time, for, up to the 16th September, she had captured and burnt ten vessels. She not only had sailed out 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 | country was engaged in a war with Russia, made a request in a similar case. He was a similar case to the present one occurred. not sure that they had waited for our re- We blockaded the ports of Russia as the quest, nor did he actually know that the United States were blockading the ConfeEnglish Government had made such a re- derate ports. We believed we had shut quest; but if not, the American Govern- in the Russian navy so as not to interment did what they considered necessary fere with British commerce; but there without it. At the time of the rebellion was a considerable anxiety in this country in Canada, the United States Foreign En- lest the United States should send out listment Act not being sufficient to prevent privateers under the Russian flag. We the transgression of the frontier between feared that the Americans might do to us Canada and the United States, and the what we were now doing to the United passage over it of armed men-precisely States. In consequence of that feeling, the same thing as the passage of armed our Consuls and Ministers received the vessels from the English shores to America same instructions as the American Minis—the American Government passed a tem- ters and Consuls now receive-to watch porary Act, enlarging the powers of their everything that was done. But it might Foreign Enlistment Act. He believed the be truly stated with confidence, that notAmerican Foreign Enlistment Act was withstanding the strong temptation presimilar to the English Foreign Enlistment sented to American merchants to fit out Act, and the cases were also similar. privateers to prey on English commerce, Both Acts contained two provisions-one not one single privateer or vessel of war prohibiting the recruiting of armed men left American ports to aid Russia during or the marching of an army over the the whole of that war. On the contrary, frontier; the other was to prevent the he could mention two instances in which equipping of vessels, or the departure of a American subjects showed that they would navy from its ports. ["Hear!" Notwith- not break the neutrality law. He believed standing that ironical cheer from the oppo- it was supposed that a ship called the site side, he would say that they would be General Admiral did leave an American only following the example of the friendly port to assist the Russian Government. conduct of America in a similiar situation, The fact really was, that Mr. Webb, a great if the Government would obtain further shipbuilder in America, received an order powers by passing a temporary Act for the from the Russian Government to build purpose. When making that suggestion, this ship before the breaking-out of the he was only stating what appeared to be war. He stated that he returned to New the sentiments of Earl Russell during a York in 1853 and commenced the work ; part of last year. In December 1862 the that after the breaking-out of the war benoble Earl wrote to Mr. Adams that he tween Russia and England and her ally, was prepared to make an amendment in with whom the United States Government the Foreign Enlistment Act, to render the was at peace, the legality of his continulaw more effectual to prevent the fitting ing the prosecution of the work became out of vessels, if the United States would questionable; and the result was the susdo the same. The only other information pension of the work and the postponement they had was, that on the 14th of February of the fulfilment of his contract until after last, Earl Russell, writing to Lord Lyons, the restoration of peace; and they had got saidbetween Mr. Webb and the Grand Duke part of the correspondence that passed Constantine on the subject. 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 “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 There was a 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 pur. pose 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 thisthat 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 | senting this as a breach of the duties of from being violated by private interest in neutrality, which the Government, if order to put money into the pockets of a sincere in their neutrality, were bound few shipowners and contractors, however to prevent. On the 1st of May, 1862, wealthy they might be, or however high Mr. Seward complained that money had their station. been provided by subscription in LiverTHE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Sir, pool, and employed in the purchase of my hon. Friend who has just sat down arms and munitions for the Confedehas referred to the strong feeling which rates. On the 12th of May Mr. Adams exists in the United States on the sub-wrote to Earl Russell complaining of ject of the Alabama, and to the impor- the supply of men and ships, which he tant interests which he thinks may be mixed up with arms and money, to one compromised if this country does not exert of the parties in the war. Upon the the powers which it possesses to prevent 2nd of June Mr. Seward sent to Mr. the fitting out of similar vessels; and he Adams a report of a gentleman who gave has said that we cannot be surprised a long account of the purchases of arms, that the American merchants and the munitions of war, and military stores, American public should hold this country which had been shipped from England to responsible for the acts of that vessel. I the Confederate States; and only as late shall take the liberty of saying that we as the 30th of December, 1862, Mr. should have very just reason to feel Adams, while engaged in correspondence surprised that so extraordinary an error with Earl Russell on the subject of the should prevail in the general mind of the Alabama, annexed to his despatch docuAmerican public, if it did not happen ments giving an account of a large quanthat we are able to trace that error in tity of military and other stores which had some respects to its source. The accusa- been exported from this country to the tions that have been made against Her Confederate States, and making the exMajesty's Government with respect to sietnce of that trade the subject of rethe Alabama, and which I hope to show newed complaints. It is true that Mr. the House are entirely groundless, are Adams then endeavoured to give some but a part of a series of accusations of colour to that complaint by connecting systematic breaches of neutrality which, it with the question of blockade; but unhappily, the Government of the United if the trade was not otherwise a violation States has permitted itself to make against of Her Majesty's neutrality, there could this country, from, I might almost say, be no pretence for saying that the blockthe beginning of this war. In their di- ade of the Southern coast could make plomatic communications, made through it so. This is the manner in which, Mr. Adams to Her Majesty's Govern- from first to last, in their diplomatic ment, and which I regret to add consti- correspondence with this country, the tute no small part of the contents of the Government of the United States have book which I hold in my hand-the not thought it unworthy of them to combook laid by the American Government plain of this country as guilty of breaches before Congress I find repeated, over of neutrality. They have in that correand over again, a catalogue of griev- spondence done no more nor less than to ances against this country, of which the deny the application to this country, in matter of the Alabama is only a single this war, of those principles as to neutrals item. I regret to say that it is indis- which have been invariably recognised by pensably necessary, in order that the all nations, and by no nation more emHouse should appreciate the truth con- phatically and constantly than by the cerning the Alabama, and see how utterly United States themselves. I have given destitute of solid ground are the com- the House the dates of several of those plaints which have been made with complaints-I will now mention another respect to the Alabama, that I should date. In November, 1862, the Mexican show the House in what company those Minister at Washington addressed a comcharges are found. I will only mention plaint to Mr. Seward to this effecttwo or three examples. On the 13th of "I have the honour to inform you that my February, last year, we have Mr. Seward Government has given me instructions to comwriting to complain of the exportation the Mexican Government has reliable informafrom this country of munitions of war and tion to the effect that the chief of the French arms to the Confederate States, and repre-expedition which is invading the republic has sent municate to that of the United States that emissaries to New Orleans and New York to pur- from Mr. 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 wellknown 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." Webster to Mr. Thompson in We It is "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. 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. the highly necessary, in order that 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 That if American merchants in the way of pass-if we had not done that of our own commerce had sold munitions of war to Texas, will and pleasure, it would have been the Government of the United States, neverthe-impossible for the Government of the less, were not bound to prevent it, and could not have prevented it without a manifest departure from the principles of neutrality." 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 lia- In his instructions of the same date Mr. Then comes a passage from President 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. “The laws of the United States do not for- They have a Foreign Enlistment Act as bid their citizens to sell to either of the bellige- well as ourselves; and their Judges in rent Powers articles contraband of war, or take deciding cases under it have had occasion munitions of war or soldiers on board their pri- to state the principles of that particular vate ships for transportation; and although in so doing the individual exposes his property or per-law, and also of the general law which In 1815 the son to some of the hazards of war, his acts do not prevails between nations. involve any breach of national neutrality, nor of case of the Alerta was tried before the themselves implicate the Government." Supreme Court of the United States, and There is yet one extract more. We have in the judgment this passage occurs— 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 "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 |