Ship-builders are no more acting contrary to the law of nations in building ships for sale than merchants are in sending goods to break the blockade or in manufacturing arms to be used by the federals. When I see all these things, and find the other side of the House echoing to the roof the observation of the solicitor general that the merchants of this country would do well not to violate the law of nations and the obligations imposed upon them by the proclamation of their Queen, my answer, first, is that they do it at their peril, if they send out articles contraband of war; and secondly, that they do no more wrong, they act no more contrary to the royal proclamation in building ships to sell them to the confederates than they do in sending out arms or ammunition to be sold to the federals or swift steaming vessels to break the blockade. Let it not be supposed that I wish to show my sympathies to the one side rather than the other in that tremendous conflict which is now raging beyond the Atlantic. I have never spoken on that subject in this House. If I were to give expression to my sympathies, it would be seen that they are not those which the solicitor general imagines exist on these benches. They would be partly in favor of that brave people who are endeavoring to assert their independence against the oppression to which they think they are exposed; but my sympathies, as well as those of the country, were, I believe, in the commencement of this fearful struggle, so far enlisted with the North as to lead us to hope that the Union of all the States might still be preserved. It is not, therefore, because I sympathize with one side rather than the other, but for the purpose of maintaining intact the great principles of international law that I have deemed it right to address these few observations to the house.

Mr. T. BARING. Sir, I had not intended to trouble the House with a single word on this occasion; but as my right honorable friend who has just spoken has appealed to the merchants of his country in support of the sentiments to which he, as well as the honorable and learned member for Belfast, has given expression, I, as an humble member of the mercantile community, and not assuming to myself in any way authority to represent it here, cannot help protesting against the doctrines which he has laid down. I for one cannot think that, by sanctioning measures which would lead to privateers and war vessels being fitted out at neutral ports to take part in the contest now raging across the Atlantic, we should benefit the commercial community. What community, let me ask, would suffer more than the mercantile classes of this country, if that system were generally supported and that principle adopted? What would take place in the event of a war breaking out between us and another nation, if it were allowed to a neutral country to arm vessels as pirates to destroy our commerce? We are not uninterested in this matter. As merchants we are interested in maintaining that principle which we supported and propounded ourselves when we were engaged in war. We are interested in the principle adopted by Jefferson at our recommendation, and acted on by ourselves so lately as during the Crimean war, and which, if it be broken through now, may be acted upon to our injury hereafter. My right honorable friend says that neutrals are authorized to trade. Yes; but there is a law which says we are not to equip vessels for warlike purposes. And does my right honorable friend, I would ask, mean to contend that these vessels, the case of which we are discussing, armed as they were with rams, are merely innocent commercial ships, intended to be used simply for commercial purposes, and which would be misused if adapted to the purposes of war? Will he not allow that the mode in which they were constructed shows the object for which they were destined? My right honorable friend says that the solicitor general did not answer the question put by the honorable and learned member for Belfast; but there was another question which he himself did not answer. Does he believe that these vessels were equipped for warlike purposes? That is a question which, I am sure, he would not undertake to answer in the negative. But be that as it may, I, as an humble member of the commercial community, speaking in support of my individual interests as a merchant, rejoice to say that those interests are identified with the blessings of peace and the maintenance of amity. I may add, that on the continuance of those blessings rests not only the progress of civilization, but the greatness of this country; and when I hear honorable gentlemen on this side of the House taunting the government, as it were, with not precipitating us into a war, I have, I confess, no sympathy with them. In speaking thus I am, I allow, advocating my own interests; but in doing so I feel I am advocating also the interests of my country and of humanity. This I would say in conclusion, that if the speeches of my right honorable friend and the honorable and learned member for Belfast are to be taken as furnishing the grounds on which we are to divide to-night, they seem to me to have arrived, by simply moving for these papers, at a most lame and impotent conclusion. Why do not they at once move a vote of censure on the government, or on the law officers of the Crown, for the course which they have pursued? For my own part, I offer to the noble lord, the foreign secretary, and to those gentlemen by whom he is advised in those matters, although I think they are open to grave censure for not having prevented the departure of the Alabama, my thanks for their conduct on this occasion, deeming it, as I do, to be calculated to promote the welfare of the state.

Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD. I might have been well content to have left the argument

on this question where it was left by my honorable and learned friend, the member for Belfast, and my right honorable friend, the member for Cambridge University; but, I must say, that, in listening to the speech just addressed to the house by the honorable member for Huntingdon, there was only one sentence which gave me satisfaction and pleasure, namely, that he did not assume to represent the mercantile community of England, but that he merely spoke in his own name. We all know the high and distinguished position which that honorable gentleman holds among the merchant princes of England; but I am glad to hear from him that the words he uttered expressed his own opinions alone. The honorable gentleman has tendered to the law officers of the Crown his thanks for the course they have taken. I must confess that I do not agree in those thanks. The honorable member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) admitted that a more important question had never been brought before the House. I quite agree with him, though on a different ground from that on which he put it. He said it was important, because it concerned the commerce, the trade, and the possible position of the country in the event of another war. These are grave and important considera. tions; but I hold further, that this is a most important question, on the ground that this is the first time, for many a year, that a minister has stood up in this House to jus tify, in the face of the House of Commons, a deliberate breach of the law. The honor able gentleman opposite has referred a good deal to the word “responsibility." That is an elastic word, and is one capable of wide application; and, if the executive can act thus, if the law officers of the Crown can arrest ships, why may they not arrest men also? To what extent may not the doctrine of the solicitor general be extended? Is that a doctrine likely to secure peace, that the executive should thus break the law and seek to justify themselves to the House of Commons? But there is one point which I wish to put to the attorney general. He has said that these ships were detained upon grave suspicions of the intentions of the builders, and that they were not seized till sufficient evidence was obtained of the use for which they were designed. I wish to ask him what the result would have been if it had been shown that the intention of the builders was lawful and innocent? Would not the right honorable gentleman then have to admit that the law had been deliberately broken, and that the power of the executive had been brought to bear against persons who were blameless? I think a great advantage has been obtained by the discussion of to-night, and I am glad to see that it has been from this side of the House that the principle has been advocated, that nothing will justify, on the part of the executive, a deliberate breach of the law on the grounds which the government have taken to-night, that the end will sanctify the

means.

SIR GEORGE GREY said he wished it to be clearly understood, before the House proceeded to a division, that the papers asked for in the latter part of the motion the government were ready to grant; and that the negative which the government gave to the motion applied only to the former part, relating to the correspondence between the various departments of government and Messrs. Laird.

Question put: "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this house copies of all correspondence between the various departments of her Majesty's govern ment, or officers in her Majesty's service, and Messrs. Laird Brothers, relating to the two iron-clad vessels, the El Tousson and El Monassia, building by that firm and seized by order of her Majesty's government; and of any papers or correspondence that have passed between her Majesty's government and the government of the United States, of their representative, Mr. Adams, relating to the said vessels."

The house divided: Ayes, 153; noes, 178; majority, 25.

APPENDIX No. XVII.

DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS OF APRIL 5, 1864, AND JUNE 9, 1864, RELATIVE TO FEDERAL ENLIST

MENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.*

[From Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 174, pp. 448-450.]

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 5, 1864.

UNITED STATES FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.-THE KEARSARGE QUESTION. The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said that at the last Cork assizes certain persons pleaded guilty to an indictment charging them with having violated the foreign enlistment act, and they were released upon their own recognizances. The offense was having enlisted subjects of her Majesty on board the United States ship of war Kearsarge. The captain of that vessel stated that the men came on board without his knowledge, and he was not aware of their being on board until he had got to sea, and that when he went into Brest he put them on shore, but as they were without the means of subsistence he took them on board again and conveyed them back to Cork. When this subject was last alluded to, the noble earl opposite (Earl Russell) made what certainly appeared to be a very extraordinary statement, for he said that he could not see what else the captain could have done. That was a very remarkable statement, because it appeared, from the evidence that had been taken, that the men were actually put into the uniform of the United States navy by order of the officers of the ship. Now, what he (the Earl of Donoughmore) wished to know was whether the noble earl had required any explanation from the American minister with regard to the circumstance.

EARL RUSSEL said that at an early period of the discussion of this matter he had complained to the United States minister of the conduct of the officers on board the Kearsarge. After what had passed in that House and after what occurred in the court of justice in Ireland, he had again called the attention of the United States minister to the subject, and had asked him to refer to the newspapers and to the opinion given by Mr. Justice Keogh. The United States minister informed him that in the month of November last he had received instructions from his government that if the consul had been at all instrumental in violating the foreign enlistment act he should be at once dismissed, and that, with regard to the officer in command of the ship, if the minister found that he was to blame, he was to be reported to the government, in order that the proper notice might be taken. Mr. Adams did not act upon those instructions, because he did not consider that there was any blame due either to the consul or the officer in command of the ship in enlisting these persons into the service of the United States. The correspondence was not yet concluded, but when further explanations had been given the dispatches would be laid on the table.

The EARL OF DERBY said that unless Mr. Adams denied the statement that these men were examined by the surgeon and attested, that their names were entered on the books of the ship, and that they were clothed in the uniform of the United States Navy, it was impossible that the officers of the ship should not be cognizant of the men being on

board.

The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE said there could be no difficulty in ascertaining the truth, if it was desired that the truth should be elicited. He believed the Kearsarge was now repairing at one of our ports. If so, why should not the officers at once come to London and make such a statement of the real facts as the American minister would be prepared to vouch for? It was rather too much to extend to them the hospitality of this country in the face of such statements as were made on the trial at Cork. Either these gentlemen had stated the truth or not. If they had told the truth, let them come forward and verify the facts. No one who knew Mr. Adams would dispute whatever he was prepared to vouch for from his own personal knowledge.

Transmitted with the following dispatches: Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, No. 644, April 8, 1864. see vol. II, p. 441; Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, No. 718, June 16, 1864, see vol. II, p. 454.

[From Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 175, pp. 1439–1454.]

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 9, 1864.

ENLISTMENT OF IRISH IMMIGRANTS.-ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.

The MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in rising to move an humble address to her Majesty for papers relative to the enlistment of Irish immigrants and others, her Majesty's subjects in the United States Army, said that their lordships might think him somewhat pertinacious in entering again into this subject; but he could not help feeling that her Maj esty's government had been remiss in the matter. The subject was one of considerable importance. It was of the utmost interest to the people of this country, from its connection with the prerogatives of the Crown, and the welfare of a large portion of her Majesty's subjects; and it was also a matter in reference to which we had incurred a great moral responsibility, inasmuch as there was reason to believe that, if proper measures had been taken to prevent it long ago, the civil war in America would have ended before now; and if the recruiting of British subjects were now put a stop to, he believed the war would be brought to a comparatively early termination. If the cases of this description which had been brought before Parliament were isolated and excep‐ tional-if they had arisen only from overzeal or indiscretion or avarice on the part of American citizens-he should not have been apt to notice them. But the federal recruiting in the British dominions had attained large dimensions. No man could doubt that for two years there had existed a deliberate intention on the part of the federal government to fill its armies from the inhabitants of foreign countries, and especially with subjects of the Queen. The sanguinary war which had raged had rendered it impossible for the federal government to recruit its armies from the population of the federal States, and it now deliberately sought to recruit its armies from abroad. He was not one of those who were disposed to lay very much stress upon the foreign enlistment act, because he believed that it was seldom found to be very efficient in its working, either with regard to the belligerents, or with regard to our own subjects. The results had not been creditable either to our legislation, our jurisprudence, our administration, or our government; and especially the attempts which had been made by the government of this country to preserve impartiality in the contest on the American continent had not procured for us much credit, nor tended to increase the respect with which we were regarded. It was a fact, not at all unknown in the metropolis or in the business world, that one of the belligerent powers had been plentifully supplied with arms and munitions of war by this country from the commencement of the contest; and this he was told was contrary neither to the foreign enlistment act nor to the Queen's proclamation of neutrality; and yet, as soon as it was proposed to supply the other belligerent power with ships, a course which would prac tically have placed the resources of this country impartially within the reach of both parties, the government had found itself compelled to take action, and to assert its entire neutrality. He maintained that at no former period of our history had foreign enlistment so extensively prevailed. It was a fact perfectly notorious that there had been approved agents of the federal government established not only in Ireland but also in England, for the purpose of enlisting recruits. He had received communica tions upon the subject from the midland counties informing him that such was the case, and he had learnt that efforts to obtain recruits had even been made in Lincolnshire, where it would have been thought there was little likelihood of success. The federal government itself had made no secret of its actions. The Secretary of State presented to Congress a bill, strengthened by a message from the President, actually providing for such enlistments, and the measure was referred to the consideration of a committee. The bill proposed to establish a foreign recruiting department, the headquarters of which were to be at New York, and that its recruiting agents should be scattered through foreign countries. He believed that such a plan had never been suggested anywhere but in America. Was it possible to doubt that the chief object of such a measure was to facilitate the enlistment of recruits from this country and other portions of her Majesty's dominions? The law was not passed, and it failed partly because it was feared that so open a manifestation of the intentions of the federals might excite the opposition of our government. The bill was what was called. in the language of the country, “tabled." We had not only this to complain of, but we had also submitted to what was contrary to every international law. He had by him a Liverpool paper in which it was stated that a regiment of fifteen hundred Germans had been levied in Germany, and that they were to sail from Liverpool as ships could be provided for the purpose. The newspaper recorded the departure of one hundred and thirty Germans in the same manner as if the event were the embarkation of a regiment of the guards. That was exactly one of those cases which the foreign enlistment act had been intended to prevent. Of course it was not openly stated that men were enlisted for the army. It was pretended that the demand for soldiers caused by the severity of the conflict had created such a displacement of industrial

laborers that many branches of the industry of the country were at a stand still on account of the impossibility of procuring workmen. No man, however, who examined the provisions of the bill to which he had referred would credit such statements for a moment. The provisions of the bill, according to the account which he had read of it, proposed to advance the passage and other sums of money to the emigrants, which were afterward to be deducted from their wages. It was obviously absurd to think that the federal government would appoint collectors to go round all over the country and collect weekly or monthly payments, as the case might be. The money could only be repaid by deductions from wages if the men were engaged in service under the government, and it was notorious that that service was in the army. They knew that for the last two years proclamations had been issued for recruits, that the President of the federal States had called upon the different States to supply their quota, and that some of those proclamations had scarcely produced more effect than so much waste paper. There were only two States where the quota of soldiers was supplied proportionate to the population; the quotas for the other States were in the aggregate three hundred and twenty-two thousand men short-a number equalling our whole army, including the army in India. To illustrate the difficulty the American government were in to obtain soldiers, he might refer to a statement which he had seen in a newspaper of an answer which President Lincoln had given to a deputation from certain States on the subject of the enlistment of colored men, who were paid the same as white men. The President's answer was that by making the pay the same he expected to raise one hundred and thirty-six thousand men. In even the more wealthy States the enlistments were not at all successful. It was well known how that the need of men had driven the United States government to employ negro soldiers, and President Lincoln had recently stated that he expected the negro regiments would provide him with one hundred and thirty thousand men. It was truly horrible to think that such vast numbers of men should be wanted for the mere purpose of slaughter. In the space of very few weeks no less than forty thousand men had been lost to one army alone, and from calculations based upon hospital returns there was no reason to think that that number was exaggerated. Such a state of things was not creditable to the civilized world, and, at least, we ought to take steps to prevent our fellow-subjects from becoming victims in the dreadful conflict now raging in America. When the pretense of inducing men to go over to America to work upon canals and railways was put forth, no one could be deluded by it in that House. They had heard of the case which occurred not long ago in Ireland, where a number of operatives were induced by a federal agent to accompany him to the United States. Upon arriving in Boston the men were lodged in a sort of barn, where they were kept without food all day. In the evening strong drink was freely supplied, and some of the unfortunate men became so stupefied that they did not recover their senses for two days. After the men had drank deeply Mr. Kidder, the person by whom they were engaged, visited them, accompanied by government and police officers, and informing them that he had been disappointed in the work for which he had engaged them, recommended that they should join the United States Army, at the same time tendering the bounty, specially inviting them to join a particular regiment, which he said was wholly composed of Irishmen. Some were induced to accept the bounty, but the others were turned out next day, and were indebted for food to the charity of their fellow-countrymen in Boston. That was the way in which subjects of this country had been treated in a town where we had a consul. He wanted to know what had been done for those men, and what reparation had been sought for them, and whether any precautions had been taken to prevent the recurrence of such transactions in future. That such practices as those he had referred to were not uncommon, they knew upon the authority of a federal officer, General Wisden, who remonstrated against the sort of men who were sent to him, of their being mostly foreigners, and of the manner in which they were enlisted, stating that frequently they were sent off to the depot while drugged, and refused to do duty upon recovery, alleging that they had not been fairly enlisted. In these cases the men were shot at once without trial. Were such proceedings to be allowed to continue? It was not only in this country and in Ireland that the practices he complained of had been carried on, but he had seen letters from Canada which spoke of similar doings there, and in one case mention was made of the desertion of several non-commissioned officers and men from a regiment serving there, tempted to do so by the inducement being held out to them of commissions in the federal army, He would not mention the particular regiment referred to, because he trusted that the statement might not be correct. He might be told that all these were general statements; but even if so, they were statements known to all the world, and could not be unknown to the authorities here. He wanted to know whether we were to continue upon terms of amity and alliance with a people who treated us in this manner, and who received our remonstrances with contempt. It was to be regretted that the case of the Kearsarge should have been suffered to pass almost without notice. A more flagrant case than that of the officers of this vessel in Cork Harbor had never occurred. This, however, was a question between nation and nation. How was a similar question treated by the govern