letter, had been perfectly satisfied that there was no truth in the representation that the ships were meant for the Egyptian government, because inquiries had been made which did indeed show that there had been something said by M. Bravay on the subject, but the government of Egypt entirely repudiated the existence of any contract whatever for the purchase of such vessels, and said they had nothing to do with these vessels. An Egyptian destination having been alleged, so far it appears, they had not an Egyptian destination. The next thing done was to seize them. I, of course, abstain strictly from informing my honorable friend of those facts which the government had ascertained, which satisfied them beyond doubt that illegality had been committed, and that there was a forfeiture; but it will be a satisfaction to the House to have some good ground for believing and knowing that, as a matter of fact, they were not Egyptian vessels which the government seized, and that they were really intended for that service which was supposed when they were seized. My honorable friend has read from papers which have been laid before the Congress of the United States. Other papers have also been laid before another congress, and in a document which has been made public as the report of the secretary of the confederate navy to his own congress I find this passage contained:

“In accordance with the order of the president, early in the present year I dispatched several agents to England and France, with orders to contract for eight iron-clad vessels suitable for ocean service, and calculated to resist the ordinary armament of the wooden vessels of the enemy. These ships were to be provided with rams, and designed expressly to break the blockade of such of their ports as were not blockaded by the iron-clad monitors of the enemy. Five of these vessels were contracted for in England and three in France. Due precautions were taken against contravening the laws of England in the construction and equipment of these vessels. Three have been completed; but owing to the unfriendly construction of her neutrality laws, the gov ernment of England stationed several war vessels at the mouth of the Mersey and prevented their departure from England. Subsequently they were seized by the British government."

We shall have to discuss with M. Bravay and Messrs. Laird the validity of this seizure, and it can be more conveniently done in another place than it can be done here; but, as between this country and the confederate government, we seem to have information from headquarters of a character perfectly unquestionable, and we know, therefore, as a matter of fact, that these ships were being built in violation of our laws, and for the purpose of being used in the belligerent service of the Confederate States. When I say "in violation of our laws," it is not, of course, for the purpose of entering into any legal argument; but I invite any one who wishes to inform himself to read the judgment of Baron Bramwell, which was adverse to the government in the case of the Alexandra, and then I would ask whether it is not perfectly clear that, applied to ships of this character and description, it would not establish an infraction of our foreign enlistment act. The House, I hope, will believe that the government have not merely stumbled on the prevention of a gross and most dangerous infraction of our laws; that we have not done what we have only by accident; but that we had some information that our inquiries did lead to a result which, in the judgment of her Majesty's responsible advisers, not only authorized them, but made it their absolute duty to seize these vessels. As to Mr. Adams's dispatch to Mr. Seward, stating that the matter had been reconsidered, owing to the effect of Mr. Adams's note of the 3d instant, Mr. Adams may credit himself with his note having such influence, but I believe that the effect of the note of the 3d was the same as the previous notes, which had not led her Majesty's government to determine to take action against these vessels until the course of their own inquiries led them to believe there was decisive evidence of their destination. Undoubtedly the note of Mr. Adams was entitled to attention as the representation of a friendly government; but nothing is further from the fact than the supposition that her Majesty's government, having no other grounds for the action which they took, except the suggestions of Mr. Adams in that note, took it only under the influence of the 'considerations presented to them by him. Her Majesty's government took the step of detaining the vessels during the continuance of their own inquiries, and when the evidence was as yet incomplete, because those inquiries at that time had reached a point which led them to believe they would lead to actual and positive information, making it clear, one way or another, that those ships were or were not intended for the Confederate States. If they were not, there would be a satisfactory end of the entire matter. If they were, it was our duty to prevent any evasion of the laws of the country. With regard to the present state of the case, I frankly confess that I regret having to speak of it as pending and awaiting decision. I confess that it would be satisfactory if the case were further advanced. All I can say is that the law officers of the Crown have been and are most anxious that it should be proceeded with with due dispatch. On the other hand, I think the House would blame those whose duty it is to prepare for trial if they did not take pains to proceed to that trial under circumstances most favorable to the country and the government. It was considered impossible to prepare for trial after last term, and no trial can now take place until

May next, but then the case will be quite ready, and it will turn out, as I believe, that no time has actually been lost. I have stated now all that it is the necessary duty of the government to state upon this subject. It is impossible that the case of the gov ernment can now be brought before the House; but the government have acted under a serious sense of their duty to themselves, to her Majesty, to our allies in the United States, and to every other nation with whom her Majesty is in friendship and alliance, and with whom questions of this kind may be liable hereafter to arise. Under a sense of that duty they have felt that this is not a question to be treated lightly, or as one of no great importance. If an evasion of the statute law of the land was really about to take place, it was the duty of the government to use all possible means to ascertain the truth, and to prevent the escape of vessels of this kind to be used against a friendly power. It was their duty to make inquiries, and to act if there was a good ground for seizure, taking care only to adopt that procedure which was justified by the circumstances. On the other hand, the government will act, as they always have acted, upon the principle that no seizure of this kind ought to be made, except upon evidence satisfactory to their minds of an actual violation of the law. Upon such evidence we have acted in this case. The only question which really arises is this: Were the gov ernment justified, or were they not justified, in taking upon themselves to say that at a time when they were already in possession of some, though imperfect, evidence, and peuding inquiries which might result in attaining, and which in their judgment did attain, such satisfactory evidence, they would not permit the ships to be removed until that inquiry was complete, and until they had the means of knowing whether further evidence which would prove the guilt or innocence of these vessels was likely to be forthcoming? The House will judge whether or not the government did exceed their duty, but they would certainly have been grossly wanting in their duty if, after the experience they had had in the case of the Alabama, and while their inquiries were pending, they had not been willing to take on themselves the responsibility of saying that they would not permit justice to be evaded until they could fully satisfy themselves whether the ships ought to be seized or not; and if they had not relied on the fair and candid judgment of the country, knowing, as the country must know, that they had been actuated by no other motive but that of vindicating the law, and of doing to other countries that which they expect other countries to do to them.

Mr. Horsfall said he wished, in the first instance, to thank the honorable member for Horsham for the very able and clear manner in which he had brought the subject under the consideration of the House. The attorney general had said that his honorable friend had asked for papers-which were just the papers the government could not place before the House, namely, the documents intervening between the 1st and 3d September-but the honorable and learned gentleman had forgotten to remind the House that Mr. Adams had stated that those papers did not add any additional evidence to that already known. The attorney general had told the house that the govern ment had no wish to oppress the commercial interests of the country; but he (Mr. Horsfall) should like to know upon what ground they had refused to Messrs. Laird their permission to complete the vessels whilst they were in possession of the government-a course which would have increased the value of the vessels to the government, and would have enabled the Messrs. Laird to receive the last installments payable for the vessels. That course of conduct certainly amounted to oppressing the commercial interests of the country. The honorable and learned gentleman had alluded to the case of the Alexandra; but he (Mr. Horsfall) should have thought that that was the last case to which he would have alluded-a case in which a jury of British gentlemen had givea a clear and unanimous verdict against the Crown, and in which the judges had refused an appeal. The honorable and learned gentlemen, however, took a different view, and thought that upon a further appeal that decision might be reversed. He (Mr. Horsfall) did not think the honorable and learned gentleman had improved his position by reminding the House of the course which had been pursued by the government in the case of the Alexandra. Upon a recent occasion, however, he had stated, in an admirable speech made in that House, that it was the duty of the government not to enforce the English law against English subjects upon mere suspicion, or without satisfactory evidence. He should like the House to consider where the satisfactory evidence was against the rams. Although her Majesty's government would not give them information, some information had been laid before the American Congress. From the papers published in America, it appeared that one of the principal evidences against these rams was a person named Chapman, who, as the attorney general would perhaps recollect, had been very properly designated at the late trial as a spy. Another wit ness in the case was a Mr. Clarence Randolph Yonge, who had to give a most extraordinary account of himself in cross-examination at the trial of the Alexandra. It appeared that he had deserted his wife and child at Savannah; that he went to Kingston and married a mulatto woman with some money; and that, having sold all her property, he deserted her in Liverpool, and came up to London to be a witness in that case. Certainly the government could not be congratulated on the witnesses they brought forward. In the same case, a Mr. Wilson, a very respectable man, was called on to speak to the

character of the ship; but it turned out that he had never built a ship for twenty years. It would be curious to know something of the evidence brought before the noble carl at the head of the Foreign Office. On the 31st of August the under-secretary for foreign affairs wrote to the honorable member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) in reference to the Alabama, in these terms:

"In a note which Earl Russell has lately received from Mr. Adams, the Alabama is described as a vessel 'fitted out and dispatched from the port of Liverpool,' and his lordship directs me to say that he would feel much obliged to you if you could inform him how far it is true that the Alabama was fitted out as a vessel of war at Liverpool before she left that port."

Mr. Laird's reply, with his characteristic frankness, was as follows:

"In reply to your letter of the 31st of August, stating that Earl Russell would feel much obliged to me if I can inform him how far it is true that the Alabama was fitted out as a vessel of war at Liverpool before she left that port,' I request that you will inform his lordship that I am not able, from my own personal observation or knowledge, to reply to his lordship's inquiry, as I did not see the Alabama after the first week in July, 1862, being some weeks before she sailed. In order to obtain for his lordship from a reliable source the information he has asked for, I have made inquiries from my successors in business, the firm of Laird Brothers, the builders of the vessel now called the Alabama, and I am authorized by them to state that the vessel referred to was delivered by them at the port of Liverpool, and that at the time of her delivery she was not fitted out as a vessel of war."

That letter appeared to have been transmitted to Mr. Adams by the noble earl, and he was sorry he could not join in the eulogium which had been passed by his honorable friend, the member from Horsham, on the American minister. Writing to Earl Russell Mr. Adams said:

"I cannot but regret that your lordship should have adduced the evidence of Mr. Laird in support of any proposition made to my government. I trust that I may be pardoned if I remind you that the statements made heretofore by that person in Parliament respecting their action are not such as are likely to lead to their implicit credence in any relating to his own."

Such language from Mr. Adams was insulting to the honorable member for Birkenhead, insulting to Earl Russell, and insulting to the House of Commons. He had known the honorable member for nearly forty years, during which time several severe Contests had taken place between the Chesire and Lancashire sides of the Mersey, and he defied any man to cast a slur on his character. Earl Russell had allowed this language to pass entirely unnoticed, and he could not help thinking that such conduct on his part was undignified and unbecoming a British minister. In a letter to Mr. Adams, Earl Russell pointed out that the goverenment were advised that the information contained in the depositions was in a great measure hearsay, and that it was not such as to show the intent necessary to make the building and fitting out of these vessels illegal. Now, there was not one word in the foreign enlistment act about "building," and why should Earl Russell introduce the word? If these vessels were not to be built, surely that was an oppression of the mercantile interests of the country. It ought to be the policy of this country to encourage the building of vessels in every possible way, and no doubt that was the intention of those who passed the act. If the nations of the world were allowed to come here to get their vessels of war built, and to have their munitions of war manufactured, they would not be at the trouble of getting ship-building yards and manufactures of ammunition of their own. Therefore, if we went to war we could shut out our adversary from the means of procuring arms and ammunitions of war. It would, in his opinion, be a most fatal policy on our part to declare that no ships of war should be built in this country for other nations. It was very easy for the government, with the large public funds at their disposal, to crush the commercial interests of the country by law proceedings, but the public eye was keenly watching the government in the course they were now pursuing. For his own part, he held that the whole proceedings in the case of the Alexandra, and in the case with regard to the Messrs. Laird, constituted an act of the most cruel injustice, and a useless expenditure of the public money.

LORD ROBERT CECIL said he should not have presented himself to address the House had he seen any intention of rising on the part of any honorable gentleman opposite. Indeed, they generally left the lion's share of the debate to those on his own side of the House. In the refusal of information and the absence of discussion lay, perhaps, their great, if not their only means of safety. He would not travel over the same ground as his honorable friend behind him, who had treated so ably of the law and the facts. He would confine himself to the constitutional aspects of the question. The subject before them was really the legitimate jurisdiction of the House of Commons. honorable members claimed the right to inquire into the whole of the proceedings which the government had taken. The attorney general, on behalf of the government, refused to acknowledge that right, and drew a very narrow circle, within which they were to exercise the privilege of inquiring into the conduct of the government.

31 A C-VOL. V

On his side

The

honorable and learned gentleman said that, as long as any matter was the subject of judicial inquiry, or as long as any point germane thereto was in that position, the House must not inquire into it. It was high time for the House to consider to what that principle amounted. It was obvious, as his honorable friend had said, that the government, if it chose, without a vestige of proof to support its case, without an atom of law to justify its action, could ruin any man against whom, for any reason, whether of political apprehension or of private grudge, it determined to point the artillery of the law. The government paid no costs, and law was costly. If it were defeated in one court the government could carry the case to another; if it were again defeated, it could turn off the question on a point of form, and thus it could so prolong and multiply proceedings that the resources of no citizen in the realm could bear up against the pressure. No similar power was known to the constitution. The government could not deprive a man of his liberty or of a sixpence of his money unless it could adduce adequate proof and valid law. Yet it could fine a man to the amount of his whole fortune, under the pressure of legal proceedings, at the end of which it would have neither law ne evidence to justify its action. No costs, however, could be awarded against it. [The solieitor general: "That is a mistake."] At all events, in the Court of Exchequer costs had not generally been granted against the government; and even if they were, it was well known that they would cover but a slight portion of the expenses incurred by the defendant. Now, there was no check on the exercise of that power, so vast and tyrannical, save one, and that was to be found in this House. It was only by the action of the House of Commons that this power of ruining a subject by process of law could be brought within any bounds or limit. Such being the state of the case, the learned attorney general told them they had no right to inquire into any matter which was the subject of judicial investigation. He (Lord Robert Cecil) granted that on ordinary occasions it would be exceedingly inconvenient in them to do so. Usually, matters must be left to the slow operations of the law. But, surely, when the government was putting a subject of the Queen under the screw, and squeezing out of him all his fortune by legal proceedings, trenching on his rights, and, in spite of adverse decisions against itself. carrying the matter from court to court, the House of Commons had a right to satisfy itself that the government was acting from legitimate motives, and that no secret and unworthy object had led it to take a course so detrimental to the interests of the country. He was bound to say that in the case under consideration there were grave grounds of suspicion. The first thing that struck one was that the rams were seized six months ago, yet only the first legal proceedings had been taken, and that with an intimation that a very lengthy commission was to issue. The peculiarity of the action of the government was, that it took advantage of every possible legal machinery in order to put off to the most remote date the final trial. That might be accidental, bet it might be intentional. The honorable and learned gentleman spoke of the languag of Mr. Adams as only slightly passing the bounds of moderation. Perhaps he might admit that Mr. Adams's own language warranted that description; but Mr. Adams was the representative of a foreign government, and that government had used language to which the designation of the honorable and learned gentleman was scarcely appli cable. What of Mr. Seward's dispatch of the 11th of July? There had been a good deal of talk about that document in the house, and a good deal of difficulty in arriving at the real facts of the case. From the statements which had reached them from another place, he thought he was justified in coming to the conclusion that, althoug no official communication was made by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell of the contents that dispatch, yet the noble lord knew perfectly well what they were. [Mr. Layard: "No."] He would not discuss the matter with the honorable gentleman, for he would no doubt, call it special pleading. Any honorable member who would take the troub to consult the more trustworthy representations which were made in another place, and which were not vouchsafed to the House of Commons, would, probably, arrive at the conclusion he had just expressed. Mr. Seward's language was as follows: "Can it be an occasion for either surprise or complaint that if this condition of things is to remain and receive the deliberate sanction of the British government the navy of the United States will receive instructions to pursue these enemies into the perts which thus, in violation of the law of nations and the obligations of neutrality, become harbors for the pirates? The President very distinctly perceives the risks and hazards which a naval conflict thus maintained will bring to the commerce, and even to the peace, of the two countries. But he is obliged to consider that in the case supposed the destruction of our commerce will probably amount to a naval war waged by a pr tion, at least, of the British nation against the government and the people of the United States-a war tolerated, although not declared or avowed, by the British government. If, through the necessary employment of all our means of national defense, such a partial war shall become a general one between the two nations, the President thinks that the responsibility for that painful result will not fall upon the United States." That was a distinct threat of war. The language in the dispatch read by his hone?able friend the member for Horsham was also a distinct threat of war. In argull. the case of the Alexandra the attorney general ntimated to the court, in language noi

to be misunderstood, that the result of a decision adverse to himself might possibly be

war.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. I never alluded to anything of the kind. I argued on general principles alone.

LORD R. CECIL said he accepted, of course, the honorable and learned gentleman's explanation of the construction he himself put on his words, but it was very evident, from the remarks of the presiding judge, that such an impression as he had adverted to had been created in the mind of the court. What he wanted to impress on the House was, that throughout these proceedings there had been a threat of war on the part of the United States. The government had failed to obtain from the courts of law and from British juries that application of the law which it desired, and consequently the only course that was open to it, under these circumstances, was to procure the utmost possible delay which the greatest dexterity in lengthening legal proceedings would enable them to obtain. They were threatened by the United States; they knew they were unable to obtain a decision in their favor in the courts of law; after the threats which had been made by the United States they did not dare to come to the House of Commons for an alteration of the law. What were they to do? The only course open to them was to lengthen out the proceedings to the greatest possible extent, to detain these ships by the mere prolongation of proceedings until, perchance, the complications on the other side of the Atlantic might cease, and so to obtain by an indirect and illegal method that which they could not achieve either by coming to the House of Commons for a change of the law, or by a straightforward and fair application of the instrument which existing statutes placed in their hands. But that was not the most important part of the speech of the honorable and learned gentleman. We had had a distinct avowal that the government had broken the law. The honorable and learned gentleman had acknowledged that, upon their own responsibility, without any authority from the law, they had ventured to stop vessels which had a legal right to leave the country. Now, it seemed to him that it would be an evil day in our history when it was recorded that the government, under threats of war from a foreign power, without any authority from the law to do so, had broken through every right which the subject possessed, had set at defiance every security of the law, had seized his property in violation of the law, and that then Parliament had taken no notice whatever of such an illegality. What possible inference could be drawn from the silence of the House of Commons in these circumstances? Was there any other period of our history at which such an act would have been permitted? Was there any other period at which it would have been endured that the government should violate the rights of the subject in deference to a foreign power, and yet that Parliament should take no notice of the matter? Nor must it be supposed that this was a solitary case. Last summer there was a case of precisely the same kind, to which he thought it his duty to direct the attention of the House at the time. A vessel called the Gibraltar was freighted at Liverpool with a cargo and guns for Callao. The government sent down an order that she should be detained. They did not attempt to seize her; they detained her, as the honorable and learned gentleman had expressed it, upon their own responsibility for three weeks; no application that could be made would induce them to let her go; and it was not until the matter was mentioned in the House of Commons, and pressed upon the honorable and learned gentleman, that leave was sent down from the treasury to allow her to depart. For three weeks she was detained; the contract under which she sailed was so far broken; but yet no justification of the illegality had ever been offered-no compensation given to the unfortunate individual who suffered. There was a curious circumstance connected with the case of the Gibraltar, which he thought would show the spirit in which the government had acted in reference to vessels of this kind. Among the parliamentary papers would be found a letter from the freighter of the Gibraltar, in which he said: "We are informed by the collector of her Majesty's customs for this port that if we permit you to ship the two large fort guns on board the steamship Gibraltar, that vessel will not be allowed to clear, thus preventing us from performing our charterparty with you. This action on the part of her Majesty's government is based upon the suspicion that ultimately your fort guns may find their way into the southern confederacy; the collector, in reply to our question, having informed us that, if the fort guns were for the federal or northern government, no obstacles would be placed in the way of their being shipped, stating, at the same time, that such shipments to New York were of common occurrence."

That was the statement of an officer of the government.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL. No; that letter is not from an officer of the government. Lord R. CECIL. Certainly not; but the writer gave the statement as one made to him by the collector of customs, and he presumed he was an officer of the government, and his representation of the intentions of her Majesty's government, though printed and circulated among the parliamentary papers, had never been contradicted either by the collector of customs himself at Liverpool, or by the government. It was all very well for the attorney general sitting there to contradict it; his honor was safe, because if it should afterward turn out that the collector did make the statement, it