war, in which one side used all the rights of belligerents, without conceding those rights to others. It existed and would be urged if they went to arbitration on the point of recognition. [Hear, hear.] It was a doctrine of rather a subtle nature, [hear, and laughter,] but it was well known to those who had given attention to the subject of municipal law. Mr. SANDFORD concurred in what had been expressed as to the kindly feeling that should be preserved between this country and the United States, and that everything should be done consistent with national honor. The honorable member for Bradford had spoken of the future, but he (Mr. Sandford) hoped that when they considered their future relations with America it would not be by themselves and America only, but by a congress of all the maritime nations, when the maritime laws should be determined in accordance with the principles there laid down. He should not have risen, only that it appeared to him that the honorable and learned gentleman who had raised the discussion did not appear to be aware of the grounds upon which the case on the part of the United States could be urged. The honorable and learned gentleman appeared to think that the sending forth the Alabama was a violation of the municipal laws; but that was not so, for any citizen had a right to send out an armed vessel for the south as for the north, but it was subject to be captured as contraband of war. [Hear.] The only possible ground upon which the United States could urge the question was the violation of the municipal law, but to be able to do that successfully America must be able to prove mala fides, or a lax administration of the law on the part of England. He supposed they would urge the latter; but if the Alabama had been seized when she started it would only have been the case of the Alexandra over again. The judges of any violation of the law were the officers of the Crown. That was the principle laid down by Earl Russell and adopted by the noble lord the member for King's Lynn when he came into office. He had no wish to find fault with the noble lord's policy because he was guided by the feeling of wishing to maintain friendly relations with the United States; but the noble lord had taken upon himself a heavy responsibility by submitting to arbitration the lax administration of the law by the executive, which was a new principle with regard to international law. Some years since the Austrian government called attention to the fact that a fabrication of Hungarian notes was going on in this country, but we interfered too late, and according to the principle now sought to be laid down, the Austrian government had a claim against us for the lax administration of the law by the executive to the extent of the loss sustained by that country. He had lately met with a large number of Americans. They seemed animated with a good feeling towards England, and they were perfectly reasonable on every other subject but that of the Alabama, and the moment that was mentioned they gave way to the greatest excitement, and he quoted it to show how deeply rooted the feeling of injustice must be on the part of the Americans. [Hear, hear.] He was unable to say if these negotiations would be resumed, but if they should be, and revived in a calmer spirit, he would venture to suggest to the noble lord the foreign secretary the name of a negotiator. Many names had been mentioned, but the Americans were not such flunkeys as many supposed, nor one-tenth so guilty as ourselves. The name of the person he should suggest was a household word in every part of the United States, viz., the honorable member for Birmingham. [Hear, hear, and laughter.] The honorable gentleman who laughed had not properly considered the question. [Laughter.] His object in appointing a negotiator was to arrive at a speedy and successful termination, and he knew no one more likely to conciliate our opponents than the honorable member for Birmingham. The suggestion might not find much favor in that house, but it would in the country and in America. The appointment of that gentleman would go far to remove the feeling of injustice under which America was now laboring with regard to England and the Alabama, and if any man could conduct the negotiations to a successful and peaceful termination it was the honorable member for Birmingham. [Hear, hear.] Mr. MILL said no one could have listened to this debate without being ready to admit that it had elicited much of an exceedingly gratifying and satisfactory nature, and it might have been hoped approaching to a greater degree of unanimity in the essentials of the question, if not for the speeches of the two honorable members who had immediately preceded him in the debate, [hear, hear,] who had referred to points of international law chiefly involved in the dispute in a manner which would almost lead one to believe they had not read very attentively the discussions that had taken place upon the subject. He said it with more regret because no fault whatever was to be found with the tone or feeling they had displayed, and in the case of the honorable member for Maldon, on the contrary, an amount of good feeling towards America had been displayed, which perhaps surprised some on the opposition side of the house, but which did not surprise him, (Mr. Mill.) It appeared to him that in reviewing the question of international law both those gentlemen had ignored the distinct and fundamental ground on which the discussion had turned, viz., the broad distinction which the law recognized between trade and contraband articles and the use of a neutral country as the base of military or naval operations. [Hear, hear.] It had never been denied that a ship of war might have been supplied to either of the belligerents with no more objection or violation of the municipal laws than the export of military stores; but then on condition that the ship should have gone direct to the port of the belligerent to whom she was sold before she went forth to make war on the commerce of the other belligerent. [Hear, hear.] But the case of the Alabama was a totally different thing. An emissary was sent by the Confederate States to make arrangements for fitting out in this country a naval expedition, with which to make war on the commerce of the north. The honorable and learned member for Dundalk had said it was fair if allowed to both parties equally, but the first thing to be considered was that practically it never benefited both equally, and although the liberty might be essentially the same, the party who needed it was benefited, and the other was not. If, therefore, a neutral country lends its country as a place from whence a hostile expedition sets forth, it permitted those things to be done in a place which the opposite party was not allowed to get at, and consequently could not obstruct the other. If the Alabama had been fitted out in one of the ports belonging to the Confederate States, it would have been in the power of the north to have obstructed the operations, either by shutting up the ship, or, by bombarding the dock-yard, have destroyed it. Whatever information the north might have had with regard to the Alabama in this country they could not do that, and consequently this country had committed a breach of the neutrality laws by giving its protection to one of the belligerents against the other. With regard to the point that a country could not be required to enforce its own municipal laws, the honorable member for Maldon had gone so far as to blame the secretary of state for foreign affairs for having consented to refer that question to arbitration. Whether we had or had not allowed our municipal laws to be violated, the foreign secretary had consented to no such thing, because a foreign country had nothing to do with the violation of those laws. The right a country had against England was that we should make municipal laws to enforce our municipal duties, [hear, hear,] and on that ground alone could action be taken. If we had enforced them, and they had been found insufficient for the discharge of our municipal duties, we should still have given a right of complaint to the United States. The question, therefore, to be referred had nothing to do with what our municipal laws might have been; but were we bound by international law to prevent certain things from being done, and being so bound, if we were so, did we do all we could to fulfill that duty? It might be that we were under an obligation to make fresh municipal laws if those in existence were not sufficient to fulfill our international duties. [Hear, hear.] He thought he might congratulate the house and the country on the fact that the point at issue between this country and the United States was but an exceedingly small one. But if a very small point prevented the settlement of a very great question, the greater the reason for lamentation. He did not think there was room for blame in any quarter, for it appeared that the two parties had not thoroughly understood one another. It was said that it was an unfriendly, nay that it was a precipitate, an unprecedented act of which we had been guilty in extending to the southern States of North America the character of belligerents. But, however unfriendly, however precipitate, however unprecedented the act might have been, the Americans had never charged us with committing the violation of international law for which they demanded reparation. What he apprehended the Americans claimed was, that they should be permitted to use the early recognition as an argument to convince an arbitrator that the depredations of the Alabama would not have taken place at all, or, at all events, would not have taken place so very early, but for this act of ours. But, surely, any person who was capable of arbitrating between two great countries was competent to decide what argument was relevant to the question at issue and what was not relevant, [Hear, hear.] He could not help saying how cordially he welcomed the hints which had been thrown out by the noble lord and by the honorable member for Bradford as to the possibility of settling the question. [Hear, hear.] He believed there were very few persons in the country who were not now quite disposed to believe that we owed some reparation to the United States, [hear, hear;] and, if so, we did not want an arbitrator to tell us whether we owed anything, but only what amount we owed. [Hear, hear.] The best thing to appoint would, then, be a mixed commission, to say what were the real damages which the United States sustained from the act of negligence of the British nation in allowing the fitting up and departure of the Alabama. There were people who did not think that an arbitrator would decide against us, but that it would be for the convenience of the country that he should. If some such person should be sent-he would not say whether it should be his honorable friend the member for Birmingham-but if negotiations should be reopened commencing with an admission that we owed the United States something, he could not see that there would be any serious difficulty in getting the question, what we had to pay, fairly settled. [Hear, hear.] Mr. GLADSTONE said the observations which he had to make would be very few. He could not allow the debate to close without expressing his obligations to the honorable member for Reading for the candid spirit in which he had dealt with the question; and. also to the noble lord the secretary of state for foreign affairs for the spirit in which the whole affair had been conducted. That was a spirit of the most perfect equity, both towards those who preceded him in office and to those with whom he had been in contact. With regard to Lord Russell, the noble lord had said that he was well aware of the difference made by times and circumstances in the way of handling the same proposal from the same parties; and bearing this in mind he (Mr. Gladstone) admitted that the noble lord, when he determined to make the proposal of arbitration with the United States, exercised a sound discretion in taking a step which was likely to lead to a settlement. [Hear, hear.] He had listened with great respect to the speech of the honorable member for Westminister, but he had felt unable to glean the precise point at which the negotiations came to a close. If the effect of the speech of the noble lord had been to show that there was no prospect of a practical resumption of the negotiations, he would have regarded it, with very great pain, as an ambiguity beyond any solution. But the last speaker might be right. If they looked narrowly at the words of Mr. Seward in his letters of the 29th of November last, all that he there refused to do was to waive, by a preliminary point of belligerency, his right to maintain that the Queen's proclamation was not necessary. And so far he might proceed in safety and congratulate the noble lord on the effect which he had produced on the mind of Mr. Seward. He was bound, however, to say that in one opinion of the last speaker he was not able to concur, simply because he did not think it desirable that a misunderstanding should exist on a point of fact. He understood the last speaker to say that there were few members of the house who would hesitate to admit that redress in some form or other was due from us to America on account of the Alabama. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not so understand the speech of the noble lord; and he frankly owned that, if this were so, he would suggest that England should at once tender reparation. He was, also, afraid that his honorable friend was over-sanguine in his assumption that, by admitting the claim of the United States to reparation and compensation, he would secure the settlement of other controverted questions. They had all heard with the greatest satisfaction the closing sentence of the speech of the noble lord. They learned from this that, although the correspondence had dropped, yet that a friendly and amicable prosecution of the subject was still going on, and that there was now in the hands of the government a communication which was likely to be developed into further stages for the settlement of the question. [Hear, hear.] If that were so, he could only say that while, on the one hand, there was every reason to believe that the honor and the interests of this country would be safe in the hands of the noble lord; on the other, he might rely with confidence that, in every part of the House of Commons, as well as in every part of the country, there would be a disposition to strengthen his hands, so as to enable him to perform the arduous and difficult task of settling this question, which, if not properly arranged, might lead to most disastrous . results. [Hear, hear.] The motion was then withdrawn. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1551.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, March 11, 1868. SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception of dispatch No. 2135, of the 25th of February. The debate upon the state of Ireland was commenced last night in the House of Commons by Mr. Maguire, the member for Cork. It will probably continue for some time and develop the conflicting nature of the views held by the various sections into which the body is now divided. It is the wish of a portion of the opposition to assume some ground upon which a trial of strength may be made with the government. But it is very doubtful whether anything they could'select would concentrate the party sufficiently to secure a triumph. It is alleged that the number of members who are likely to lose their seats on an election under the new reform act is so considerable, that nothing which may involve a question of immediate dissolution is likely to find favor; besides which, any attempt to overthrow the Irish church establishment, the most assailable of all grievances, is met by a degree of resistance from allies in this kingdom which is not the less effective because it makes little noise. It is expected that this debate will ultimately draw out much of the leading ability of the House. I transmit a copy of the Times, containing a report so far as it has yet gone. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. No. 1552.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I incline to the opinion that this government would be glad to relieve itself of the burden of most of the remaining persons taken in the Jacmel. Already they have liberated three on condition that they would leave the kingdom. Unluckily they were wholly destitute of funds to defray their passage. Under these circumstances the consul at Dublin wrote to me to know whether he should advance the means on the part of the government. Having no instructions to justify me in undertaking the experiment, I nevertheless concluded to authorize the expenditure on my own responsibility in case the government should decline to assume the expense. This materially reduces the number of citizens of the United States remaining in prison awaiting trial. A person calling himself Robert Mackay is now on trial at Cork for the murder of a policeman. He has made no application, so far as I know, to the consul at that place, nor to me, for protection as a citizen of the United States. I suspect there may be some desire for concealment which has prompted this course, as he is affirmed by some of his friends to be a native American. I received a letter from one of these persons in Cork urging that the expense of his defense should be assumed by me for the United States. The offense charged being that of murder, the case did not seem to me one in which interference with the ordinary course of law was justifiable on my part, even if I had authority, and he were proved to be a citizen, native or adopted. The truth is that the course taken in the cases at Dublin has led to a belief that any man arrested for crime is entitled to be defended by the government. The urgency comes now not so much from the parties themselves as from their Irish friends here, who are obliged to tax themselves heavily if they fail to throw the burden on the United States. It is perfectly natural that they should seek this mode of relief. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1556.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: On Saturday last I received, at my house, a small number of representatives of the British branch of the International League for Peace, who had expressed a wish to present to me an address on my ap proaching departure. It had been the wish of the parties at first to make a very large deputation, and to give to the affair an aspect of political as well as of official importance. But mindful of your instructions as conveyed to me in your dispatch No. 1216, of the 31st December, 1864, I insisted upon regarding it as a private communication made to me personally, and answering it in that sense. The proceedings, however, got into the newspapers, and you have doubtless seen a report of them before this time. I ought, perhaps, to mention that overtures have been made to me from several sources, independent of each other, to accept some public entertainment prior to my quitting this post. This is a step so unusual in the case of a foreign minister, and so likely to be embarrassing as a precedent in possible future cases, that I very promptly but respectfully signified my reluctance to have the matter in any way agitated. The propriety of this course seemed to be ultimately admitted even by those who urged it. It is certainly in the highest degree gratifying to me, as I trust it will not be unwelcome to the government, to find my labors for a considerable period appreciated here among all classes in so unprecedented a degree, particularly when it has been a chief part of them to reiterate complaints and maintain conflicts of a most critical nature to the pacific relations of the two countries. I have endeavored to impress upon the public mind the fact that in whatever of action they are disposed to give me so much credit for, I have never been in any other than a subordinate position, and that without the full authority and cordial approbation of my government my efforts could have been of little avail. I trust that the effect of this may be to lay the foundations in the future of a better understanding between the countries than has ever yet existed. Their relations can never fail to be very close, and their interests, though often rival, are in substance the same. If I have done anything to open the way to a firmer mutual conviction of this truth, I shall hope for my mission that it will not have been wholly without benefit to the world. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1557.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have the honor to transmit a copy of the London Times of this morning containing a report of a debate in the House of Commons last evening on the question of citizenship and naturalization. The observations made by Lord Stanley seem to have been received with general approbation. It is now tolerably clear that a road is open to a full consideration of this difficult subject in all its bearings upon the quickened state of international intercourse in the present day. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. |
