Secretary of State for carrying into effect the Order in Council for the administration of justice in Turkey are still in force; and, if so, whether they will be laid upon the table of the House?

said, the Order in Council relating to Consular Courts in the East was first issued in 1857, accompanied by explanatory instructions. A Report was afterwards directed to be made on the working of the Order; and in consequence of that Report an amended Order in Council was issued in 1860. That was again amended by a fresh Order in Council, issued lately, and placed on the table of the House together with the instructions by which it was accompanied. The previous instructions were no longer operative.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will, during the recess, procure for the House a list of the iron-plated or iron-clad vessels built or building, with their tonnage, dimensions, armour, and draught of water, He asked this Question in consequence of a similar Return, ordered on the Motion of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), having been incorrectly worded and misunderstood to refer only to the old floating batteries.

said, in reply, that if the hon. Member would let him know what the particular Returns were which he wanted, he would endeavour to obtain them.

said, that before the House rose for the recess, he was anxious to repeat the Question which he had asked on Monday, but to which the noble Viscount at the head of the Government declined to give an answer. He would remind the House that in again asking the noble Lord what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Poland, he was only putting a question which had been asked in every Parliament in Europe, and which had been answered in every country except this. Strange to say, whereas in France the Government had fully and frankly explained their policy to the public of France, and a similar course had been pursued in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Sweden, in fact wherever a representative assembly met to discuss public affairs, and even in Berlin Count Bismark had stated the course his Government intended to pursue, yet the Government of this country had not deigned to afford that House any information. When he remembered what in former times had been the, policy of the noble Lord with regard to Poland, no one could say that he was prepared to trust the present Government implicitly: they knew that in all the past; diplomatic history of Europe in relation to Poland, which the noble Lord had, unfortunately for that country, whenever the question turned up, had in his own hands, the policy of the noble Lord had been always adverse to Poland. But there was now an additional reason why they should wish to hear from the noble Lord a statement of what he was about to do. In July 1831, the noble Lord was asked, as had been frequently stated in that House, to enter into a joint mediation with France. Louis Philippe asked him to enter into a joint mediation. In March 1831 the noble Lord had written despatches to the Government of Russia, and Lord Heytesbury wrote to the noble Lord in reply. In one of these despatches Lord Heytesbury told the noble Lord that whatever view the Russian Government took of the policy of England—that whatever they thought of getting; advice from England—there was one thing, and only one thing they feared, and that was a joint mediation of France and England. Lord Heytesbury went on to say—

"As Prince Lieven is instructed to read this despatch to your Lordship, it will be unnecessary for me to say more than that the apparent understanding between England and France upon this subject is a much greater source of regret to this Government than anything contained in the representations I was called upon to make."

It was all very well for the noble Lord to tell the English Ambassador to make representations of what were the feelings of England, but as long as Count Nesselrode could isolate the policy of France and England, he would be content. In the year 1855, as they now knew, thanks to the Emperor of the French, who had published papers which had been kept concealed from the House of Commons, the French Government again asked the British Government to adopt a joint mediation with regard to Poland. The noble Viscount again refused. In the year 1856 his own Minister at the Congress of Paris, Lord Clarendon, spoke to Count Orloff upon the subject of Poland, and they had, within a few weeks, seen for the first time Lord Clarendon's despatch printed. In his despatch of April 15, 1856, Lord Clarendon said—

"On the 9th instant, at the request of Count Walewski, I held a conversation with Count Orloff on this subject. I said that the condition of Poland had been discussed, and its future organization determined, by the Congress of Vienna, and that the present Congress could not view the question with indifference; but that, to the best of my belief, the Poles would be tolerably well satisfied if national institutions were restored to them, if their religion were respected, if they were allowed to use the Polish language, and if all their children were educated at Polish schools, instead of, as now, a limited number of them only at Russian schools. I suggested at the same time to his Excellency that he should volunteer some assurance to this effect, or should be prepared to declare it in answer to a question put to him by Congress,

"Count Orloff replied that the Emperor had determined to restore to his Polish subjects everything I had suggested, but that the announcement could not be made to the Congress, as that would be misrepresented in Russia, and his Imperial Majesty would be thought to have yielded to foreign pressure, which would deprive him of the grace of the spontaneous acts he meant to perform

"Count Orloff said to me in a friendly manner, Do not, in the interest of the Poles, bring the subject forward in the Congress; for I can tell yon nothing there, nor admit your right to interrogate me. My answer, therefore, must be disheartening to the Poles, and the Emperor may perhaps think it a matter of dignity to postpone what he intends to do.'"

Well, the British Minister gave way; and what did Her Majesty's Government say to it? The noble Viscount said, in a despatch of the 17th April—

"My Lord,—I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's despatch of the 15th inst., reporting your conversations with Count Walewski and with Count Orloff on the question of Poland, and I have the honour to acquaint your Lordship that Her Majesty's Government entirely approve the course pursued by you, both in bringing the subject into discussion with Count Orloff, and in abstaining, in consequence of what Count Orloff said, from mooting the matter in the Congress."

In 1855, then, they found the noble Viscount accepting the Russian promises, and refusing to do anything. In 1856 they learnt from the papers laid before the French Senate that the French Government solicited the joint action of England, and that England again refused. Whenever the noble Viscount refused to join with France, he always adopted this tone—he said that the Emperor of Russia was prepared to promise something to Poland, and he would believe Russia; and in a despatch, describing the first transaction to which he had referred, the noble Viscount, in speaking of the Emperor Nicholas, at the time he was committing barbarities quite equal to the conduct which the noble Viscount the other day stigmatized as barbarous, the noble Viscount spoke of the "generous and high-minded sentiments" of the Emperor Nicholas; he appealed to the "moderation and mercy," which he believed to be congenial to the high-minded sentiments which were well known to belong to his Imperial Majesty," and to his "humane forbearance and lenity." This was written at a time when the Emperor Nicholas was slaughtering his subjects in Poland wholesale. Now, as long as they found the noble Viscount praising the Emperor of Russia, relying on his benevolence, trusting to an amnesty, talking of his merciful disposition, so long the noble Viscount's policy required to be closely scrutinized by that House. He would strongly urge upon the noble Viscount to pay more attention to what he (Mr. Hen- nessy) believed to be the sentiments of the people of England and the disposition of that House than to the sentiment the Grand Duke Constantine, and merciful disposition of the Emperor of Russia. He begged in conclusion to ask the noble Viscount, generally, what Her Majesty's Government proposed to do with regard to Poland; and, in. particular, whether Her Majesty's Government had accepted or had refused any kind of mediation jointly with the Government of France in the affairs of Poland.

said, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has 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? A danger such as he had referred to in his Question did really exist, because many persons, British subjects or acting under the protection of British law, and in defiance 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 place this country in the danger of being involved in war. This was notorious from the papers that had been presented with regard to the most flagrant of these cases—the case of the Alabama. From these papers there arose two questions for consideration. The first was, whether Her Majesty's Government had done all 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 that so great was the danger that they could not separate for the recess without obtaining an answer from the Government, 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 hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. White) had a Motion for other papers which would throw additional light on the subject. But in the present state of public feeling, both in this country and in America, there might be advantage in the Government being able to give at once some explanation which the facts, as presented in the papers already published, seemed to demand. He would endeavour briefly to state the circumstances of the case. On June 23rd, 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, and after referring to the case of the Oreto, said—

"I am now under tire painful necessity of apprising your Lordship that a new and still more powerful war steamer is nearly ready for departure from the port of Liverpool on the same errand. This vessel has been built and launched from the dockyard of persons one of whom is now sitting as a Member of the House of Commons, and is fitting out for the especial and manifest object of carrying on hostilities by sea. It is about to be commanded by one of the insurgent agents, the same who sailed in the Oreto. The parties engaged in the enterprise are well known at Liverpool to be agents and officers of the insurgents in the United States."

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 to my mind … The foreman in Messrs. Laird's yard says she is the sister to the gunboat the Oreto, and has been built for the same parties and the same purpose."

The vessel was apparently built under circumstances which suggested concealment, for he added—

"The strictest watch is kept over the vessel; no person except those immediately engaged upon her is admitted into the yard."

The despatch was forwarded to the Foreign Office on the 23rd of June, and the Foreign Minister transmitted it to the Customs authorities 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 imformation was, as to the steps the Customs authorities 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 22nd, in which the American Minister again wrote to Earl Russell, and enclosed sworn depositions which abundantly proved that the vessel was on the point of sailing as an armed vessel of war.

The hon. Gentleman Bays "armed"—but was she armed?

The evidence was that the vessel was to be built and fitted up as a fighting ship in all respects. [MR. ROEBUCK: She had no guns.] No; but one of the depositions—that of a seaman who had been enlisted by the Confederate agent—stated that she tad 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. The depositions proved the connection of the agent of the Confederate Government, Captain Bullock, with this vessel as superintending her construction in Mr. Laird's yard, while an old man-of-war's-man deposed to his having been enlisted by the agent of the Confederate States, Captain Butcher, to sail in the vessel. This deponent joined the vessel in Messrs. Laird & Co.'s yard at Birkenhead, and he went on to say—

"The said vessel is a screw steamer of about 1,100 tons burden, as far as I can judge, and is built and fitted up as a fighting ship in all respects. She has a magazine, and shot and canister racks on deck, and is pierced for guns. …. There are now about thirty hands on board her, who have been engaged to go out in her. Most of them are men who have previously served on board fighting ships.…. It is well known by the hands on board that the vessel is going out as a privateer for the Confederate Government, to act against the United States under a commission from Mr. Jefferson Davis."

The next paper he would read was the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. Collier), which was given at the request of the American Government. It was as follows:—

"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 should think it his duty to detain her; and that if, after the application which 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 direction he appears to be acting, must take their share. It appears difficult to make out a stronger case of infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which, if not enforced on this occasion, is little better than a dead letter. It well deserves consideration whether, if the vessel be allowed to escape, the Federal Government would not have serious grounds of remonstrance."

That opinion was dated July 23, 1862, and its validity appeared to have been allowed by the Government, because Earl Russell wrote five days afterwards he had submitted it to the Law Officers of the Crown, and that he had telegraphed for the seizure of the vessel. Now, how was it that five days elapsed after the receipt of this letter before any action was taken by the Government? Earl Russell had been informed that the vessel was ready to sail, and he had the strongest possible grounds of suspicion that she was going out in the service of the Confederate States. The House ought also to know how it was that the Customs authorities, whose duty it was to prevent the breach of the law, independently of the action of the Foreign Office and of the American Government, took no steps whatever in the matter. There was another question upon which, as he saw the Solicitor General present, he should like to have information. In his letter to Mr. Adams dated the 22nd of September, some time after the vessel had sailed, Earl Russell said—

"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, Instructions were then despatched to Ireland to detain the vessel should she put into Queenstown, and similar instructions have been sent to the Governor of the Bahamas, in case of her visiting Nassau."

As these orders had been sent to detain the vessel if she visited Nassau, why was she not subsequently detained in Port Royal, where, after fighting the Hatteras, she took refuge for six days last January? Earl Russell stated that she sailed the very day that the Law Officers gave their opinion. So that it appeared that the representations of the American Minister had merely the effect of warning the owners that it was necessary she should sail at once. It was certainly a curious coincidence that the day on which the opinion of the Law Officers was received was the very day when this vessel got away. She left professedly on a pleasure excursion, and not with standing the suspicion which attached to her, the Customs authorities did not find out that this pleasure excursion was her actual departure. She sailed out under the British flag, and in Angra Bay was joined by two other vessels under the British flag, and was supplied with arms and stores. It was said, that at that time she ceased to hoist the British and hoisted the Confederate flag; but had the Government attempted to find out whether she did really make this change; for if she had not ceased to be a British ship, she was, of course, still under British jurisdiction? She made good use of her time, for, up to the 16th September, she had captured and burnt ten vessels. She not only had sailed cut under the British flag, but in cases of capture she kept it hoisted till she was upon the point of seizing her prey, when she lowered it to give place to that of the Confederates. It was hardly surprising that the announcement that this vessel, coming from a British port and thus hoisting the British flag, was making prize of American vessels, should have given rise to a great deal of feeling in America; and many protests were issued by the merchants in that country. In one protest they said that a large number of American ships had been captured by this vessel; that the cargoes of those ships had been plundered, and the crews subjected to brutal treatment. The protest further stated that the vessel which had committed those depredations had come from an English port; that, up to the time of the commission of the outrages complained of, she had been at no other but an English port; and that she sailed under the English flag, which she only exchanged for that of the rebels when within reach of her prey. Those merchants held that the British Government were responsible for the acts of this vessel. Now, he did not mean to say that our Government was responsible for them, but he was not astonished that American merchants should suppose that they were. This was almost altogether a British transaction. With the exception of two or three officers, there was hardly anything Confederate about her. She was manned by a British crew; she sailed out of a British port under a British flag; she had been built by British builders, contracted for by British agents, and paid for by money borrowed from British capitalists. 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. He had now given to the House a brief statement in regard to the Alabama; but if one ship merely had been or probably would be so employed, he would not have brought the matter then before the House. He had no wish to make a case against the Government, and would have been content to let the matter alone; but when it was expected that this ship would be followed by many others of the same class, it became a question affecting their interests, the interests of the country, and their friendly relations with America. He should not have troubled the House if there were not 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. In the month of October, one month after the date of that letter, 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 hon. 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 prophecy, or that its fulfilment was then attempted by the agent of the Confederate States. 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."

That 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 (Lord Clarence Paget) would jump at such an addition to the English navy. It seemed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's prophecy was about to be followed by speedy fulfilment. 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. Now, there came the question, what was to be done? He did not ask the 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. If they did so, they would only be following the example of the United States, which demanded and ob- tained summary powers when this country made a request in a similar case. He was not sure that they had waited for our request, nor did he actually know that the English Government had made such a request; but if not, the American Government did what they considered necessary without it. At the time of the rebellion in Canada, the United States 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 armed men—precisely the same thing as the passage of armed vessels from the English shores to America—the American Government passed a temporary Act, enlarging the powers of their Foreign Enlistment Act. He believed the American Foreign Enlistment Act was similar to the English Foreign Enlistment Act, and the eases were also similar. Both Acts contained two provisions—one prohibiting 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. ["Hear!"] Not with standing 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 similiar 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. In December 1862 the noble Earl 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 last, Earl Russell, writing to Lord Lyons, said—

"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 be improved. I said that the Cabinet had come to a similar conclusion. So that no further proceedings need be taken at present on the subject."

Why did the United States Government say they did not think an amendment of their law was necessary? Because they had found the law effectual under similar circumstances. Eight years ago, when this country was engaged in a war with Russia, a similar case to the present one occurred. We blockaded the ports of Russia as the United States were blockading the Confederate ports. We believed we had shut in the Russian navy so as not to interfere with British commerce; but there was a considerable anxiety in this country lest the United States should send out privateers under the Russian flag. We feared that the Americans might do to us what we were now doing to the United States. In consequence of that feeling, our 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 not with standing 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. 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 shipbuilder 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 between Mr. Webb and the Grand Duke part of the correspondence that passed Constantine on the subject. There was a still more extraordinary case, that of an armed 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 five days to act, and then acted when it was too late, the American Government at once detained the vessel until the Bri- tish 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. Low, who had suffered most from the depredations of the Alabama; and it was also a curious fact that he was one of the largest, if not the largest subscriber to the American fund for the relief of the distress in Lancashire. Therefore, the House would not be surprised if his case had excited great sympathy in America. Well, in consequence of the arrest of this vessel, the Maury, the New York Chamber of Commerce, having a feeling, which he feared was not shared much in 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 while an apology was due to Mr. Low for the ungrounded suspicions, it was incumbent on them to express their opinion of the charge. 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 honour 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."

With such a resolution come to in the year 1855, 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 had acted with anything like the same vigilance as the Customs authorities at New York acted in the case of the Maury, the Alabama, would never have been permitted to leave the port. 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. If, during the Russian war, the Americans had acted towards us as we were now acting towards them, he believed the indignation that would have been caused in this country would have been so great that it would have been very difficult for any Government to have maintained peace with the United States. 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 was 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 South, but it was a question of obedience to British law. and of carrying out a British 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 hon. 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. 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 in the Crimea? 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 if we were at peace. He would only add that during this war, which had caused so much misery in this country, we had hitherto preserved neutrality under what he was willing to acknowledge had been no little provocation, and under the temptation of what to some appeared an advantage from its breach to the interests of those they most cared for—namely, their industrial population. 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.

Sir, my hon. Friend who has just sat down has referred to the strong feeling which exists in the United States on the subject of the Alabama, and to the important interests which he thinks may be compromised if this country does not exert the powers which it possesses to prevent the fitting out of similar vessels; and he has said that we cannot be surprised that the American merchants and the American public should hold this country responsible for the acts of that vessel. I shall take the liberty of saying that we should have very just reason to feel surprised that so extraordinary an error should prevail in the general mind of the American public, if it did not happen that we are able to trace that error in some respects to its source. The accusations that have been made against Her Majesty's Government with respect to the Alabama, and which I hope to show the House are entirely groundless, are but a part of a series of accusations of systematic breaches of neutrality which, unhappily, the Government of the United States has permitted itself to make against this country, from, I might almost say, the beginning of this war. In their diplomatic communications, made through Mr. Adams to Her Majesty's Government, and which I regret to add constitute no small part of the contents of the book which I hold in my hand—the book laid by the American Government before Congress—I find repeated, over and over again, a catalogue of grievances against this country, of which the matter of the Alabama is only a single item. I regret to say that it is indispensably necessary, in order that the House should appreciate the truth concerning the Alabama, and see how utterly destitute of solid ground are the complaints which have been made with respect to the Alabama, that I should show the House in what company those charges are found. I will only mention two or three examples. On the 13th of February, last year, we have Mr. Seward writing to complain of the exportation from this country of munitions of war and arms to the Confederate States, and repre- senting this as a breach of the duties of neutrality, 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 2nd 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 30th of December, 1862, Mr. Adams, while engaged in correspondence with Earl Russell on the subject of the Alabama, annexed to his despatch documents giving an account of a large quantity of military and other stores which had been exported from this country to the Confederate States, and making the exsietnce of that trade the subject of renewed complaints. It is true that Mr. Adams then endeavoured to give some colour to that complaint by connecting it with the question of blockade; but if the trade was not otherwise a violation of Her Majesty's neutrality, there could be no pretence for saying that the blockade of the Southern coast could make it so. This is the manner in which, from first to last, in their diplomatic correspondence with this country, the Government of the United States have not thought it unworthy of them to complain of this country as guilty of breaches of neutrality. They have in that correspondence done no more nor less than to deny the application to this country, in this war, of those principles as to neutrals which have been invariably recognised by all nations, and by no nation more emphatically and constantly than by the United States themselves. I have given the House the dates of several of those complaints—I will now mention another date. In November, 1862, the Mexican Minister at Washington addressed a complaint to Mr. Seward to this effect—

"I have the honour 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 waggons 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 to which they are bound 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 American authorities, as embodying the traditional doctrines and policy of his Government, and constituting his answer to this complaint. What were those extracts? The first was an instruction to the collectors of customs, issued by Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, August 4th, 1793, as follows—

"The purchasing and exporting from the United States, by way of merchandise, articles commonly called contraband, being generally warlike instruments and stores, is free to all parties at war, and is not to be interfered with. If our own citizens undertake to carry them to any of these parties, they will be abandoned to the penalties which the laws of war authorize."

Well, have we not abandoned to the penalties of the law all ships of our country which have been found on the high seas carrying contraband of war? The next extract is from Mr. Webster's letter, dated the 8th of July, 1842, to Mr. Thompson—

"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 or particular treaties."

In his instructions of the same date Mr. Webster further stated—

"That 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."

Then comes a passage from 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 take munitions of war or soldiers on board their private ships for transportation; and although in so doing the individual exposes his property or person to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not involve any breach of national neutrality, nor of themselves implicate the Government."

There is yet one extract more. We have heard complaints of loans of money, as well as of the sale of munitions of war. The doctrine of the United States, in that respect, is set forth in a communication from Mr. Webster to Mr. Thompson in 1841—

"As to advances, loans, or donations of money or goods made by individuals to the Government of Texas, or its citizens, the Mexican Government hardly needs to be informed that there is nothing unlawful in this, so long as Texas is at peace with the United States, and that these are things which no Government undertakes to restrain.

I think the House will now see that the American mind has not been assisted by its own Government to appreciate, justly and truly, the specific value of the charges in regard to the Alabama, or the manner in which the acknowledged general principles of international law bear upon that and similar cases. We have, therefore, some reason to complain of, and certainly to regret, the course which the Government of the United States has pursued. I now come to the particular case of the Alabama. It is highly necessary, in order that the bearing of this question on international law, and the mutual relations of our Government and the United States, may be properly understood, that we should in the first instance ascertain clearly what is the right of the latter in the case. We, of course, have the deepest interest in the maintenance of our own rights, and are determined to enforce them in accordance with the laws and constitutional principles of this country But, the fact is, that if we, for our own reasons, and in order to prevent the violation of our neutrality by other Governments, had not thought fit to pass the Foreign Enlistment Act—an Act which we have as much right to repeal as to pass—if we had not done that of our own will and pleasure, it would have been impossible for the Government of the United States, on their own principles, to treat the sale of ships of war as in any degree more unlawful than the sale of any other kinds of munitions of war. I will prove that from their own authorities. They have a Foreign Enlistment Act as well as ourselves; and their Judges in deciding cases under it have had occasion to state the principles of that particular law, and also of the general law which prevails between nations. In 1815 the case of the Alerta was tried before the Supreme Court of the United States, and in the judgment this passage occurs—

"A neutral nation may, if so disposed, without a breach of her neutral character, grant permission to both belligerents to equip their vessels of war within her territory; but without such per- mission the subjects of such belligerent Powers have no right to equip vessels of war, or to increase or augment their force, either with arms or with men, within the territory of such neutral nation. Such unauthorized acts violate her sovereignty and her rights as a neutral."

That is just the principle on which the Foreign Enlistment Act is based. It was passed for the defence of our neutrality against any invasion of it by other Powers, and not in consequence of any obligation imposed upon us to prohibit such transactions as the building or equipment of ships of war for a belligerent by our subjects. If, then, à priori, a ship or arms may he sold, unless the neutral State interferes to prevent it, what is the extent of the right which a foreign Government derives from the existence of the Foreign Enlistment Act? Only this, that the foreign Government may appeal to the friendly spirit of the neutral State to enforce its own statute according to its own principles of judicial administration. The United States Government have no right to complain if the Act in question is enforced in the way in which English laws are usually enforced against English subjects—on evidence, and not on suspicion; on facts, and not on presumption; on satisfactory testimony, and not on the mere accusations of a foreign Minister or his agents. The Act must, be not only interpreted but executed according to law. It can be put in operation only on such evidence as our own Government would deem sufficient to justify proceedings in any other case. There is no comparison between the sale of a vessel of war by a neutral to a belligerent and such a case as that which happened lately in Brazil, where the property of British subjects was plundered on the shores of that country. That was a case in which, apart from local laws, British rights were infringed. But in the present instance the sale of a vessel of war, if brought within the Act, is an offence purely because our own law has declared it to be so; and if any foreign Government have an interest in getting that law enforced, they must be content to have it done according to the ordinary modes of procedure in this country. It would be a great mistake to suppose that the Foreign Enlistment Act was meant to prohibit all commercial dealings in ships of war with belligerent countries. It was not intended to do so. Two things must he proved in every case to render the transaction illegal— that there has been what the law regards as the fitting-out, arming, or equipment of a ship of war; and that this was done with the intent that the ship should be employed in the service of a foreign belligerent. I am not going into an inquiry as to the construction of the Act, but I may remind those who wish to get at the real truth of the matter of one or two points which have been decided, upon the corresponding American statute, by the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest tribunal in that country. The House will then see what may lawfully be done on the showing of the Americans themselves. There was a rather remarkable case, which occurred in 1822, and was decided by Judge Story. The ship was called the Independencia. She was originally an American privateer, built and equipped for and engaged in the war between the United States and Great Britain. After the peace she was converted into a brig, and sold. In January, 1816, she was loaded with a cargo of munitions of war by her new owners, inhabitants of Baltimore; and being armed with twelve guns, constituting 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, then at war with Spain. By the written instructions given to the supercargo on this voyage, he was authorized by the owners to sell the vessel to the Government of Buenos Ayres if he could obtain a suitable price. She arrived at Buenos Ayres, having committed no act of hostility, but sailing under the protection of the United States flag during the outward voyage. At Buenos Ayres she was sold, and soon afterwards, in May 1816, assumed the flag and character of a public ship, and was understood by the crew to have been sold to the Government of Buenos Ayres; indeed, the captain himself made known these facts to the crew, asserting that he had become a citizen of Buenos Ayres, and had received a commission to command the vessel as a national ship, and invited the crew to enlist in the same service, which the greater part of them did. From that time she was publicly and notoriously employed as a public ship of war of the Government of Buenos Ayres. What was the judgment of Justice Story upon that part of the case? It was this—

"The question as to the original illegal armament and outfit of the Independencia may be dis- missed in a few words. It is apparent, that though equipped as a vessel of war, she was sent to Buenos Ayres on a commercial adventure, contraband, indeed, but in no shape violating our laws or our national neutrality. If captured by a Spanish ship of war during the voyage, she would have been justly condemned as good prize, and for being engaged in a traffic prohibited by the law of nations. But there is nothing in our laws, or in the law of nations, that forbids our citizens from sending armed vessels, as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. It is a commercial adventure which no nation is bound to prohibit, and which only exposes the persons engaged in it. to the penalty of confiscation, Supposing, therefore, the voyage to have been for commercial purposes, and the sale at Buenos Ayres to have been a bonâ fide sale (and there is nothing in the evidence before us to contradict it), there is no pretence to say that the original outfit on the voyage was illegal, or that a capture made after the sale was, for that cause alone, invalid."

I must trouble the House with one more American decision. The case occurred in 1832, and the doctrine laid down in it was, that if a ship was fitted up with part of her armament in the United States. and then taken abroad by her owners with intent to complete her armament, and employ her in the service of a belligerent power, provided they could obtain funds in a foreign port for that purpose, this was not so definite an intention as to bring the case within the American Foreign Enlistment Act. The question was, whether the transaction, while the ship was still within the territory of the United States, had the character of a warlike armament, or that of a commercial speculation; and it was held that this must depend upon an absolute, and not a contingent intention. It was said—

"The collectors are not authorized to detain vessels, although manifestly built for warlike purposes and about to depart from the United States, unless circumstances shall render it probable that such vessels are intended to be employed by the owners to commit hostilities against some foreign Power at peace with the United States."

The words are, "render it probable;" which, if the principles of the law of this country are to be regarded, must mean, capable of reasonable proof. Sir, I do not deny that the United States are entitled to approach our Government, and to say, "You have laws, the violation of which will be injurious to us, and which you profess to desire in good faith to enforce. Here is a case as to which we can offer you evidence." Our Government always have been, and I have no doubt always will be, ready to attend to evidence furnished to them under such circumstances. But let not the House be misled, and let not the American people be misled, as far as to suppose that there is an international ground of complaint merely because a ship of war with which the Confederate States may carry on their belligerent operations was built in and comes from this country. A clear ground of complaint would exist if our Government themselves I directly or indirectly were concerned in fitting out such a belligerent ship; and a ground of complaint would exist, if a belligerent Power were permitted by our Government to use our shores or our waters for the actual operations of war; but if it is merely a case of individuals doing that which would be lawful by international law in this country if it were ont for our Foreign Enlistment Act—doing that which is only unlawful because there is a Foreign Enlistment Act—then the whole extent of the right possessed by the United States is to ask us to administer our laws upon the same principles and in the same manner as we should administer them against our own subjects in a matter in which we were ourselves alone concerned. So much I undertake to say our Government will always be ready to do; and if the minds of the people of the United States could be relieved from the prejudice, the bias, the false impression produced by the continued representations of their Government that things are unlawful and against international law which they know well not to be so, I feel perfectly sure that no candid man in the United States could think that there has been a want of good faith and upright intention on the part of our Government in anything which has occurred with respect to the Alabama. My hon. Friend has said that the Alabama was not the first ship which escaped from this country. That is true; there was the Oreto. What were the circumstances of that case? The Oreto was made the subject of due representation only once before she left this country, because she sailed from Liverpool on the 22nd of March clandestinely, as did the Alabama, and it was only on that same day that a conversation took place between Mr. Adams and Lord Russell which might have led to her detention if she had not gone. On the 18th of February the first and only previous information communicated to our Government was given by Mr. Adams. He stated a case which clearly called for inquiry. Accordingly, the Commissioners of Customs were directed to make an inquiry; they did so, and on the 22nd of February they reported that circumstances worthy of credit tended to show that the Oreto was going, or at all events was credibly represented to be going to Italy, and not to America; and not a particle of evidence had been offered to the contrary. She was not then fitted for the reception of guns, and had nothing on board but coals and ballast. There was consequently nothing to justify her detention—nothing but vague rumours and suspicions. No further representation was made, and the Oreto sailed on the 22nd of March. What then happened? The circumstances of her departure, and the contemporaneous representation made by Mr. Adams to our Government, made it probable that she was really intended for the Confederate States, and that our officers had been imposed upon. Still, the case was not clear; there was nothing proved to have been done in England which a court of law would certainly have construed as a violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Nevertheless, our Government immediately sent orders to Nassau, whither she was understood to have gone; and when she arrived there, she was watched. Upon the appearance of a delivery of stores, which appeared to be munitions of war, into the Oreto, while in our waters, although the case was doubtful, and it was questionable whether the evidence would prove sufficient, still, to show our good faith, we strained a point, and, acting upon some evidence, the Oreto was seized. What was the result? She was tried and acquitted, the evidence not being sufficient. Did we show any want of good faith in that case? With respect to the Alabama, the material facts may be shortly stated. On the 23rd of June Mr. Adams first called the attention of our Government to the information he had received about the building of the Alabama. It had often been said before that there were many ships in preparation for the Confederate States, but no evidence had been produced in any case, except that of the Oreto: and, what is more, we now know that, in fact, there were no other ships. The Oreto and the Alabama appear to be the only ships of the class which have yet been built in this country, whatever may be going on now, which is another question. When they received the representation from Mr. Adams on the 23rd of June, our Government took the proper and usual course; they directed the Commissioners of Customs to have the case inquired into. On the 1st of July the Commissioners made their report to Lord Russell: they said it was evident the ship was a ship of war; it was believed, and not denied, she was built for a foreign Government; but the builders would give no information about her destination, and the Commissioners had no other reliable source of information on that point. Were our Government wrong in not seizing the vessel then? The circumstances disclosed in the case tried before Justice Story were so far exactly the same as those which occurred in the case of the Alabama, and, in the absence of any further evidence, the seizure of that ship would have been altogether unwarrantable by law. She might have been legitimately built for a foreign Government; and though a ship of war, she might have formed a legitimate article of merchandise, even if meant for the Confederate States. Lord Russell, of course, communicated to Mr. Adams the result of the inquiry by the Commissioners of Customs, intimating, that if Mr. Adams could furnish any evidence, it would receive attention. The Government have been accused of unreasonable delay. Was there ever a more unfounded accusation? What time did Mr. Adams take to get his evidence? It was not the fault of our Government that he was not ready with it from the beginning. Lord Russell communicated with him on the 4th of July; eighteen days passed away before he furnished any evidence whatever; on the 22nd he transmitted his first series of depositions; he did not complete his evidence till the 24th, and the letter in which he sent the two last depositions was not received at the Foreign Office till the 26th. So that he did not place the whole evidence on which he relied in the hands of the Government till the 26th of July. In the mean time he obtained the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth, who on the 16th stated his belief that there was a case of suspicion which might prove enough to justify the detention of the vessel. That first opinion was not communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and the Collector of the Customs at Liverpool did not think himself warranted in acting upon the evidence when produced to him, without higher authority. When the evidence was completed, it was laid before the hon. and learned Gentlemen, who, on the 23rd, thought there was a case sufficient to warrant her detention. Upon that evidence the legal advisers of the Government came to the came conclusion as the hon. and learned Member. But I wish the House to understand that in those depositions there was a great mass of hearsay evidence, which, taken by itself, could not form the basis of any action. Of the six depositions transmitted on the 22nd of July only one was good for anything at all—namely, the evidence of a person named Passmore, which was sufficient to prove the material facts. Two more were sent, corroborating Passmore, on the 24th, and were received by Earl Russell on the 26th. Now, what is the delay of which we are accused? The 26th was Saturday, and the 27th Sunday. The complete evidence was not in the hands of Earl Russell till the 26th, and he told Mr. Adams on the 28th—that is, on the Monday, that the Law Officers of the Crown had been consulted. He got their opinion on the 29th, the next day, arid that very same day a telegraphic message was sent down to stop the ship. Really, Sir, one is shocked at the perversion of mind which arises under, I admit, the most excusable circumstances; for the House will give me credit for sincerity when I say that no one makes more allowance than I do for the natural feeling of irritation on the part of the American nation. No one can be more anxious than I am that we should stand straight with them and they with us. But I must say that but for the perversion of mind consequent on an irritable state of feeling, traceable to causes with which we can sympathize, I cannot conceive how any human being could say that the Government have culpably omitted to act with the promptitude which they ought to have shown. I might, perhaps, understand such a complaint if grounded on some such theory as this:—That because the safeguards of liberty have been suspended under circumstances of civil war in the United States, therefore they should be suspended in this country too, and the officers of our Government should do illegal acts and violate the law on mere accusation and suspicion. My hon. Friend referred to an example of the way in which the United States Government carried out their Foreign Enlistment Act during our war with Russia. Now, far be it from me to say that the United States Government did not act in as perfect good faith towards us in that war as we have acted towards them in this; but if the facts are examined, it will appear that they did nothing whatever in regard to the Maury which is not exactly parallel to what we did in the case of the Alabama. What were the dates in reference to my hon. Friend's example? Information was given by the British Consul of the circumstances upon which he based his belief that that was a ship of war intended for the Russian service on, I think, the 11th of October, 1855. That information was accompanied by evidence raising a sufficient primâ facie case as to the ship being fitted out as a ship of war; but the affidavits spoke only on belief as to the purpose and destination. That may be the mode of proceeding there; but I cannot see, because in the United States you may be warranted in acting upon belief as to destination, that it necessarily follows the same should be the case in this country also. I might, perhaps, be able to explain the reason why there should be a difference in the practice there. But let us now look at the dates. That evidence which was held to be sufficient for action was given to the United States Government at Washington on the 11th of October. They telegraphed immediately to the proper officer at New York, where the ship was, and what was ordered to be done was, not to give a clearance to the vessel. That order was made on the 13th. Did we give a clearance to the Alabama? She sailed without a clearance. We did not in any way facilitate or authorize her departure; it was only by an evasion and a stratagem, violating the laws of the port, that she slipped out. The vessel cited by my hon. Friend was not arrested, was not seized, was not placed in a situation practically different from that of the Alabama before her escape, until the 17th of October; on which day a libel was filed in the proper court against the ship by the Attorney General of the United States, and an order for her arrest was made by the Court. Until then, as far as appears, she might have slipped out of port without a clearance, as the Alabama did, if she had been really intended for the Russian service. So that the interval between the transmission of the first part of the evidence on the 22nd of July and the 29th, when the order to stop the Alabama was given by Her Majesty's Government, is not longer than the interval between the 11th of October and the 17th in the American case adduced by my hon. Friend. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: Take the date of the first letter.] That came to Her Majesty's Government without any evidence whatever, and I am sure my hon. Friend is not one of those who think that without any evidence whatever we ought to have stopped the vessel. Even Mr. Adams himself did not think that. When invited to send in his evidence, he took eighteen days to furnish any part of it; the depositions were not any of them sworn till the 21st; they were not all sent in to the Foreign Office till the 26th; and the order of the Government was given on., the 29th. But, of course, we are not going to spell out this matter by hours and by days. It is enough to show that each of the two Governments acted with reasonable promptitude and despatch; and there is not the least ground for believing that either Government supposed that in consequence of taking the moderate time they did the vessel would, have escaped them. The United States Government appear to have a more convenient method than ours. Their Customs authorities have a Court always sitting ready to deal with such matters; but in this country the Customs authorities would have had to seize the ship, without any order of Court, on the responsibility of the Government; and it would be a direct violation of the law to do that unless there was a justifying cause for doing so. I cannot think there is any Member of this House who seriously believes in his conscience that Her Majesty's Government did not act with good faith in this matter. Hon. Gentlemen will scarcely say it was an unreasonable thing for them to take from Saturday till Tuesday to get the opinion of their responsible advisers on the completed state of the evidence, which the Customs authorities considered to be insufficient at an earlier stage. My hon. Friend asked what we propose to do as to other ships supposed to be building, and whether we hold that the Foreign Enlistment Act is to be enforced only at the instance of a foreign Government. I have no hesitation in answering him. The Government by no means look upon that Act as an Act to be enforced only at the instance of a foreign Government. They are anxious to enforce it to the best of their power; but, of course, they must have legal grounds to proceed upon; and it will not do to tell us that six iron-clad ships are about to be built in this kingdom unless the Government have the means of knowing where they are to be built, by whom they are to be built, and also that they are to be built under such circumstances as will involve the parties in a violation of the law. We should be glad to receive from any quarter information upon that subject; and I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it would be well if the merchants of this country who may be invited to be parties to such acts, which are acts in violation of the law of their own country, and at the same time calculated, if not to involve the British Government in dangerous relations, at, least to disturb the amicable intercourse between the two Powers—it would be well, I think, if gentlemen: who may be invited to enter into undertakings of that description, whether for commercial or other objects, would reflect that it is the duty of merchants, as well as of all other persons, to obey the law and to have some regard to the interests of their country and the interests of peace, and to have also some regard to the feelings of a foreign belligerent nation when the law of their own country is in accordance with its interests. Her Majesty's Government, I am sure, would without partiality follow out any clue they might possess in order to discover and prevent illegal practices; for they are undoubtedly anxious to put the law in force against any person really violating the law, and against whom they may be able to obtain legal evidence. And if our law is defective, it is for this House to consider whether it ought to be amended. If Her Majesty's Government thought it was so, they would be willing, in concert with the American Government, to consider how it might be amended. But they could not think it would be acting prudently or safely to come down to Parliament and propose an alteration in our law unless they had reason to believe that the American Government were prepared to take some steps to place their law also on the same basis. Moreover, whatever may be the good faith and good intentions of any Government, without the cordial cooperation of its people it is impossible but that circumstances will from time to time arise when any law, however well devised, will be infringed or evaded. The case of our war with Russia has been quoted; but that is not the only war in which we have been liable to injury from the subjects of a neutral State. The House recol- lects the insurrection in Canada, and what was then done by citizens of the United States. What was the efficiency of the steps then taken by the United Slates Government? I do not say they were unwilling—I am not entitled to assume that—but if they were willing, they were not able to prevent even such acts as the attempted invasion of Canada by the ship Caroline. I do not remember to have heard that the persons on board of her received any punishment from the United States Government; and yet, undoubtedly, acts in violation of international law were then committed, and the Government were not able to prevent them. I need not refer to other cases—to the expedition of a person named Walker to Honduras—and similar instances. I do not cast blame upon the United States for these acts, but I only draw from them this inference, that in times of excitement, in times when the spirit of adventure and political or commercial enterprise is abroad, violations of law will occur, which, with all the good intentions in the world, a Government may not be able to prevent. What is alleged against us; what is the extent of the acts committed, even by individual subjects of this country, which can be considered contrary to any law of our own? Why, the building of these two particular ships. If our law failed to reach them, while they were within our jurisdiction, and if nothing was done by them in our ports or in our waters which was against international law, how can we be held responsible for their subsequent proceedings, when on the high seas? It was not till the Alabama reached the Azores that she-received her stores, her captain, or her papers, and that she hoisted the Confederate flag. It is not true that she departed from the shores of this country as a ship armed for war. But, whatever may have been the guilt of particular persons, this, at all events, I will say, that we have reason to congratulate ourselves, as far as Government is concerned, that our neutrality has been strict, impartial, and honest from beginning to end; and, as far as our people are concerned, it is a matter of some congratulation that hitherto no instances of this kind but those two are proved to have occurred. On the other hand, I believe there have been a great many enlistments of British subjects into the service of the Federation. The House will recollect a remarkable letter at the end of these pa- pers, in which Mr. Seward maintains that the act of a certain officer of the American Government, who had held out inducements to the seamen of a British steamer to enter the belligerent service of the United States, could not be very strongly complained of. Mr. Seward says—

"They were needy, and it seems to me that they could well have complained of severity and harshness, if, being disposed, they had been refused permission to enter into the service of the United States."

Is that no violation of neutrality? But we I can make allowance for those things; and although fairly entitled to remind the Government of the United States that they did not respect our neutrality in all cases, yet we do not pretend to say that the amicable relations of the two countries need to be disturbed on that account. My hon. Friend asked what explanation could we give of this—that though orders were sent to stop the ship at Queenstown and at Nassau, when she went to Port Royal, in Jamaica, she was not stopped. I do not know the exact time when she was at Port Royal—I believe it was in January last. But I can appeal to a high authority of the United States themselves for this rule, that although it may be true you may attach and confiscate a ship in a different port, yet it must be in the same course or voyage; and the offence is at an end, and is for all purposes of action blotted out, when she has ended that voyage and changed her ownership. I do not know who there was at Port Royal to give: instructions or to deal with the case; but this I do know, that coming there in December or January last, at a time when she was the property of the Confederate States, it would have raised a very difficult question if she had been touched. I have no reason at all to believe, that if an opportunity had been offered, proper means would not have been taken to consider and deal with the question; but it probably was thought impossible to deal with the vessel under the new circumstances, seeing that she had ceased to belong to British subjects, and had become the property of the Confederate States. I hope, then, the House will be satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are free from blame; and if what has been said to-night would only tend to remove the false impressions that may prevail on this question in the United States, so far from regretting the introduction of the subject by my hon. Friend, I should look upon it as a matter for our congratulation.

said, he had listened with great regret and with great surprise to the hon. and learned Gentleman, because he believed the tone of his speech was not likely to allay the feelings of irritation which existed on the other side of the Atlantic on this subject. He was quite sure the hon. and learned Gentleman did not wish to increase that irritation, and that the Government were anxious to conciliate rather than to provoke. But when the hon. and learned Gentleman founded his speech, not upon the application of legal principles to the particular circumstances which the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had brought before the House, but upon a series of charges against the American Government, charges about the Caroline and about Honduras, circumstances which really did not enter into the case, and referred to the diplomatic correspondence with that Government in support of them, he thought the effect could not be conciliatory, but rather damaging to our position in that country. The hon. and learned Gentleman hoped that America would be brought to reason by his speech. He (Mr. T. Baring) was afraid that the United States would read the speech as an indictment against them for misconduct in times past. If ever there was a moment, if ever there was a question, upon which every angry feeling ought to be eschewed, when that House and the Government ought to show the wisdom of forbearance, it was now, when the feeling against this country had risen to such a height on the other side the Atlantic that nobody could predict what the consequences might be. He would ask the Government to consider whether the course they had pursued with respect to the Alabama was calculated to give confidence to the United States as to the friendly nature of our disposition. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to many cases and decisions, and among them to one of Mr. Justice Story. He (Mr. T. Baring) was no lawyer, but he confessed he did not think the decision of Judge Story applied to this case. He said, "Here is a vessel that was sent to Buenos Ayres, and directed to be sold there;" but had the Alabama ever gone into a Confederate port, or ever been placed in the position to which the decision of Judge Story applied? This was a most unfortunate case, because it led public opinion on the other side of the Atlantic to question very much the sincerity of our declarations of neutrality, and to believe, that while we issued Proclamations and had Foreign Enlistment Acts in force, we did not really wish to maintain the neutrality which we professed. It was most unfortunate that such a feeling should exist. There had been a vast destruction of property, and great injury had been entailed upon British commerce—for the high insurance which was rendered necessary was a great loss and heavy damage to British trade. And no one could tell where the feeling of animosity which had been engendered would rest. The House was aware that the President was already empowered to issue letters of marque; and if those letters were issued, was there any one who could say that the most frequent collisions might not occur, and endanger the peace of the two nations? We saw already the seizures of British vessels by the blockading squadron without just cause, a proceeding originating, perhaps, in the feeling that we were not sincere in our professions. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to what he represented to be parallel cases; but the fact of the Crown lawyers having advised the Government to put the Enlistment Act in force against the Alabama, was an admission that the Government ought to have arrested that vessel; and the hon. and learned Gentleman admits that it would have been arrested if proper precautions had been taken. The question was, did the Government take proper precautions? In his (Mr. Baring's) opinion, the conduct of the Government and the Law Officers had been dilatory. He believed that on the 23rd of June this matter was brought under the notice of the Government. The matter was then referred to the Customs authorities at Liverpool, whose duty it was, it appeared, to carry the Act into effect. Nearly a fortnight elapsed beforet he report of the Customs authorities was received. He thought that upon the whole facts it was impossible to acquit the Government of undue delay in obtaining information, and as impossible to acquit those who represented the Government at Liverpool of having shut their eyes to facts that were notorious. It was discreditable that there should be a law on the statute book as to the operation of which an eminent counsel could declare that it was nothing better than waste paper. He repeated, it was unfortunate that the Government had been so tardy in their operations and that with the fullest desire, as he believed, to maintain the law, they should yet be so badly represented by those whose duty it was to carry their orders into effect that the Customs authorities at Liverpool were not aware of what was going on. He confessed that it was by no means his wish to accuse the Government, or to provoke a feeling of opposition to them, on this question. His wish rather was that Her Majesty's Government should say something that would show the United States that they were anxious to guard against a recurrence of these events, and to prevent the construction, in this country, of vessels meant for destruction and not for fair fighting. The course pursued by the Alabama was not one of fair fighting against an enemy, but was a wanton destruction of valuable property that must rebound to the injury of British commerce. Events such as had recently occurred might possibly involve the two countries in hostilities, which all must deplore and which Government ought to exert themselves, if possible, to avoid.

Sir, I have been very sorry to hear the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. I agree with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), that however unfortunate the position of affairs is, this question 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 hon. and learned Gentleman began by pointing out the inconsistencies of Mr. Seward with regard to what neutral nations may do in cases of this kind. These inconsistencies 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, cannot with justice be made, because we know that Governments have, as a rule, agreed not to interfere with the supply of munitions of war to those engaged in war. But Mr. Seward made a much greater mistake than that of inconsistency. He was evidently of opinion, when this matter began, that he might calculate, to some extent at least, on the friendly feeling of this country towards 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 towards the North; and as we receive an American Minister here, and as we have a Minister in Washington, and as, moreover, the United States Government in that city is the only Government we acknowledge, and as this is not a case of war between two independent States, Mr. Seward, perhaps, might have some foundation for the hope that in a case like this he might have calculated upon more forbearance and friendship from Her Majesty's Government than his country has hitherto received. But I do not wish to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman through the points of his speech, 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 hon. 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 Nicholson," a native of Scotland, but for eleven years resident in the United States, and now engaged in 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 honour to be engaged, Captain F. A. Small, late of the American brig Corris Ann, of Machias, State of Maine, who made application (endorsed by members of Congress) for a set of charts to supply his wants occurring in this way.

"On the 22nd 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 harbour, and between the Rock Key, on which the lighthouse stands, and Mona 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 succour 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 (of waters), 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 hon. 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, 'Alexandra, 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 Alexandra has been built by this firm for the Confederate Government, to cruise and make war against the United States—Fawcctt, 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, Trenholme, & Co. She has three portholes 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, iron-clad, for the Confederate Government. She is over 3,000 tons burden. This vessel is not yet launched.

"A steamer, owned by Fraser, Trenholme, & 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. There is only one other point to which I shall ask the attention of the House for a moment. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought he had a triumph over my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. 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 (Viscount Palmerston) was a Member, the present Foreign Secretary being Prime Minister, bringing in a Bill for the purpose of making a felony what was called "advised speaking," which had been there to fore sedition; and the House of Commons very judiciously, in my opinion, limited that alteration of the law to a period of two years, thinking that although there might be some propriety in the change at a time of great excitement like that, yet it was not necessary to alter the law of England for all time. Now, in this case the United States Government passed the Foreign Enlistment Act in 1818. I think our Act was passed in 1819. It was founded upon their Act, and is, in point of fact, almost the same. But in 1837 the United States Government found that that Act did not give them power to interfere so 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. 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 [that, was, any vessel upon the lakes or vehicle endeavouring to cross the frontiers of Canada 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 hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they came last year to deal with the matter of the possession of pheasants, did not require the delinquents to give proof that they came by the game honestly. Surely, then, I do not 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. The other section of the United States 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 hon. 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 of war and sell them to any Power in the world. Well, I do not 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 is understood to be, and which they acknowledge to be, the law of nations, for the purpose of preserving peace amongst the nations. I shall not go into any further details with regard to this matter. I am satisfied that the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman 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 thin 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 an 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. 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—do not believe for a moment that acts like these can be forgotten now, or forgotten hereafter. There are people in America interested apparently in creating ill-feeling towards England. There are two millions of Irishmen in America, and wherever an Irishman plants his foot on any foreign country there stands an enemy of England. I could read to you a speech of old date, delivered by Lord North in this House, in which he lamented that amongst those that were most hostile to England during the Revolutionary War were those emigrants who had gone from Ireland. 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, Sir, a man who is worthy to be a Minister, instead of speaking in 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. 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 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. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who is a man of unequalled experience in politics, and who, though he may sometimes drive the coach very near the edge of the precipice, cannot, I should think, intend to drive it over; 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 and 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 gay he has rendered during his long political career. 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.

Sir, after the discussion that has taken place about the Alabama, I shall not trouble the House with many remarks. I can only say, from all I know and all I have heard, that from the day the vessel was laid down to her completion everything was perfectly straightforward and above board in this country. I also further say that the officers of the Government had every facility afforded them for inspecting the ship during the progress of building. When the officers came to the builders, they were shown the ship; and day after day the Customs officers were on board, as they were when she finally left, and they declared there was nothing wrong. They only left her when the tug left, and they were obliged to declare that she left Liverpool a perfectly legitimate transaction. There is one point which has been lost sight of in this discussion. If a ship without guns and without arms is a dangerous article, surely rifled guns and ammunition of all sorts are equally and even more dangerous. I have referred to the bills of entry in the Custom Houses of London and Liverpool, and I find that there have been vast shipments of implements of war to the Northern States. I find, among those who have been engaged in these transactions, the celebrated house of Baring & Co.; I find also Brown, Shipley, & Co., of Liverpool, and a variety of other names, which I need not more particularly mention, but whose Northern tendencies are well known to this House. If the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), or the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), wishes to ascertain the extent to which the Northern States of America have had supplies of arms from this country, they have only to go to a gentleman who, I am sure, will be ready to afford them every information, and much more readily than he would to me or to any one else calling upon him—the American Consul in Liverpool. Before that gentleman the manifest of every ship is laid, he has to give an American pass to each vessel, and he is consequently able to tell the exact number of rifles which have been shipped from this country for the United States—information, I doubt not, which would be very generally desired by this House. I have obtained, from the official Custom House Returns, some details of the "sundries" exported from the United Kingdom to the Northern States of America from the 1st of May, 1861, to the 31st of December, 1862. There were:—Muskets, 41,500; rifles, 341,000; gun-flints, 26,500; percussion-caps, 49,982,000; and swords, 2,250. The best information I could obtain leads me to believe that from one-third to a half may be added to these numbers for items which have been shipped to the Northern States as "hardware." I have very good reason for saying that a vessel of 2,000 tons was chartered six weeks ago for the express purpose of taking out a cargo of "hardware" to the United States. The exportation has not ceased yet. From the 1st of January to the 17th of March, 1863, the Customs bills of entry show that 23,870 gun-barrels, 30,802 rifles, and 3,105,800 percussion caps were shipped to the United States—this in addition to the immense quantities of warlike stores I have already read to the House. So that if the Southern States have got two ships unarmed, unfit for any purpose of warfare—for they procured their armaments somewhere else—the Northern States have been well supplied with the most efficient means of warfare from this country, through the agency of some most influential persons. Now, it has been stated—and by way of comparison treated as matter of complaint—that during the Crimean war the Americans behaved so well. The hon. Member for Bradford and the hon. Member for Birmingham both lauded their action as compared with that of our own Government. Now, I have heard that a vessel of war was built for Russia in the United States and actually sailed to Petropaulovski. ["Name!"] If hon. Members will allow me, I will go on. And first I propose to read an extract from The Tunes, written by their correspondent at Han Francisco, dated the 29th of January, 1863—

"Now, this case of the Alabama illustrates the saying that a certain class should have a good memory. During the Crimean war a man-of-war (called the America, if I remember) was built in America for the Russian Government, and brought out to the Pacific, filled with arms and munitions, by an officer in the United States navy. This gentleman took her to Petropaulovski, where she did service against the allied squadron; and she is still in the Russian navy. We made no such childish fuss about this act of 'hostility' by a friendly Power, which we could not prevent, as our friends are now making about the Alabama, whose departure from England our Government could not stop."

The America was commanded by a Lieutenant Hudson, who—if my information be correct, and I have no doubt that it is—was then, or had been just previously, a lieutenant in the American navy; he is the son of a most distinguished officer in the same service, Captain Hudson. I am further informed that some doubts having arisen about the character of this ship, the American men-of-war in the different ports she called at protected her; and on her arrival in Russia, the captain who took her out was, I know, very handsomely rewarded for his services. Now, I will go a step further about the Northern States. In 1861, just after the war broke out, a friend of mine, whom I have known for many years, was over here, and came to me with a view of gelling iron-plated vessels of war built in this country for the American Government—the Northern Government. Its agents in this country made inquiries, plans and estimates were given to my friend, and transmitted to the Secretary of the American navy. I will read an extract from this gentleman's letter, dated the 30th of July, 1861. It is written from Washington, and states—

"Since my arrival here I have had frequent interviews with our 'Department of Naval Affairs,' and am happy to say that the Minister of the navy is inclined to have an iron-plated ship built out of the country. This ship is designed for a specific purpose to accomplish a definite object. I send you herewith a memorandum, banded me last evening from the Department, with the request that I would send it to you by steamer's mail of to-morrow, and to ask your immediate reply, stating, if you will agree to build such a ship as desired, how soon, and for how much, with such plans and specifications as you may deem it best to send me."

The extract from the memorandum states that "the ship is to be finished complete, with guns and everything appertaining." On the 14th of August, I received another letter from the same gentleman, from which the following is an extract:—

"I have this morning a note from the Assistant Secretary of the navy, in which he says, 'I hope your friends will tender for the two iron plated steamers.'"

After this, the firm with which I was lately connected, having made contracts to a large extent with oilier persons, stated that they were not in a position to under- take any orders to be done in so short a time. This was the reply—

"I sent your last letter, received yesterday, to the Secretary of the navy, who was very desirous to have you build the iron-plated or bomb-proof batteries, and I trust that he may yet decide to have you build one or more of the gunboats."

I think, perhaps, in the present state of the law in America, I shall not be asked to give the name of my correspondent; but he is a gentleman of the highest respectability. If any hon. Member wishes, I should have no hesitation in handing the whole correspondence, with the original letters, into the hands of yon, Sir, or the First Minister of the Crown, in strict confidence, because there are communications in these letters, respecting the views of the American Government, which I certainly should not divulge, which I have not mentioned or alluded to before. But seeing that the American Government are making so much work about other parties, whom they charge with violating or evading the law, though in reality they have not done so, I think it only fair to state these facts. As I said before, they are facts. I do not feel at liberty to state those points to which I have referred as being of a confidential character; but if any hon. Gentleman feels a doubt regarding the accuracy of what I have stated, I shall feel happy to place the documents in the hands of the Speaker, or of the First Minister of the Crown, when he will see that they substantiate much more than I have stated. I do not wish to occupy the House longer; but I must say this, that to talk of freedom in a land like the Northern States of America is an absurdity. Almost every detective that can be got hold of in this country is employed, and they have spies everywhere. I believe there are spies in my son's works in Birkenhead, and in all the great establishments in the country. A friend of mine had detectives regularly on his track in consequence of some circumstances connected with his vessels. If that be freedom, I think we had better remain in the position in which we now are. In conclusion, I will allude to a remark which was made elsewhere last night—a remark, I presume, applying to me, or to somebody else—which was utterly uncalled for. I have only to say, that I would rather be handed down to posterity as the builder of a dozen Alabamas than as the man who applies himself deliberately to set class against class, und to cry up the institutions of another country which, when they come to be tested, are of no value whatever, and which reduce the very name of liberty to an utter absurdity.

Sir, with regard to the Question put to me by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) as to Poland, I am afraid I can add very little to what I stated to him on a former occasion. As I then told him, Her Majesty's Government have made a communication to the Government of Russia on the subject of Poland, very much to the same effect as the opinions which I expressed to the House when the question came under our consideration, and that we are also in communication with the Government of France with a view to joint action in the matter—that action of course being, as the hon. Gentleman said, of a diplomatic character; for I do not understand that the House has recommended any other sort of action. We are also in correspondence with other Governments who are parties to the Treaty of Vienna, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they will be disposed to support the representation which we have offered. It would be inexpedient for me to go into detailed explanations of the particular communications which have been made; but I hope that after Easter matters will be in such a state that we shall be able to lay on the table papers showing what has passed and is passing. I trust that whatever may have taken place up to that time will be deemed satisfactory to the House.

Now, Sir, turning to the much more important and practical question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), I cannot but express my regret at the tone of his remarks, and still more at the tone taken by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). There is no concealing the fact, and there is no use in disguising it, that whenever any political party, whether in or out of office, in the United States, finds itself in difficulties, it raises a cry against England, as a means of creating what in American language is called political "capital." That is a practice, of course, which we must deplore. As long as it is confined to their internal affairs, we can only hope, that being rather a dangerous game, it will not be carried further than is intended. 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 friendly rela- tions between the two countries. We understand, however, the object of these proceedings in the present instance, and therefore we do not feel that irritation which might otherwise be excited. But if this cry is raised for the purpose of driving; Her Majesty's Government to do something which may be contrary to the laws of the country, or which may be derogatory to the dignity of the country, in the way of altering our laws for the purpose of pleasing another Government, then all I can say is that such a course is not likely to accomplish its purpose. I very much regret, therefore, that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, and more particularly that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, are calculated to encourage those complaints which I think are totally unfounded on the part of the American Government. I should have hoped that Gentlemen bringing this question before the House would rather have tried to allay the irritation, instead of making out, as they endeavoured to do, that the Americans have just cause to complain against England and the English Government. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, in that admirable speech which we all listened to with the greatest delight, has demonstrated indisputably that the Americans have no cause of complaint against us. He has shown that the British Government have done, on the representations made by the American Minister here, everything which the laws of the country enabled them to do. And although I can easily understand that in the United States, owing to the great irritation and animosity produced by the civil war now raging, men's minds have been led to a great degree to forget the obligations of law, and where the practice has been to set it aside—I can easily understand that they are not disposed to give that weight which is due to our argument, that we cannot go beyond what the law prescribes and authorizes—yet I think that the House at least will see that the statement of my hon. and learned Friend proves that we have, in regard to enforcing the Foreign Enlistment Act, done all that the law enabled or permitted us to do. Hon. Members have argued as if the seizure of a vessel were equivalent to its condemnation. They ask—"Why did you not seize the Alabama, when you were told that it was known and believed that she was intended for warlike purposes on the part of the Confederates?" Now, in the first place, you cannot seize a vessel under the Foreign Enlistment Act unless you have evidence on oath confirming a just suspicion. That evidence was wanting in this case. The American Minister came to my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary and said, "I tell you this, and I tell you that; I'm sure of this, and I'm sure of that;" but when he was asked to produce evidence on oath, which was the only thing on which we could ground any proceedings, he said that the information was furnished to him confidentially, that he could not give testimony on oath, but that we ought nevertheless to act on his assertions and suspicions, which he was confident were well founded. What would happen if we were to act in that way? When a vessel is seized unjustly and without good grounds, there is a process of law to come afterwards, and the Government may be condemned in heavy costs and damages. Why are we to undertake an illegal measure which may lead to those consequences, simply to please the agent of a foreign Government? I say, if there was any fault, it was on the part of those who called on us to do a certain act, and yet withheld the groundwork on which that act could alone be based. I have myself great doubts whether, if we had seized the Alabama, we should not have been liable to considerable damages. It is generally known that she sailed from this country unarmed and not properly fitted out for war; and that she received her armament, equipment, and crew in a foreign port. Therefore, whatever suspicions we may have had—and they were well founded, as it afterwards turned out—as to the intended destination of the vessel, her condition at that time would not have justified a seizure. I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have no indisposition to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The hon. Member for Birmingham reproaches us with exhibiting "a cold mid unfriendly neutrality." I do not know what the meaning of those terms may be; but they appear to me to be a contradiction in themselves. If neutrality is more than friendly towards one party, it is something very different towards the other, and ceases to be what, in common parlance, is meant by neutrality between contending parties. But whether our neutrality is warm or cold, friendly or unfriendly, it is sincere and honest. I can assure my hon. Friends and the House, that whenever it is in our power to enforce the Enlistment Act legally and in accordance with justice, we shall not be found wanting in the performance of our duty. It is a great mistake to suppose that we can view with pleasure any transactions in this country which have a tendency to violate not only the letter, but even the spirit of the Foreign Enlistment Act. It would have been much more agreeable to us if all the supplies that have been so well enumerated by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird), as having been furnished in abundance to one party and very scantily to the other, had been withheld, and if the whole of the United Kingdom had remained in a state of perfect neutrality between the parties, and if no supplies had been furnished either to the one party or the other. But when we are blamed so heavily for not having acted on suspicions, is it fair for us to say, that as far as suspicions go, we have been informed—perhaps erroneously—that not only have arms been despatched to the Northern part of the United States, but that efforts have been made, in Ireland especially, to enlist persons to serve in the Federal army and navy? Unquestionably, a great many cases have occurred in North America, in which British subjects have been seized rind attempts made to compel them to serve against their will in the civil war. 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, regretting exceedingly any circumstances of any kind which should have caused irritation in the minds of the people of the Northern Union, we can only say, that it is impossible for us to go beyond the law. The law is in this case of very difficult execution. This is not the first time when that has been discovered. when the contest was raging in Spain, between Don Carlos and Queen Isabella, it was my duty—the British Government having taken part with the Queen—to prevent supplies from being sent to Don Carlos from this country. There were several cases of ships fitted out in the Thames; but though I knew they were intended to go in aid of Don Carlos, it was impossible to obtain that information which would have enabled the Government to interfere with success. I hope, therefore, that those Gentlemen who have made themselves in this House the mouthpieces of the North, will use the influence which they are entitled by the course they have taken to exert, to prove to their friends on the other side of the Atlantic that the charges made against the British Government are not founded in reason or in law. I trust they will assure i them that Her Majesty's Government will continue, as I maintain they have done hitherto, to enforce the law, whenever a case shall be brought before them in which they can safely act upon good and sufficient grounds; there must, however, be a deposition upon oath, and that deposition must be made upon facts that will stand examination before a court of law; for to call upon us arbitrarily and capriciously to seize vessels with respect to which no convincing evidence can afterwards be adduced, is to ask the Government to adopt a course which would cast discredit upon them, and lead to much subsequent difficulty and embarrassment. I do hope and trust that the people and Government of the United States will believe that we are doing our best in every case to execute the law; but they must not imagine that any cry which may be raised will induce us to come down to this House with a proposal to alter the law. We have had—I have had—some experience of what any attempt of that sort may be expected to lead to; and I think there are several Gentlemen sitting on this bench who would not be disposed, if 1 were so inclined myself, to concur in any such proposition.

said, the noble Lord had shown to night, as he had done on most other occasions, that he was thoroughly in accord with the great majority of his countrymen. While everybody in England deplored the unfortunate war going on in America, opinion was divided as to the merits of the quarrel. Some advocated the cause of the North, and some that of the South; but nearly all approved the policy of neutrality which the Government had adopted in regard to the two belligerent Powers. With respect to Poland, also, the noble Lord had not retired from his former advanced position, and in doing so had only expressed the sentiments of the people of this country. Twice he had charged Russia with a gross breach of the Treaty of Vienna. So far back as 1831 he stated most truly, in a despatch addressed to Lord Heytesbury, that the kingdom of Poland was created and attached to Russia by that treaty, and that that treaty defined the relation in which Poland stood to Russia. If that were so, and if Russia had systematically violated the stipulations of the treaty, the logical inference was that the treaty had been abrogated by Russia herself, and that the independence of Poland ought to be secured by a new Council of the nations of Europe.

remarked that it had been stated by an individual of the highest authority, that although England had a right, she was under no diplomatic obligation to interfere on behalf of Poland. Now, he (Sir Francis Goldsmid) contended, that when such engagements as those of the Treaty of Vienna were entered into with a great Power, when the violation of them was systematic and accompanied by acts of cruelty and injustice, when the Government committing those acts avowed and defended them, and when there was intervention by another Power on behalf of the oppressor and against the oppressed—then, although there might be no diplomatic obligation, there was a moral obligation to interfere, from which no first-rate Power could retire without dishonour. The mode in which that obligation was to be discharged depended in part upon the inclination of foreign Governments; and as that inclination was better known to the Executive than it could be to cither House of Parliament, they were practically compelled to leave the matter in the bands of Her Majesty's Ministers. As to the result of that inevitable confidence, though there could be nothing like certainty, there was some ground for hope. It was true that in 1831 the noble Lord declined to co-operate with France, for reasons which we were told were excellent, but which, as it appeared, could not even yet be revealed, although thirty years had since elapsed. Unless they proceeded on the assumption that everything that was unknown was magnificent, these reasons were not likely to be considered satisfactory. But circumstances were more auspicious now. The superstitious reverence which then existed for the supposed enormous might of Russia had in great measure disappeared. The people of France were as much interested as they were then in the fate of Poland; Austria was believed to be much more favourable; and the present struggle in Poland itself appeared to embrace more completely the whole nation—nobles and peasants, Christiana and Jews. As one instance of this union it might be mentioned that last year the Chief Rabbi had shared with the Roman Catholic Archbishop the honour of imprisonment for the offence of taking part in a patriotic demonstration. He (Sir Francis Goldsmid) should rejoice if the considerations to which he had referred encouraged a bolder course than had been taken in 1831, and if at that future period when the steps now being adopted by Her Majesty's Government, for the present necessarily concealed from us, should become known, they should be found to leave no room for the unpleasant doubt (from which, with reference to some former occasions of a similar kind, it was impossible for us wholly to free ourselves) whether a great opportunity had not been lost for at once strengthening the cause of a gallant people and acquiring additional securities for the future peace of Europe.

said, that those who were the most earnest advocates for the re-establishment of Poland seemed to him to tender to the Polish cause little beyond their good wishes, which to his mind was a practical cruelty. There was not the same difficulty in founding a new dynasty for Greece as there would be in reviving the nationality of Poland, and establishing a permanent form of government within it; and yet look at the difficulty of replacing the government of Greece, When those who advocated the cause of Poland urged the Government, to pursue a course which he believed the prudence and statesmanlike knowledge of the noble Lord at the head of the Government would prevent their adopting, and to approach Russia practically in the attitude of menace—for to accuse her of violation of her engagements was a practical menace—they recommended a course that could not be successful, for Russia was not likely to yield to such representations. But let the House consider the history of Poland. Poland was once free and independent—why did she fall? She fell from internal dissensions. And what security was there, that in her present condition, social and civil, if re-established, she would not fall again? Was there, in that unhappy country, a middle class—the essential element of constitutional government? Were the people educated? Were they peaceable? Could there be made out of these elements anything but a despotic form of government? It made him impatient when he heard noble and gallant men urged on to shed their blood with so vain a prospect. He knew that it might be unpopular to urge these opinions, but he felt it due to humanity that it should be done. Russia was talked of as if Russia had never attempted to reconcile the Poles; but the history of the Poles from 1815 to 1820 contradicted that assumption. It so happened that he had a connection who had been employed by Russia; that connection had always treated him with the utmost friendship and confidence. He (Mr. Newdegate) had himself entertained many of the feelings in favour of Polish independence that had been avowed in that House; and he asked the gentleman to whom he referred to furnish him with evidence that proposals for reconciliation had not only been made, but that there had been an attempt to carry them out by Russia. The gentleman furnished him with that evidence, and he showed that the very same system which prevented England from producing content in Ireland was the source of the perpetual disturbance and misery of Poland. He (Mr. Newdegate) asked the House to consider this:—Was there anything in the conduct of the present Emperor of Russia which could make them believe that he did not personally share those benevolent feelings towards Poland which actuated Alexander the First? And yet it was assumed that the Emperor had no such disposition. So far was this from being the case, that even Prince Napoleon, speaking in the Senate of France, declared that the intentions of the Emperor of Russia towards Poland were most benevolent; and such an admission from such a quarter must carry conviction to the most sceptical, for the Prince made this admission on the very eve of dividing the Senate on a motion which, if carried, would have involved France in a war with Russia for the independence of Poland. The Grand Duke had granted the most liberal indulgencies to the Poles And how had these been thwarted? Why, by the same elements of disturbance which had prevented England from reconciling Ireland. No one could read the recent letter of the Archbishop of Orleans to M. Quinet without seeing that the object of the Ultramontane party was to establish their own power in and over Poland. What did the Archbishop say to M. Quinet, in effect, but this?—We, the Ultramontane Party, will not accept your aid for Poland, nor your co-operation; for if by such means we were to succeed, we should not establish in Poland the- state of things which we desire. There had appeared in The Times a passage most pregnant with reference to this difficulty. The Archbishop of Warsaw tendered to the Archduke Constantine his resignation as a member of the Legislative Assembly; and what did the Grand Duke say? He said—"This is open rebellion at such n time as this. You want to make this a religions war; but you will find Russia too powerful for you." The same Ultramontane influence which counteracted England's efforts to conciliate Ireland was at work in Poland, and had been her curse for two hundred years. Poland was formerly one great source from which Rome recruited her crusades; the Ultramontane party now was stimulating Poland for another crusade—for a religious war against Russia; and if Russia were guilty of severities and atrocities which he deplored, and which severities and atrocities he had no doubt the noble Lord at the head of the Government would do his best to mitigate; and still, if Russia were driven to these acts in order to avoid the occurrence of such a calamity as a religious war, she would ultimately receive, barbarous as she might be in many respects, that justice from public opinion which the too sanguine advocates of Poland denied her. He hoped that the House would excuse him for thus speaking that which he believed to be the honest truth. There were elements in this contest which rendered the Poles insensible to reason, and not content with justice—justice as far as could be granted by a Power which those who had excited the Polish insurrection were seeking to injure in her deepest interests. [A laugh.] The hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) might laugh—he was the representative of that class of the Roman Catholic opinion which thought all means justifiable to accomplish its ends. Those only would laugh who thought any amount of bloodshed and civil war justifiable if it afforded them some prospect of seeing the favourite order of Rome dominant throughout the world, But the Protestant people of England were not forgetful of their own history; they knew that their forefathers were driven to the use of severities, which they regretted, by this same element of danger and disturbances; and they would yet do justice to Russia, if Russia, at the instance of Europe, was prepared to do justice to Poland.

said, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) endeavoured to represent this as a religions war, but he thought he would not convert the people of England to that view. The present insurrection was not caused by any internal dissension among the Poles, but by the external pressure put upon them by their oppressors. Never had greater tyranny been exercised by one civilized country towards another, than that which Russia had inflicted on Poland. The constant and systematic attempts of Russia to govern Poland by the instrumentality of Russians lay at the root of all the disturbances in that country. The friends of Poland would never cease calling the attention of Europe and of this country to the grievous oppressions to which she had been subjected for so many years, but it was not bare words of encouragement they were prepared to give her. What had fallen from the noble Viscount to night had led him to hope that he would take measures, in concert with the other Powers who had signed the Treaty of Vienna, to obtain those concessions to Poland to which she had a right, He hoped this country would combine with Austria and France in order to give to Poland one frontier upon which she might depend, and that we should yet see Galicia independent. If that were effected—if it were possible to establish an independent kingdom between Germany and Russia, it would form a most important element of the peace and safety of Europe.

said, that the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) contained many generous sentiments; still, on the question of the established religion of this country, he could not but think, if we adhered to the Treaty of Vienna, we must support the religion and clergy of the Poles. He could not understand why Prussia should have been treated with so much delicacy in this debate. Prussia was as culpable as Russia. He remembered that the noble Viscount, on a former occassion, asserted that in Prussia the nationality of Poland was preserved. But, with the utmost deference to the noble Viscount, and as far as his information went, he could not agree with him in that opinion. In the four provinces of East and West Prussia, Silesia, and the Grand Duchy of Posen, there were in all 7,500,000 inhabitants, of whom 2,830,000 were Poles. In Posen there were 850,000 Poles, and only 550,000 Prussians. According to the Treaty of Vienna, these Poles ought to have their nationality preserved; and yet in that important element of nation- ality, their native language, the Poles did not obtain justice, for there were no colleges nor schools for the cultivation of the Polish language in the four provinces, He asserted that there were none in East or West Prussia, or in the Grand Duchy of Posen—there were not even village; schools—and when the Poles complained of any act of severity on the part of their rulers, they were told they were Prussians, and not Poles. It was clear therefore, notwithstanding the assertion of the noble Lord, that the nationality of Poland was not preserved in Prussia.

said, he regretted that on that, the first time on which he addressed the House, he should differ in some respects from the opinions of the Liberal party, to which he belonged. The Liberal party always professed to advocate peace, retrenchment, and reform. Reform had been put aside, and he did not see much sign of retrenchment; he hoped, then, he might be permitted to say a few words upon the subject of peace. Now, if there was any meaning in the argument of the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), they meant this, that he did not believe in the ability of the noble Viscount and the Government to steer clear on the one side of pusillanimous advice, and on the other of war. But the sympathies of England and those of the noble Viscount and of the Governments which had preceded his had never been wanting to the cause of Poland. At the time of the first partition of Poland the greatest political and philosophical writer of that day had endeavoured to awaken public opinion in Europe to the general wrong sustained by all nations through that event; and in 1815 the noble Lord who represented England at the Congress of Vienna (Lord Castlereagh) had endeavoured, by acting in concert with Austria, to obtain justice for Poland. In 1831 Poland was not the only country which the noble Viscount had to watch over. It should not be forgotten that besides arranging the great and dangerous question of Belgium the noble Lord was occupied then in watching over the nascent liberties of Spain and Portugal; and Belgium, Spain, and Portugal were countries far nearer and more interesting to us than Poland. Again, at the close of the Crimean war, the noble Viscount and Lord Clarendon showed that they were not unmindful of Poland; and he maintained that the noble Viscount had on all occasions displayed his willingness to enter into the cause of Poland, when he could do so consistently with the interests of this and other countries. He therefore thought they might safely leave the cause of Poland in the hands of the noble Lord. A great many Members, who had spoken on this occasion, seemed to forget that there were interests of England as well as interests of Poland to be considered. No one who looked at our relations with America, would doubt that retrenchment ought to be a leading object with the Government of this country. He entreated those who were so enthusiastic about Poland to pause before they forced Her Majesty's Government into action on this subject. Ministers should rather be urged to tender sound and confidential advice at the present juncture to those upon whom the fate of Poland now depended.

rose to move a Resolution with a view to founding a Bill thereupon. The object of the Bill which he proposed to introduce was to some extent identical with a Bill which had been only partly adopted in a former Session; he had now endeavoured to avoid giving rise to differences of opinion that were formerly mooted. One object of the measure was to extend the principle of the conversion of perpetual into terminable annuities to a further extent than it had yet been carried. At present the amount paid annually for terminable annuities was £1,900,000, part of which was interest and part repayment of capital. It might he said that about £1,000,000 was paid every year towards the reduction of the National Debt. In the year 1867 a portion of the terminable annuities, to the amount of £585,000, would cease. The operation of the Post Office Savings Banks Act was to convert a proportion, not exceeding one-sixth, of the stock purchased for those savings hanks into the form of terminable annuities. He proposed to apply the same principle to the old savings banks. He asked Parliament to give power to convert four millions of 3 per cent stock into terminable annuities of 1885. The effect of the measure would be to add £120,000 a year to the present charge for the National Debt, with a view to the relief to be obtained by the extinction of so much of the capital within a limited period. The next enactment in the proposed Bill would be to convert £24,000,000 of the savings banks money into a passive charge, resembling the debt now due to the Bank. He also proposed to remedy an existing defect in the law relating to savings banks. Although at present there was no doubt of the moral, and to some extent the legal, liability of the State to repay to the trustees of savings banks all the money received from them with the interest accrued, yet the machinery for giving effect to that obligation did not exist. The value of stock in the hands of the Commissioners might not be sufficient to liquidate all their engagements. He proposed, that in case of a demand on account of the savings banks arising that could not be met out of the proceeds of the securities and the cash at the credit of the Commissioners, such deficiency should be a charge upon the whole Consolidated Fund—giving full security to the savings banks. Another provision in the Bill would authorize the Commissioners, whenever they might think it desirable, to meet any demands out of the cash in the Exchequer, instead of going into the market to sell stack, which, at a time when the price was low, was a disadvantageous operation with a forced sale.

said, as far as he understood the scheme of the right lion. Gentleman, one portion seemed very good, and another somewhat doubtful. The Committee was dealing with a very large sum, and he wished to know what the amount of interest would be. He apprehended that the very first principle in dealing with terminable annuities was that the capital should be reinvested in some form or other, otherwise the danger of spending capital as income was incurred. There could not be a question of the prudence of recognising by statute the claims of the savings banks to repayments in full at the hands of the Commissioners of the National Debt.

said, persons throughout the country were extremely sensitive about the right to receive back the money deposited with the Commissioners of the National Debt. In such an extraordinary emergency as the funds at the disposal of the Commissioners proving insufficient to meet all the claims upon them, there could be no doubt that Parliament would make good the deficiency; but he was anxious to know how the fund could be rendered available if there should happen to be a run upon them.

understood the Bill to apply to all past operations, but wished to know whether it would apply to any deficiency to be created hereafter. If so, that Would open a very wide question.

held, that there could be no doubt of the right of trustees of savings banks to receive back from the State every farthing they had paid; but there was all the difference in the world between a right to receive payment and provision of the machinery for making that payment. As to the apprehension of future deficits, he reminded the Committee that by the Act of 1861 security had been taken that any operation in which a Finance Minister might engage for any public purpose must come under the review of Parliament before it could take effect. Until 1861 the Chancellor of the Exchequer had the power of refunding Exchequer Bills. Now, all that power was taken away from him, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer must submit himself to the judgment of Parliament with regard to any of these financial operations.

thought, it would be better to place this power in the hands of the Commissioners of the Treasury, who were well known and responsible to the House, than in the hands of an ex-officio body like that of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt.

admitted that that question might very fairly be debated hereafter, separately from the Bill.

asked for an explanation respecting the first appearance in these Estimates of the First Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission. The duty had been hitherto performed by unpaid Commissioners. It appeared now, that though the duty had been well dune by the unpaid Commissioners, the country was now called upon to vote £1,500 for this First Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission. He, like many other hon. Member, had been taken entirely by surprise by the rapid progress made last night by the Government in taking these Votes; and he thought they outfit to feel indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) for having exposed this juggling system of passing the Votes.

said, that he could not understand the debt of gratitude which oppressed his noble Friend in connection with what he had described in the not very complimentary term "juggling." lie could not understand the disappointment of hon. Gentlemen who had failed to be in their places when the Votes were brought forward after due notice. The words used by the noble Lord were hard ones, and hard words ought not to be lightly used; when they were applied, they ought to be supported by proof that they were deserved. If they were used, and that such proof could not he brought forward, they ought to be apologized for. With respect to the Vote on which his noble Friend asked for some explanation, it was explained last year. The fact was, that when the Civil Service Commission was appointed in 1855, the country had been fortunate enough to obtain the services as Commissioners of two most able men—Sir John Lefevre and Sir Edward Ryan—both of whom received salaries from other appointments. This was a state of things that could not be expected to last. Sir John Lefevre for eight years discharged most arduous duties on the Commission, but in 1861 he informed the Government that his physical strength was not equal to the discharge of the duties of the Civil Service Commission and of the Ecclesiastical Commission, in conjunction with those of Clerk to the House of Lords. Therefore, it became absolutely necessary to appoint some person in his place on the Civil Service Commission, but it could not be expected that they should meet with another person who would discharge the duties of a Commissioner gratuitously. Sir Edward Ryan received a salary as a retired Indian Judge, and likewise as Assistant Controller of the Exchequer during the eight years he had been on the Civil Service Commission in conjunction with Sir John Lefevre. The Deputy Controllership of the Exchequer had been virtually abolished, and by the re-arrangements made by the Government he thought they saved more money than they spent in giving Sir Edward Ryan a salary as Civil Service Commissioner.

said, that the charge against the Government was not that they had proceeded with the Estimates, but that after the Secretary of the Treasury had placed on the paper this notice—"Civil Service Estimates: Votes on account," they had proceeded with the Votes themselves. A Cabinet Minister, while defending the Government, was forced to admit that this course was unprecedented and inconvenient, and surely, therefore, a Member of the Opposition might describe it as "juggling." He was anxious to know how it was that since the public funds had been expended upon this Civil Service Commission the number of open competitions had declined.

thought that the Secretary of the Treasury had been wanting in consideration, he would say courtesy, to Irish Members in proceeding with the Irish Votes without sufficient notice.

said, that the fact that Irish Votes were passed last night in the absence of Irish Members might easily be accounted for without supposing that Irish Members were inattentive to their duties, and without there being any justification for the charge that he had been wanting in consideration or courtesy. The Votes last night passed with unusual, rapidity; partly, perhaps, owing to the circumstance that they had been prepared with great care, and that hon. Members who had studied them found little in the Estimates to object to. Class 5 also occupied less time than could have been anticipated, owing to the postponement of the Colonial and Consular and Diplomatic Votes; and, consequently. Class 6 might have come on before hon. Members had expected. There was no ground for saying that he had stolen a march on the House or taken an unusual course. On Monday evening he gave notice that he should last evening move the Revenue and Civil Service Estimates, Classes 2, 5, and 6, and that notice was printed on the paper which was distributed on Tuesday morning. At the same time, he gave a separate notice that he should on Wednesday move Votes on account. On Wednesday he endeavoured to do so; but an hon. Member behind him objecting he was compelled to postpone the Motion till last evening. Last evening he was obliged to move those Votes on account in order that they might be reported to-night. It was in that sense that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War spoke when he said that the course taken was unusual. It was unusual, because the necessity for Votes on account of these Estimates arose for the first time this Session in consequence of the change in the mode of Voting the Civil Service Estimates which was made last year.

said, that he objected to the taking of the Votes on account on Wednesday, because the notice had only appeared in the paper that morning. The course adopted last night, if not a juggling, was certainly a bungling, irregular, and inconvenient one. It had, he believed, never before occurred, that after the House had agreed to Votes on account it had been called upon to consider the Estimates in extenso on the same evening. He begged to move the reduction of this Vote by £1,500, the salary proposed for the First Commissioner.

said, he thought the Government, having the Votes on account, might have postponed the definitive Votes until after Easter. By the course adopted hon. Members had been put in the position not to be able to make observations which, under other circumstances, they would have wished to offer. The same remark applied to the Irish Votes. In his opinion it would have been much more desirable that the Government, having obtained the Votes on account, should not have ventured on a course which the Government themselves said was unusual and inconvenient, and which a much respected Member characterized as objectionable and unconstitutional.

said, that a meaning was attached to the word "unusual" which it did not bear. The practice to vote on account was entirely novel, because it was incident to a system which had been adopted for the purpose of giving effect to an important administrative improvement. It was necessary to prepare a list of Votes on which probable advances would be required before there was an opportunity of bringing them definitively before the House. That was unusual, but it was a practice to which recurrence would have to be had in future years. As to the objection to the combination of Votes on account with definitive Votes, he did not deny that there was a certain degree of inconvenience attached to it, but it was entirely bound up with the new system, and he thought it very immaterial. His right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peel) was liable to no censure whatever; and if there was an ambiguity in the notice, it was an ambiguity arising from the impossibility to foresee the speed with which the Votes would be passed. If he had known it would have been so, he would have withdrawn these Votes from the list of Votes to be taken on account. With regard to the Amendment, he was sure the House of Commons would not agree to the Amendment, or refuse to reward Sir Edward Ryan for the discharge of duties which he had hitherto performed without receiving any reward.

said, the Notices were certainly such as the House could not understand, and therefore it was unjust to charge Members with not attending to their duties when they could not anticipate that such business would be brought on. The right hon. Gentleman had not answered the question as to the number of competitive examinations.

said, the hon. Gentleman had better move for a Return.

disclaimed any intention, in the use of the word "juggling," to say anything adverse to the claims of the eminent gentleman whose name had been mentioned. Having been a Lord of the Treasury, at a time of unexampled difficulty, when the Government were in a considerable minority, he had felt that it would he very convenient at times to use a little "hocus-pocus;" so that he had used the words in no offensive sense.

said, it was distinctly understood by many hon. Members that the balances would not come under discussion last night. The mode of proceeding which had been adopted was not only inconvenient to Members, but was most embarrassing in the conduct of public business.

hoped, that after the explanation which had been given, the Motion would be withdrawn,

said, that as he understood another salary was saved in another quarter, he had no objection to withdraw the Amendment.

asked the Speaker whether it was within the rules of the House, that when a Vote had been moved on account, and no Report had been made on that Vote, that there should afterwards, on the same night, be taken a Vote on the balance. If the Vote on account were negatived on the Report, it was difficult to see how the Votes that were subsequently passed could be said to be Votes of balances.

The question ought not to be put to me; it should be put to the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Chairman is responsible for the conduct of the business in Committee, and no appeal lies from him to me; and I feel it would be extremely wrong to express an opinion on a point that arose in Committee.

asked what the aggregate salary of Sir Edward Ryan would now be.

said, he would answer the question at a future time.