"First of all, the English Government must decide on the best information at their disposal, whether she was or was not unlawfully equipped in this country in breach of our neutrality. Their decision on this point ought to be final, for they are the sole judges of it, and the Federal authorities may inform their judgment, but cannot question their determination. If the English Government determine that the Alabama was not unlawfully equipped within the realm, she will, of course, enjoy the privileges and immunities of any other lawful belligerent cruiser. If, on the other hand, she is decided to have been unlawfully equipped, then she ought to be forbidden access to any port within the jurisdiction of Great Britian. If she comes within our ports with a prize, her prize should be taken from 'her and restored to the original owner, and she herself compelled to depart.” There was another extract from the same writer to which he wished also to invite the attention of honorable members. It was as follows: "Now, it is a sound and salutary rule of international practice, established by the Americans themselves in 1794, that vessels which have been equipped in violation of the laws of a neutral State, shall be excluded from that hospitality which is extended to other belligerent cruisers, on whose origin there is no such taint. Accordingly, the Cabinet of Washington compelled all the French privateers which had been illegally fitted out in America against England, to leave the ports of the United States, and orders were issued to the Custom-house officers to. prevent their return. This course of proceeding appears equally consonant to the principles of law and the dictates of policy. The question then remains, Was the Alabama unlawfully equipped and manned within the jurisdiction of Great Britain? Now, setting aside the vexed question of equipment, I think there can be very little doubt on that of enlistment. The question is one which, from its very nature, is not and cannot become the subject of judicial determination, because a neutral Government cannot exercise a jurisdiction over such a vessel. It is a matter on which the Executive of the neutral Government must, according to the best information it can obtain, form its own judgment, and that judgment is final and conclusive on all parties. Now, I observe that in a despatch dated March 27, 1863 (Parliamentary Paper, p. 2), Lord Russell writes, The British Government has done every thing in its power to execute the law; but I admitted the cases of the Alabama and the Oreto were a scandal, and in some degree a reproach to our law.' Now, with the greatest deference to those persons who may be of an opposite opinion, I submit that vessels of which such a statement can be properly made - and - 6 that it was properly made, no one acquainted with the circumstances of their outfit and manning can honestly doubt are not entitled to the hospitality of the country whose laws they have eluded and abused. I think that to deny to the Florida and Alabama access to our ports, would be the legitimate and dignified manner of expressing our disapproval of the fraud which has been practised upon our neutrality. If we abstain from taking such a course, I fear we may justly lie under the imputation of having done less to vindicate our good faith than the American Government consented at our instance on former occasions to do." Now, these were vessels which avowedly ought to have been stopped if their purpose had been known. They were vessels whose destination was to roam about, never getting home, and which were tainted with the offence of having violated our neutrality. They were vessels, therefore, which on every ground had no claim to the hospitality of the country, and he was bound to say that both our international obligations and a due regard for our own interests ought to have led us to exclude them from our ports. The Georgia had arrived in Liverpool and there discharged her crew, and what guarantee had we that other vessels might not do the same; that our neutrality might not be violated, and that we might not hereafter have to deal with a state of things in which our position would be reversed. (Hear, hear.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. With many things which have been said by my honorable friend in the course of his able and temperate speech I entirely agree. (Hear, hear.) No one who has observed the conduct which the Government have endeavored to pursue with regard to this most important political subject during the past two years, can doubt, that, whether successfully or otherwise, they have endeavored, to the best of their power, to vindicate the laws of this country, and at the same time to fulfil the obligations of a sincere and impartial neutrality. I know that these professions will not meet with the assent of those who, in their own minds, have no sympathy with the neutrality itself, who have given themselves, doubtless under the impulse of generous motives, to entire, unqualified, and enthusiastic sympathy with one or the other of the belligerents. Nevertheless, I have great confidence that the country generally will perceive that the Government, in the course which they have pursued in circumstances of some slight difficulty, have really desired to maintain the law and preserve the honor of the country, and at the same time not to deviate from the path of a real and impartial neutrality. (Hear, hear.) Addressing myself first to the last and most generally important of the topics of my honorable friend's speech, I need hardly say that we are quite sensible of the gravity of the public evil which exists when merchants, or any other persons in this country, hold themselves at liberty, by all kinds of shifts and evasions (hear, hear), to treat with contempt Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, to make themselves parties in a war in which Her Majesty has proposed to be neutral; to shelter themselves under all those opportunities of escape which the just regard of the law of our country for persons accused of any offence invariably offers; and to do acts which in their immediate effects place in peril the friendly relations of this and another great nation (hear, hear), and which in their ultimate consequences may possibly recoil with the most disastrous and destructive effect upon the trade and commerce of their own country. (Hear, hear.) The Government had some right to hope that in the circumstances of such a war as this, English merchants, occupying eminent positions, would not spell out the law under the advice of lawyers, saying, "I cannot find it in the bond" (hear, hear), and, availing themselves of every means of escape which ingenuity can suggest, bring this country into peril, and create a precedent for future mischiefs and danger, against which the law of this country seeks to provide. (Hear.) I hope the time will soon come― indeed, I think I may infer from the memorial to which my honorable friend has referred, that the time has come when the voice of the mercantile community will be raised, so that those who may be unwilling to hold themselves bound by Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, shall see that they cannot expect the support of the great body of their fellow-countrymen. (Hear, hear.) I must endeavor to show that the conduct which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government has been that which the country had a right to expect. The House is aware that there are only three vessels which are alleged, and in those cases I do not say the allegations are well founded, as they have never been brought to the test of judicial proceedings, but there are only three vessels which are alleged - to have been fitted out in this country in violation of the law, and with the practical effect of placing this country in the situation of ministering, in a most important and formidable manner, to the warlike requirements of one of two belligerents. (Hear.) The Government believe that the law was intended to strike, and does strike, at such acts. With regard to these three ships, the House will recollect that the first which left the shores of this country, the Oreto, afterwards the Florida, left before any information upon which the Government could act had been imparted to them. That vessel was afterwards arrested at Nassau, was tried there and acquitted, but it was found that there was reasonable cause for the arrest. So far the Government was not to blame. As to the next ship, the Alabama, I need not repeat what was said upon a former occasion as to the steps which were taken by the Government, after full consideration of the evidence laid before them, with a view to arrest that vessel. It is well known to the House and to the country that orders to that effect were given, but the ship in the mean time made her escape. Then, lastly, there was this vessel, the Georgia, as to which no information whatever reached Her Majesty's Government; no evidence upon which we could act until she was actually gone. So successfully disguised were the real designs of those connected with that ship, that, as my honorable friend has stated, the crew were actually engaged for a voyage to Shanghai, and all other arrangements were made with a view to concealment and disguise, and it was only off the coast of France, that, meeting another vessel, she received her armament and re-enlisted her crew. The Government had no opportunity of interfering so as to stop that vessel. If there be those who think that all those proceedings, connected with these ships, were perfectly lawful, they will, I am sure, join with me in regretting, that, being lawful, they were not also open, avowed, and above-board. (Hear.) It does not seem favorable to the conclusions of the persons engaged on these proceedings, that, believing in their lawfulness, they should have taken all possible pains to disguise their real character. (Hear.) Afterwards, as the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government took action in the case of the Alexandra, and since then with regard to other vessels, concerning which I will say nothing, as they will soon be the subject of judicial trial. I may also mention, that in Scotland, the Government directed the seizure of the vessel, Pampero, under the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the result of that proceeding has been that a verdict has been given by consent for the Crown, and that, while great liberality has been shown in the waiving of the forfeiture to the Crown, security has been taken against the employment of the vessel for any belligerent service, and the authority of the law has been successfully vindicated. (Hear.) I am happy to be able to say that, whatever may happen in these cases in point of law or evidence, the interference of the Government does appear to have been productive of good effect, as it has impeded the progress of the system of fitting out of naval armaments for a belligerent State. We have no reason to believe that the efforts of the Government have been unsuccessful in the practical object, nor even so far as regards the elucidation of the law, although it would, perhaps, be premature to express a confident opinion upon a subject concerning which high authorities have differed. But I cannot avoid expressing a sanguine hope, that the result of the measures taken by the Government will be to clear up much of the difficulty attaching to the construction of the law, and to lead in future to a better observance of it. I am encouraged in that hope by the fact, that in the Court of Exchequer two learned Judges adopted the construction of the Act upon which the Crown had been advised to proceed.. Their construction has since received the endorsement of a learned Judge in the Queen's Bench, under circumstances which make it probable that other Judges of that Court may concur in his opinion; and in the case of the Pampero, in Scotland, the Judges of the Court of Session pronounced opinions, tending, to a great extent, to confirm the construction of the Act contended for by the Crown. (Hear, hear.) The result of all this is to leave the Government in a situation in which they have a right to hope that the law, as it is, may be capable of being vindicated, and that the steps taken to vindicate it will not fail in their object, and therefore the House will probably think that it will not be improper, in the event of any suggested change of the law, for the Government to act upon that view; but if it should prove to be otherwise, and that the present law is not sufficient, that then they may look for that support and encouragement from this House and the country, which, upon a subject so important, it is essential to obtain. If, in the absence of such support and encouragement, proposals for a change of the law were ineffectually made, it would commit those, who ought to have the common interest of the country at heart, to a premature expression of opinion, which might have disastrous effects upon the future of this country. We think, therefore, that if it should ever become necessary to consider the subject, it should be considered at a time when no party feelings nor temporary sympathies may exist to induce the House to take a course which it will be difficult afterwards to retract, and which, if persevered with, might be attended with serious consequences to the welfare of the country. Under these circumstances, the House will, no doubt, consider that Government are doing right in adhering to their original hope that the law as it is, may be found sufficient for its purpose, and, at all events, that they ought not to propose any change in the law until they are convinced that there is absolute necessity for it, and that such proposals will receive the encouragement and support of the House and the country, without which they could not be carried into effect. Having said that, I will address myself to the particular subject of the motion of my honorable friend. I have shown that with re |