IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

Hawke's Bay Weekly Times, Volume 2, Issue 72, 18 May 1868, Page 119

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OfMOMMONS.— March 6, 1868. Tins ALABAMA. CLAIMS. After the transaction of other business. Mr Shaw-Letotre, member for Reading, called up Hie. question of the Alabama claims. Hejjmade a long and eloquent speech oh tHp subject, in which he urged the settlement of this vexed question on the plan proposed by the American go-’ verntnent; in calling for the papers on the subject, and in moving the consideration of the question, he disclaimed any feeling of prejudice. All future negotiations, he said, wo.uld add to the complications already existing. He sketched the progress of the recent civil war in the United States-to its happy termination. He said the fall of Fort Sumter evoked the famous proclamation of President Lincoln. In less than a month after the appearance of Great Britain had recognised the Southern insurgents as belligerents. They had no fleet, but they purchased their ships in our ports. These ships, notwithstanding the vigorous measures of our government to stop them, ■ luded our vigilance, went to sea, and were hospitably received at the British colonial pqgts. They captured .and destroyed during the war more than two hundred American merchant vessels. In less than two vears the United States flag was literally driven from the seas, while the commerce of Great Britain was doubled. For this reason, the speaker thought we ought to treat these claims generously. They were first made in 1862 by the American Minister, Mr. Adams. After a warm eulogium on the course of Mr Adams on this and other questions, Mr.Lefevre said that an arbitration of the matter had been proposed by the American Government, but was refused by Lord Russell, who repelled the suggestion. Lord Stanley might have taken the other course, as the Tories had changed on the question of household suffrage. The question of recognition by England was only as to her right, if there were a right that might safely be preferred —but Lord Stanley insisted that the responsibility of England was only a moral one in the Alabama case. The speaker thought the less said about morality on this question the better. He regarded the breaking out of war between England and the United States as extremely unlikely; but thought, on the other hand, that all needless irritation should be shunned. Lord Stanley then took the floor. He praised the pacific tone of the oration of Mr l.efevrg, and warmly complimented Mr ;'Adkm3 the conciliatory spirit he had displayed in the subjeot under discussion. He said we could not make indiscriminate! concessions, but we could learn the right Oc the case. There never was a case where ther was more need to understand the points. Much allowance was to be made for the feelings of the United -states. Great Britain in the same case (with five hundred millions of debt contracted through a civil war, in which a million lives had been lost), might appreciate the case better than mere lookers-on only. He thought England had been entirely neut al ; but no. neutrality would have pleased America What that country wanted was neutrality, coupled with warm sympathy and support. The Queen was ready to arbitrate and submit all questions but the great point of recognising the belligerent rights of the South. Nobody contends that at no time the South acquired them. If not, why deny the right of Great Britain to recognise them at the time she did ? The Confederate ship Alabama did not sail from England until 1862, and the battle of Bull Run was fought in 1861. Admitting that it was wrong for Great Britain to recognise the South, would the United States government say that its case against the Alabama had bee a altered had Great Britain made a declaration of neutrality six rather than eleven months before she sailed? Lord Stanley then referred to the speech of Daniel Webster in the United States Senate on the subject of recognising Hungary in support of his argument, and continued— How could England refuse to recognise a war which Mr Seward himself had announced to be a civil war nine, twelve, and sixteen days beforej the proclamation ? Who could complain that England had recognised the civil war which the United States had admitted some weeks before? In conclusion,' he thonght a friendly arrangement of this difficulty still practicable. He deprecated the debate. The friendly reception of Mr Thornton at Washington was a pledge of peace. The British Minis-; ters are ready to leave the question to the people of the entire world. Mr W. E. Forster, member for Bradford, thought that Mr Seward’s view of the question of the recognition of the Alabama claims deserved better treatment and more careful consideration, as'being perhaps the view that was right aud sensible. He complained of the abrupt termination of the question which had been made, when tii« universal wish in the United Kingdom was for its speedy settlement. He thought influential, statesman been sent to States.as Minister 'the point in be readily, adjusted. Mr John Stuart Mill, member for. Westminster, was the next speaker. He regarded the condition of the question as the result of a mutual mistake. The real qiies tion was,: whether England was bound:to prevent such expeditions as that of the Alabama. He denied that the 'United Statergoyernmentolaiined orponld

claim that the recognition of the South was a violation, of the law, but only that ifc was an unfriendly, rash, and unprecedented act. The American government only pressed the point for the purpose of showing that, but for the unfriendly action of England the Alabama depredations would not have occurred. He thought that an arbiter between . the two countries was needless, aind that reparation was fairly due. to the United States. He concluded by advising the appointment of a mixed commission ffie the*prqper adjustment of the question.

Mr Wi E. Gladstone, member for South Lancashire, thanked Mr Lefevre for his able speech, and Lord Stanley forShis temperate reply. He (Mr G.) could not understand why the negotiation was ended, nor could he agree with Mr Mill that Lord Stanley had admitted that reparation was due, or that arbiters would surely decide against England. For himself, he doubted if reparation for the Alabama depredations was due to the United States. It was unquestionably right that the point should be referred to a commission ; bat if the Government feared such a reference, it should settle the matter at once or leave the decision with an umpire. He (Mr Gladstone) inferred, however, from the closing sentence of Lord-Stanley, that communications between the two governments were ' not closed, and that friendly feelings be« . - tween the United States, and England ‘ would be preserved. He concluded by ?. ‘ saying if his inference was correct t the whole country would support Lord Stanley in a just and honorabio settlement of the case. The debate ended with Mr Gladstone’s remarks.