treme importance. The view of the question taken by intelligent Americans was well expressed in the recent Message of the President to Congress. The President said "The United States did not present the subject as an impeachment of the good faith of a Power which was professing the most friendly dispositions, but as involving questions of public law, of which the settlement is essential to the peace of nations; and, though pecuniary reparation to their injured citizens would have followed incidentally on a decision against Great Britain, such compensation was not their primary object. They had a higher motive, and it was in the interests of peace and justice to establish important principles of International Law. The correspondence will be placed before you. The ground on which the British Minister rests his justification is substantially, that the municipal law of a nation, and the domestic interpretations of that law, are the measure of its duty as a neutral, and I feel bound to declare my opinion, before you and before the world, that that justification cannot be sustained before the tribunal of nations. He ventured to urge on the attention of Government the desirability of doing something to get rid of questions which, if they were allowed to remain open, might become a perpetual source of ill-feeling between England and America. The Government, he trusted, would not allow the present opportunity to pass by of satisfactorily solving a question which had already proved a source of such danger and difficulty. If they did, events might arise which would hereafter justify some one in saying to the Government "This might have been prevented, and made whole, the truth. It should be remembered that at an early period of the war the Government of this country, foreseeing that important questions of law might arise during the progress of the war, suggested to the American Government that the Foreign Enlistment Acts of both countries should be revised, and any amendments that might be thought necessary made in them. What was the answer made by the American Government to this With very easy arguments of love; the question would have been asked wheTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I ther the law of the United States was subadmit that the Question now before the stantially different from our own, or wheHouse has been discussed in a temperate ther our law was inferior in efficiency to manner; and so far, whatever opinions the law of the United States; for if it was hon. Members may have formed, I do not not, and if the United States Government apprehend that any public disadvantage thought their own law adequate, Parlia will arise from the discussion. The sub-ment would scarcely have entertained the ject is beyond all doubt one of the greatest importance, and at the same time of no slight difficulty. It is of the greatest importance that the House should bear in mind what were the exact facts of the various cases bearing on the question which occurred during the recent unhappy war in America. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Labouchere) is slightly in error when he says that the English Government was several times requested by the Government of the United States to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act; in fact, the very reverse of that statement would be nearer to Mr. Shaw-Lefevre idea of altering it. Well, then, we must look into the law of the United States; and here I would observe that the view of it taken by the hon. Member for Windsor was hardly accurate. The hon. Member appears to think that the American Foreign Enlistment Act is far more stringent than that in force in this country. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) has already said that the views of the hon. Member were not quite accurate, and I must confirm that statement. Indeed, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. ShawLefevre), who has spoken to-night with "The owners of every armed ship or vessel, sailing out of the ports of the United States, belonging wholly or in part to citizens thereof." his usual candour and ability, does not States and this country in a worse himself concur in the views of the Member position then they were in, while we for Windsor on that subject. The two merely endeavoured to put in force the sections which are supposed to bear out law as it stood. I will now state to the the opinion that the American law com- House what were the practical results of pels a stricter neutrality than our own, the course so taken by the Government. are the 10th and 11th sections of the Act The information which might have justiof Congress passed in 1818. But those fied the seizure of the Alabama reached sections are applicable only to armed ves- the Government so late, that unfortusels, and ships manifestly built for war- nately we were not able to detain that like purposes, of which the cargo prin- vessel. But other vessels were aftercipally consists of arms and munitions wards detained. Admitting that our law of war with which our own Act also is not perfect, still I must say that the is practically adequate to deal; and if Government were able, even by means exactly similar provisions had been con- of this imperfect instrument, to do more tained in our Act they would have been towards the suppression of armaments inapplicable to such ships as the Alabama, against the United States, than the United the Florida, the Georgia, and the Shenan- States were in former times able to do doah, none of which when they left this with their law. During the war of the country were armed, or had any cargo States of South America against Spain the on board consisting of arms or munitions agents of the former Powers appeared, notof war. And I may ask when, in point withstanding the exertions of the United of fact, has an armed ship or vessel States Government, to be able to set the been permitted to sail out of an English law at defiance with impunity. A great port to attack the commerce of the United number of armed vessels left ports of the States? No such occurrence has taken United States to attack Spanish commerce, place. Of those two sections, the first and in some instances actually returned enables security to be taken from into those ports with their prizes. Comparing what then took place there with what has taken place here under the recent circumstances, it is impossible not to see that the law of the United States then proved less efficacious than our own law. the different breaches, or alleged breaches of the Foreign Enlistment Act which have taken place during the war, it will, I think, be seen that the Government did everything that lay in their power to secure the stringent carrying out of that Act. It is said that the Government were to blame for not being more prompt in their attempt to seize the Alabama. Most assuredly they acted with perfect good faith, and did not intentionally permit any delay beyond that which was necessary to enable them to make themselves masters of the evidence which would have justified her seizure. With regard to the Florida, she was not fitted out as a ship of war from this country, but at Mobile. With regard to the Alexandra, it is well known that she was twice seized-that the Judges in this country were divided in opinion on the question; and that at Nassau she was a second time acquitted. As to the steam rams, the Government did nothing illegal, as has been sometimes asserted. They gave notice to the builders that if they were removed from the Mersey in the way the Alabama had been removed they would be seized. They did afterwards seize them and The other section authorizes the detention "Of any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes of which the cargo shall principally consist of arms and munitions of war." Our Foreign Enlistment Act also strikes at such vessels, though by provisions of a different character; and no vessel of which it could be alleged that she was manifestly built for warlike purposes, and that her cargo mainly consisted of munitions of war, has been allowed to leave an English port. The late Lord Chancellor advised the Government, and so the United States were told, that our law was sufficient to deal with cases of that description. Under such circumstances, it was considered to be our duty to make the experiment, to wait and see whether the Foreign Enlistment Act would answer the purposes for which it was enacted, before asking Parliament to pass a new law on the subject-a course which would only have increased the difficulties of the situation if the proposition was not adopted -and the negotiation so coldly met fell to the ground. If we had persevered in that negotiation and failed it might have placed the relations between the United In were prepared to go into court with them. United States to prevent similar_breaches It is true that the Government thought of neutrality in former times. I will say proper to compromise those proceedings and only a very few words on a point put forto purchase the rams; and I must say ward by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. that I think that the course then taken Shaw-Lefevre). He spoke in a manner by the Government was a prudent one. which, I think, does him much credit. He If by any accident we had failed in a pro-spoke with a prudent reserve and with a secution, and those ships had gained the due consideration for the true interests of seas, it is impossible to say what mischief the country, which certainly might not alsuch an occurrence might have caused ways be promoted by a free expression of in America, what passions might have all the opinions which hon. Members of this been excited, and what risk might have House may entertain. No one can apprebeen run in regard to the relations between ciate more than I do the discretion of my this country and the United States. The hon. Friend, who in this case is, I am sure, Government seized those ships with the actuated by those motives which I know knowledge in their minds that the purpose actuate his mind on all occasions. The for which they were intended was an House must feel that in all cases where illegal one; but, although they were nations are concerned there are two prinin possession of evidence which they ciples which never must be lost sight of. thought sufficient to entitle them to a One of these is that a nation must not verdict, it was not such as to perclude compromise its own honour by allowing all chance of an opposite result. They, that there is a question of good faith to therefore, instead of proceeding to trial, be submitted to arbitration when really paid, as the House knows, a large sum there is none. It would be impossible to of money for those vessels in order to submit this case to an arbitrator without avoid all risk, and to prevent any cause treating it as an open question, whether of irritation between this country and there had been a breach of faith and honour the United States. The Government also on the part of this country; because all seized the Pampero in the Clyde; and must admit that if a nation has acted in good the fact is that in every instance-in faith in such a case there can be no claim. every case with which even the United Secondly, it cannot be denied that it would States Minister became acquainted, except be a most dangerous precedent if any nathat of the Alabama-Her Majesty's Go- tion should hold itself responsible for evils vernment stopped the ships and prevented which it could not prevent. To say that them from leaving this country. In the neutral nations should be responsible for cases of the Georgia and the Shenan- all acts done by their subjects which the doah, it must be admitted that even Mr. Governments of those nations cannot preAdams had not any information before vent, might, in many cases, be to throw those ships had left England. I have on neutral nations a great part of the so far ventured to state the course taken expense of maritime wars carried on by by the Government, first, because I do their neighbours. That is an assumption hope that, when the aggravated feelings which cannot be admitted; and if there which arise from national calamities and could be any case in which we should have national losses are allayed, our friends good ground for adhering to those principles and neighbours on the other side of the it must surely be when we are dealing with Atlantic will be able to recognize in the a great nation, itself of high honour and conduct of Her Majesty's Government an of good faith, which has always been most honest and earnest desire throughout the jealous in upholding its own Neutrality war to maintain a strict neutrality, and Laws, but which, to say the least, has not to do their best to prevent any violation always been more successful in doing so of the laws of this country. Last of all, than ourselves, and which on many occaI hold that our proceedings in this matter sions, over and over again, persistently and ought fairly to be measured by the stan- emphatically refused to recognize similar dard of the success which the United claims on the part of Portugal and Spain, States themselves met with, when endea- and declined to submit those claims to arbivouring to enforce their own law under tration. I think, with that example before similar circumstances. Our success in us, we are well warranted in upholding preventing breaches of neutrality during these principles. But though I think we the late war cannot be deemed slight are entitled in this matter to take the same or inconsiderable, if compared with that line which the United States took themwhich attended the endeavours of the selves, and though in my opinion we are The Attorney General entitled to hold that the refusal to enter- | founded on such advice would be a wrong tain such a claim cannot be any just and and shortsighted policy. If, by well conabiding cause of displeasure on the part of sidered Amendments, the laws of both the United States, believing as I do that we countries could be made more effectual, have solid grounds for that refusal; still, they would be delivered from many diffi. far be it from me to say that if the good feel-culties whenever a war took place. At ing between the two nations only depended present the United States may be placed on money and not on a much more serious in a difficulty by the war in Mexico consideration, it might not be worth while and the war in Chili; and clearly it to pay a very large sum rather than there would only be fair to consider recent should be any interruption of friendly experience, because it is only experience feelings between this country and the which shows what the weak points are United States. But this is not a question in matters of this description. It is exof money. Her Majesty's Government perience which tells us in what our laws believe that a great principle of Interna- are defective, and in what they require tional Law and national honour is involved alteration and amendment. I venture in this question, and it is upon that ac- to say that if the United States Gocount, and not through any want of re-vernment would accede to the suggestion spect to a great nation, that we cannot of Earl Russell, and enter into a friendly admit the principle of those claims-a consideration of this question, we are in a principle which might involve ourselves and all other nations, whatever may be our law, in endless claims and questions for all future time. Now, with regard to the future; almost every hon. Member who has addressed the House has felt the importance of dealing with this subject, not by ourselves, but in concert with other nations which have interests similar to our own. It would be, indeed, difficult -I do not say it would be impossible to deal with it otherwise. Her Majesty's Government has been most desirous to consider this subject in friendly communication with the Government of the United States. I scarcely need remind the House that, as late as the 3rd of November last, Lord Russell wrote to Mr. Adams thus "It appears to me, I confess, that, as neither the law of the United States nor our own Foreign Enlistment Act have proved upon trial completely efficacious, it is worth consideration whether improvements may not be made in the statutes of both nations; so that, for the future, each Government may have in its own territory as much security as our free institutions will permit against those who act in defiance of the intention of the Sovereign, and evade the letter of its laws." Her Majesty's Government, I am authorized to say, still continue of the same mind. They are still most desirous to consider this matter in friendly communication with the United States; and it could be only an unfriendly counsellor who would suggest to the Government of that country that the time is gone by when such questions could usefully be considered. I venture to say that a policy far better position to deal with it now than if we had dealt with it without the full experience of the late war. If we had attempted to legislate on the subject during the earlier part of that war, I am perfectly certain that in practice our amendments would have been very imperfect, perhaps they might have altogether failed. It might probably have turned out that in altering we had made things very little better, and that we had endeavoured to amend with no good result. But the experience of these last years has been such as to enable us now to become pretty well cognizant of the sound and the weak points of our own Foreign Enlistment Act, and if we could only obtain the co-operation of other nations equally interested as ourselves, I should not despair of arriving at a sound and satisfactory result. I think the House will be generally of opinion with Her Majesty's Government that the subject is one of great delicacy and very considerable difficulty, and that it is one on which we should not enter without serious consideration: and that it is most desirable, if it be possible, to enter on it in concurrence and in friendly communication with other nations who have only a right to the same protection from our laws which we ourselves receive from theirs. RAILWAYS (IRELAND): METROPOLITAN QUESTION. GENERAL DUNNE, in rising to put a question relative to the Report of the Railway Commissioners, said, that since | in Great Britain; and further, to ask the he put his notice on the paper he had right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the been told it should have been addressed, Exchequer whether, if that Report be not to the Chancellor of the Exche- made, he is prepared on the part of the quer, but to the noble Lord the Member Government to entertain the subject of for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), the Irish Railways? President of the Commission on the Railways of the United Kingdom. As he understood the evidence had been closed in the case of Irish railways, he would venture to ask, Whether the Commissioners intended to make a Report on that part of the subject, or to wait until they had concluded their inquiry into the condition of all the railways in the kingdom, those of Great Britain as well as those of Ireland. Great anxiety existed in Ireland as to what the Government intended to do in regard to the railways of that country. The subject was brought under the notice of the House last Session by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), now a Member of the Government, but who was not at present in the House owing to the necessity for his reelection on accepting office, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion spoke as favourably as could reasonably be expected in respect to Irish railways. In that country, as in this, many of the railway undertakings were fair and flourishing, but many others were in a bankrupt condition, and very unreasonable hopes had perhaps in some instances been entertained of the action of the Government. In the case of Government wishing to purchase, with one exception, the Great Southern and Western, it had the right to do so at twenty years purchase, on an average of the last years profits, and of these there were none. The shareholders could scarcely expect they should be indemnified for the failure of their undertaking, but still some arrangement might be made where necessity existed. A meeting of the shareholders in Irish railways had lately been held in Dublin, and much anxiety existed to know whether any negotiations were likely to take place between the Government and the Irish railways. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by asking the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, Whether the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the condition of Railways has concluded the inquiry with respect to Irish Railways; and, if such be the case, whether they will make a Report with regard to that kingdom at once, and without waiting to pursue the inquiry as to the Railways General Dunne LORD STANLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend (General Dunne) has conferred more honour upon me than is my due in alluding to me as Chairman of the Commission now sitting to inquire into the Railways of the Kingdom. But I have the honour of a seat upon that Commission, and I shall be very glad, as far as it is in my power, to give him the explanation that he desires. The state of the case with regard to the Irish railways is this:-We have taken a large mass of information with regard to the Irish railway system in general. That evidence is at present, and has been for some time, in the hands of the Government, and, as far as we are concerned, there is not the slightest objection to its being made public. I believe we have obtained pretty nearly all the information that will be found material with regard to Irish railways; but we have not expressly decided on closing that branch of the inquiry, and if any communications are brought before us which we consider important we have not cut ourselves off from receiving them. The second part of my right hon. Friend's question was, "Do you intend to make a separate Report as regards Ireland without waiting for the result of the inquiry as regards Great Britain?" My answer to that is that we do not purpose at present to make any separate Report as regards Ireland. As to our reasons, I cannot, of course, undertake to speak for my colleagues on the Commission; but, speaking for myself, I think I can explain why that decision was come to. It would have been a very easy thing to make a separate Report on the Irish part of the Question, if that Report had been confined to a summary of facts, or even to recommendations dealing with local details. But the main questions referred to us are not questions of fact or of local detail. They are questions involving very large principles of administrative management. One, for instance, is a proposition which has been put forward in a very ingenious treatise, and which was discussed last year in this House-a proposition that the State should buy up all the property of the railway companies. Failing that, there is a proposition that the State should |