miserable jealousy or a base fear. He looked at the interest of England in a different point of view. He believed the war was more likely than any thing else to abolish slavery. The supply of cotton under slavery must always be insecure. It was the interest of England that the supply of cotton should be by free labour rather than by that of slaves. As to the political aspect of the question, the more he considered this war, the more improbable he thought it that the United States would be broken into separate Republics. The conclusion to which he had come was that, if there should be a separation, the interests, the sympathies, and the necessities, perhaps the ambition, of the whole continent were such that it would be reunited under a central Government. And this Government might be in the hands of the South. Having dwelt at considerable length upon the hideous features of Southern slavery, and eulogized the Northern institutions, it was against such a Government, he observed, in such a contest with such a foe, that Mr. Roebuck asked the House to throw into the scale the weight of the hostility of England.

Sir GEORGE GREY gave a distinct contradiction to the statement that a communication had been made by the Emperor of the French to Her Majesty's Government in regard to the war in America, founded upon what had passed at Mr. Roebuck's interview with the Emperor.

These speeches having occupied many hours, an adjournment of the debate to a future day took place, but before it could be resumed, the inconvenience of pressing the House of Commons to a vote upon such a momentous question was strongly felt in many quarters. Accordingly, on the meeting of the House some days afterwards, an earnest appeal was addressed to Mr. Roebuck by Sir John Ferguson that, in consideration of the uncertain issue of events now pending in America, and the inexpediency of fettering the hands of the Government by a decision of the House of Commons, he would consent to let his motion drop. This appeal was forcibly seconded by Lord Palmerston. He said, "Events of the utmost importance are about to take place in America, and we may hear in the course of a few hours of results commensurate with the importance of those events, and evidently the present is not a proper moment to ask the Government to prejudice itself with respect to its free action. It is not likely, I think, that the House would agree either to the motion of the hon. and learned member for Sheffield, or to the amendment which has been moved to it; and, indeed, I think it very disadvantageous to the public service that any such resolution should be adopted. Therefore the discussion, as far as any practical results may have been expected by those who are in favour of the motion, would have no important effect. I can assure the House, whereas now it is plainly acknowledged by every body that the wishes of the Emperor of the French to find a fitting opportunity for advising the re-establishment of peace in

America are not changed, that on the other hand Her Majesty's Government do not see that that opportunity has arisen; though they would at all times be willing to exchange opinions with the Emperor of the French not only on that subject, but on any other relating to the interests of nations. But there is another and peculiar circumstance which makes the hon. and learned member's compliance with this appeal still more desirable. It is hardly possible that the debate could be resumed without a revival of the discussion as to what passed in the interview between the hon. and learned member and the hon. member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) on the one side, and the Emperor of the French on the other. It was quite natural that they should seek that interview, for the hon. member for Sunderland had previously had frequent interviews with the Emperor of the French on those questions relating to navigation in respect to which he takes an active part in this House. Therefore, it was perfectly natural that the hon. member should see the Emperor of the French, and equally natural that, seeing the Emperor, the hon. member, together with the hon. and learned member for Sheffield, should express opinions on the American question. I, however, venture to submit that the question as to what passed between two private members of Parliament and a foreign Sovereign is not a question to be discussed in this House. Not to say that such a discussion is sure to lead to explanations on both sides, which, like all public explanations of private transactions, leave an unpleasant feeling generally on both sides, it must tend to deter the Emperor of the French from continuing that courteous and useful reception, which he is so graciously pleased to give to all Englishmen of note, who may be furnished with information advantageous to the friendly relations of both countries. It is obvious, however, that this reception now accorded by the Emperor of the French must be checked, if the Emperor should feel that what passes in the abandon of private intercourse is to be made the subject of public discussion. As it is impossible that the debate on America can be resumed without leading in some way or other to the revival of that personal discussion, I trust that my hon. and learned friend the member for Sheffield will allow this debate to drop."

Mr. ROEBUCK agreed to consider the suggestion made to him, and to give his answer on an early day. At the next meeting of the House he moved that the order for resuming the debate be discharged. Lord Palmerston, he observed, had suggested very grave considerations which recommended such a course, and had urged that the time had not come for discussing such a question; but let the noble lord, he added, bear in mind that there were two great dangers-one was the possible re-construction of the Union on a Southern basis, the other was the acknowledgment of the Southern Confederacy by the Emperor of the French alone. In conclusion, he said, it was only from a feeling of great respect for Lord Palmerston that he withdrew his motion.

Mr. LINDSAY gave an explanation of the circumstances which had led to the interview of Mr. Roebuck and himself with the Emperor of the French, and he stated the substance of what had passed at that interview, in confirmation of Mr. Roebuck's narrative. Lord Palmerston added some emphatic comments upon this occurrence, which received the marked assent of the House. He said he thought Mr. Roebuck had judged rightly in moving to discharge the order, as no good could arise from a discussion or a decision upon the motion. He only hoped that this would be the last time that any member of the House would think it his duty to communicate to a British House of Commons what might have passed between himself and the Sovereign of a foreign country. He did not attribute any blame to the two hon. members, but he must impress upon them that the proceeding they had adopted was most irregular. If the Emperor of the French and the Queen of England had any communications to make to each other, they had ambassadors, who were the proper organs.

The order was then discharged, and the matter terminated.

The relations between this country and the Government of the Federal States during this period were of such a nature, that without great caution and forbearance there was imminent risk of their assuming a hostile character. There was danger of such a result not only from political embroilments at a time. when national jealousies were in a highly sensitive state, and much irritation towards England was evinced by the American newspaper press, exciting a corresponding asperity on this side the Atlantic, but also from the operation of commercial interests under circumstances of no ordinary temptation to speculative enterprise. The great profits afforded by commercial dealings with the Southern States, especially in articles required for purposes of war, presented temptations to run the blockade which no considerations of individual risk or of national policy were strong enough to counteract, and the ingenuity of our merchants and traders was successfully exercised in masking their illicit traffic, and, under pretence of dealing with neutral parties, carrying on a circuitous but most gainful intercourse with one of the belligerents. As the profit of such adventures was large, so also was the danger considerable, and many captures of British vessels took place. The adventure in the majority of cases was so palpably illegal that no ground of complaint could be alleged, but in other cases, where the destination and object of the captured vessel were equivocal, the seizure was protested against as a violation of international rights, and our Government was urgently appealed to for interference and redress. In such cases a very arduous and embarrassing duty was imposed upon the British Minister. He was bound, no doubt, on the one hand, to protect the rights of his own nation and the trade and property of his fellow-subjects. On the other hand, he could not close his eyes to the fact that, in spite of the Queen's Proclamation of neutrality, the supplying of

commodities to the Southern States by evading the blockade had become an unavowed, but very lucrative, trade to our merchants. It was notorious, indeed, as Earl Russell stated in a debate which arose in the House of Lords out of these occurrences, that " many swift vessels were employed in running the blockade, the owners of which, if their ships were seized, put on an air of injured innocence and demanded redress of the Foreign Office." Nor was it to that department only that such complaints were addressed; on several occasions the alleged injuries suffered by the owners of captured vessels found exponents in Parliament, and the Ministers of the Crown were called to account for submitting to violations of international law at the hands of naval officers of the Northern States. Great care and discretion were required from the executive in dealing with such cases, in which the facts were often intricate and disputed, while the national susceptibilities on both sides were unusually acute. Another active cause of irritation, which threatened serious danger of dissension between the Federal Government and our own, arose out of the construction in the yards of some of our leading eminent shipbuilders of vessels which, it was alleged, and in some instances truly alleged, were built by the order, and intended for the naval service of, the Southern States Government. One of these ships in particular, the " Alabama," an iron steam-vessel, built at Liverpool, which by her great speed and the skill and daring of her commander and crew, inflicted serious losses on the Northern commercial marine, was the subject of loud and angry complaints against our Government, which was accused of having violated the obligations of international law in permitting the construction of such a vessel within its jurisdiction. It is true that the British authorities were not unaware of the suspicious character of this vessel; the law officers of the Crown had actually been consulting on the propriety of arresting her before her departure from the docks, and the order for seizure by the officers of Customs had actually been issued, but arrived too late, the "Alabama" having previously left the harbour and put out to sea, where she shortly afterwards commenced her formidable aggressions upon all vessels that fell in her way, bearing the ensign of the stars and stripes.

In the case of another vessel, the "Alexandra," built under like circumstances in an English yard, a different result took place. An order for the detention of this ship was issued by our Government, and was actually executed. The officers of Customs took possession, but the legality of the seizure was disputed, and the question of its validity was tried in the regular course in the Court of Exchequer. The case, which turned upon the construction of the Foreign Enlistment Act, will be found at some length in another part of this volume. The evidence, as laid before the jury, failed to satisfy them that there had been a violation of the Act in question, as it was expounded to them by the Lord Chief Baron, and the owners of the Alexandra obtained a verdict,

subject, however, to the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, which was afterwards appealed to on the part of the Crown to set aside Chief Baron Pollock's ruling. Meantime, the decision of the jury was regarded by the party exasperated against England in the Northern States, as another symptom of the unfriendly feelings entertained towards them by this country.

The seizure of other British vessels, among which were the "Adela," the "Peterhoof," and the "Dolphin," which had been professedly bound to Matamoras and Nassau, but were captured by the Northern cruisers and carried into the American Prize Courts for adjudication,-gave occasion to remonstrance and debate, the cause of the owners being taken up by influential speakers in Parliament, who represented the seizures as infringements of international rights. Of these remonstrances the Marquis of Clanricarde was on several occasions the organ in the House of Lords. Insisting that this country ought to afford adequate protection to her commercial marine, he denounced the seizure of vessels bound to Matamoras and Nassau, as a means of monopolizing the trade to Matamoras for the benefit of the New York shippers. If it were said that more stringent measures on the part of our cruisers would result in war, he pointed out that our gunboats did even at present afford now and then protection without a war resulting, and that it was improbable that war would ensue were more effective measures of protection adopted. But if war should ensue, then in no cause could this country be better engaged than in the defence of her commerce. Owing to the repeated seizures which had taken place, it had become impossible to effect insurances on ships trading to the western hemisphere except at ruinous rates. He protested against the blockade of 2500 miles of coast established by the United States, and showed, from the practice of the United States themselves in regard to the blockade of the South American coast (a coast of only a few hundred miles in extent) by Spain, that they deemed such a blockade absurd and unjust. The blockade was ineffective, and ought not to be recognized. Lord Clanricarde further expressed his dissatisfaction and want of confidence in the decisions of the American Prize Courts.

The views thus stated by Lord Clanricarde no doubt expressed the opinions of a large and influential party in this country; but in the existing critical state of international relations, it behoved the Government, unless they were prepared to plunge the nation into a war, to balance the conflicting interests in equal scales, and while administering the law applicable to these transactions with strict impartiality, to refrain from all words or deeds calculated to aggravate the misunderstandings and suspicions already excited between the two nations. In answering Lord Clanricarde's appeals, Earl Russell, while he declined to enter into a discussion. of the specific grounds on which certain British vessels had been condemned, vindicated the justice and impartiality of the American Prize Courts, which proceeded upon settled doctrines and autho