Lords Sitting of 1 March 1864

SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT
The Earl STRANGE, after the Death of his Father.
SAT FIRST IN PARLIAMENT

  BORROWING POWERS OF RAILWAY COMPANIES.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that the other night the President of the Council had stated that the Government had under their consideration the propriety of bringing in a Bill for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of a Committee of last Session with respect to the Borrowing Powers of Railway Companies. He (the Earl of Donoughmore) had since taken the question into consideration, and he was disposed to think that those recommendations would be insufficient without a general register of such transactions. He desired to ask the noble Earl, What were the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the recommendations of the Commissioners?
  EARL GRANVILLEmade some observations which were inaudible, but his Lordship was understood to say that the subject was under consideration.

UNITED STATES—NORTH AMERICAN ARMY—FEDERAL RECRUITING IN IRELAND.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE,in moving, according to notice, for Copies
  1318
  of any Reports which may hare been received by Her Majesty's Government respecting recruiting in Ireland for the North American Army, said, the enlistment of soldiers on the part of a Foreign State in this country involved a question of very considerable importance. It had, indeed, been always held, that a country could scarcely commit a greater infraction of the rights of another, or a greater breach of comity and international law, than by attempting to I recruit for its own service citizens who owed allegiance to the other Power. It was, for other reasons also, desirable to know whether the Government were taking steps, in the instance to which his Motion referred, to maintain the neutrality of this country. In Ireland, in former times, the law upon the subject was very strict, for the offence of enlisting in a foreign service was punished with death, and three men were, in point of fact, executed in that country in 1749, because they had enlisted in the French service, though we were then at peace with the French people. The severity with which the offence used to be visited was, however, very properly relaxed in 1819, when the Foreign Enlistment Act was passed, and a milder law, in accordance with the spirit of the present day, introduced. The offence continued penal, but the severer punishments were abolished, and other precautions were adopted against British subjects enlisting in the service of foreign Powers; and when, in 1823, a Motion was made by Lord Althorp to mitigate still further the penalties of the Foreign Enlistment Act, the proposition was supported by the noble Earl now Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Having said thus much, he would shortly proceed to advert to the fact, that recruiting for the Federal States had notoriously been carried on in Ireland with very little check during the last two years, without, so far as he was aware, any serious notice having been taken of those proceedings by Her Majesty's Government. He should, therefore, like to know, whether any remonstrances had been made on the subject to the United States; and whether any steps had been seriously taken to put an end to a state of things with which, as far as he could form an opinion, the common law would be found sufficient to deal? He was not, in order to prove the existence of that state of things, going to quote newspapers or letters, relying, as he did, so entirely on the notoriety of the facts, that he should be surprised if any Member of the Govern-

  1319
  ment should rise in his place and contradict the assertion that agents of the Federal Government had been indirectly engaged in recruiting in various parts of Ireland. Now he had no very high opinion of the efficiency of the Irish Government in its present form as a machinery for Executive administration, believing, as he did, the Lord Lieutenancy, with all its paraphernalia, to be an inefficient obsolete office; but it was, he thought, impossible that the Irish constabulary, who were, as a body, honest and intelligent, and who endeavoured in spite of many impediments to do their duty, should be entirely ignorant of what was going on, and should not have made some reports on the subject to which he was adverting to the heads of the Irish Government, and that they in their turn should not have made similar reports to the authorities at this side of the water. It was impossible, therefore, that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs could be in ignorance on the matter—especially when there was scarcely a newspaper published in Ireland or in London in which some allusion had not, within the last year or two, been made to recruiting for the Federal army, as having been carried on in Louth, Tipperary, Cork, Carlow, Dublin, and other counties. Indeed, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary himself, had adverted to the subject pointedly in his communications with the American Minister at the English Court, in which he stated, as appeared from the papers which had been published, and most truly, that if a balance were struck of the assistance given by British subjects, and by the supply of the munitions of war to the contending parties in America, that balance would be found to be greatly in favour of the Federal States. The noble Earl, no doubt, alluded not only to the Irishmen who were in the United States when the war broke out and then enlisted, but to those who had gone out from Ireland to America to enlist in the Northern Armies. If, he might add, he wanted further evidence as to the existence of recruiting in Ireland for those States, he might find it in the Returns of the Emigration Commissioners, who had, he understood, ascertained it to be an undoubted fact, that the emigration of single young men to the United States from that part of the kingdom had very much increased in the years 1862 and 1863 as compared with the previous years. Now, that was a very significant fact, when they
  1320
  considered that the vast proportion of assisted emigrants in Ireland were small farmers, with wives and families who would be useful to such emigrants in America. There could be no doubt that these young men were intended for the army, and not for peaceful industry, because British capital was not now being invested in America; and American capitalists were rushing to get army contracts, out of which they got more than any other investments. He would, however, in support of the case which he was endeavouring to make, mention one specific fact which had come under his own immediate observation. Not quite two months ago a man arrived at a central station in the county of Galway, and at once proceeded to make it known that he had come to engage some thousands of men and to take them across the Atlantic, tempting them by the offer of good pay. He made known his business to the publicans in the town where he first stopped, and then went on to another town and did the same thing, promising so much per head for every person whom they succeeded in engaging for him. The fame of his operations naturally spread, and several persons being anxious to obtain the "bringing money" for enlisting, the police properly thought they had a right to interfere, and he (the Marquess of Clanricarde), being in the neighbourhood, was the magistrate before whom the party was brought. It was then found, that instead of being an American, he was a native of a village within a few miles of the place where he was taken into custody. He had been in the American army, and had received a gun-shot wound, and had come home to pick up recruits for the Federal army. He said— and produced a paper to the effect—that he was enrolling labourers for a great industrial work in America, and he appeared anxious to assume the character of an American citizen and an American functionary. Now, it was very well known to their Lordships, but perhaps not to the persons this man engaged, that a contract made with an Irishman in Ireland would be worth very little in New York; but remembering the proceedings of the United States Government with reference to recruiting, their Lordships would agree with him that an Irishman landing in New York and wishing to repudiate the contract, would have very little chance of doing so. It was a remarkable thing that he had no more money about him than

  1321
  was sufficient for his personal expenses, and when asked to explain how, with such means, he was to engage the labourers and pay the publicans for their aid, he referred not to any great railway contractor or engineer, or other person generally found to be in connection with such schemes, but to the American Consul. The American Consul at Liverpool gave him, he said, a letter to the American Consul at Dublin, and if they were written to it would be found that he was solvent and well able to discharge all his engagements. The man was a little astonished when he told him that he should not admit his American pretensions, that he knew him to be an Irishman, and should treat him the same as any Irishman who had never left his native village, and that the reference to American authorities would not avail him one jot. It was transparent that it was intended to evade or infringe our law. But how did the Americans act towards us in 1855, under circumstances, not indeed similar, but in some degree analogous? What was their doctrine when it was a question of paying the passage of, not American, but our own subjects home, or to some British Colony, in order that they might there, if they pleased, enlist in Her Majesty's army or navy? The whole of the papers have been laid before Parliament, and it appeared that at that time our Consuls at New York and elsewhere reported that a number of labourers out of employment, who were British subjects, had applied for means to go home, with the view of enlisting in the army or navy of their own country. Sir John Crampton, then Mr. Crampton, thought it right to take the opinion of an American lawyer upon the American law, which made it an offence to hire or retain any labourer for any employment or under any pretence to go beyond the jurisdiction of the States, in order that when there such person might be enlisted. In the opinion obtained, a case was quoted, in which the Supreme Court had held that the words "hire or retain" were susceptible of a very broad interpretation, and the lawyer stated that he was inclined to think they would be held to reach every case of payment for the removal of a person from the States; that the intent would be left to the jury; and that the Judge would be bound to tell them that no scheme could be devised which would allow the intentions of the law to be defeated. Accordingly, a person was tried under the
  1322
  law referred to, and for enabling a British subject to go to Nova Sevre, there to enlist in the British army or navy, he was sentenced to two years imprisonment and 100 dollars fine. The American Government withdrew the exequaturs of the Consuls, and insisted on the removal of Mr. Crampton, upon the ground of that law having been infringed — they would not allow us to send home our own men, because it might be inferred that when here, if they had no other employment, they would enlist; but now they were sending emissaries to Ireland to entrap, not their own, but our countrymen in their service. There was no parallel, although there was analogy between the two cases. We wanted British subjects sent home who were anxious to enlist in our service. The Americans wanted to inveigle and enlist British subjects in Ireland for service in the United States. Perhaps he should be told that the Government knew nothing of the case, and that it had never been reported to the Irish Government. He regretted that the wholesome practice of the Irish Government communicating with men of position in the country had been abandoned, and that they depended entirely on the police for information. The police had acted in this case, and therefore it was for them to have reported it. There was, however, no evidence produced by the police against this person, and therefore he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) discharged the prisoner with an admonition, and satisfied himself with taking steps which he thought would have sufficient effect to stop the man's operations in that neighbourhood. But he came next to a case as to which he was surprised that no papers had been laid before Parliament, because action had actually been taken on it—the case of the American cruiser, the Kearsage, which came into Cork harbour, and began to enlist men under the very nose of our Admiral, and almost alongside of our flagship. That certainly was rather more than could be stood. From the informations which had been taken on the subject, it was pretty well known what had happened. It was bruited about that the United States' Government were giving good bounties for men, and some of the idle seamen about Queenstown went on board. The vessel then sailed off for Brest, and on arriving there the men were put ashore and told that they might return if they liked and take service for three years. However, from some change—probably from change

  1323
  of orders—the men were returned to Cork, and then the Government prosecuted them under the Foreign Enlistment Act, and six of them were now held to bail. He wished to know, however, what proceedings had been taken against the United States' Government in the matter. It was a paltry thing to go merely against our own men. They were held to bail in £20 each, with one surety of £20 each, so that, if it suited the American Government, for £240 they could quash the whole transaction, and we should have no redress for this outrage committed on the dignity of this country by a Government which had insisted on the removal of Sir John Crampton, and had withdrawn the exequatur of our consuls on a much smaller pretext. It was remarkable that these men were dismissed in the American uniform, and we had heard that American uniforms were to be seen in other parts of Ireland, even in Dublin. He was not a believer in the existence of any disaffection in Ireland. Disaffection could not go to any great length without some cause for it, and no people had less grievances to complain of than the Irish from the Imperial Government. Ireland was, without doubt, the freest country in the world—not even excepting Great Britain. A man was free to say or do there pretty much as he pleased, and the only persons who appeared to be under any restraint were the police. All men of education and intelligence put a proper value on this freedom; but, unfortunately, among the lower orders there did prevail some mischievous old traditions. They were always delighted with the idea of secret societies, and many of these secret societies were productive of great harm. Some of them were innocent and harmless; but it was neither innocent nor harmless to spread among the people the notion of a connection with the United States, or to permit the distribution of American uniforms. These things ought to be dealt with with a strong hand, not towards our own people so much as towards the Government which ventured to take such liberties. He had no hesitation in saying that if the Confederates had done one-tenth of what the Federals had done it would have been put a stop to long ago. But the neutrality of Her Majesty's Government had been from the first a partial neutrality, and in that respect they had not properly maintained the honour of the country. But what he wanted to know now was, whether the House might be allowed to see the Reports
  1324
  which, no doubt, the Irish Government must have forwarded on the subject, and the remonstrances which he trusted the Secretary of State had addressed to the Government of the United States on the subject? The noble Marquess concluded by moving, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for
  "Copies of any Reports that may have been received by Her Majesty's Government respecting recruiting in Ireland for the North American army."
  EARL RUSSELL: My noble Friend will excuse me if I do not advert to many of the topics on which he has touched, and deal only with the tangible points of the statement he has made. I do not think it necessary to enter into the reasons why I was in favour of the repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Act in 1823, nor shall I discuss whether the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is useful or has become obsolete, or whether the conduct of the American Government in 1855 was proper or not. As far as I can understand the drift of my noble Friend's argument it is that, because the American Government acted improperly in 1855, therefore Her Majesty's Government ought to act improperly now. But my noble Friend must excuse me if I decline to adopt that view. The real question which my noble Friend has brought forward is that of foreign enlistment in Ireland. I quite admit that it is an offence against the law and against the amity which the American Government is bound to show towards Her Majesty's Government to commit such acts. Wherever such an offence can be proved it ought to be prosecuted by Her Majesty's Government, and it certainly furnishes a subject of complaint against the United States' Government if it has authorized it. My noble Friend has said truly enough that we have complained from time to time that there was a process of recruiting going on in Ireland on behalf of the Federal Government. Last year I presented papers— correspondence between Mr. Adams and myself—on the subject of British subjects in the Federal armies; and those of your Lordships who have read that Correspondence may remember, that our complaints were of a general nature, because we had not evidence of particular cases in which the offence was brought home to any agents of the American Government. Mr. Adams on each occasion denied the truth of these allegations; and on one occasion he said that, until I had brought it to his notice,

  1325
  he did not think there was anybody in this country who could have believed it possible that agents of the United States' Government were employed either in England or in Ireland in enlisting British subjects for the Federal armies. With that general allegation, and with that general denial, I could only wait until there was a case in which particular evidence could be produced. In the month of January of this year a person named Pike stated that a person named Finney had gone about enticing men to enlist. It was stated that this Finney had invited men to go out and get good wages in the United States, and afterwards told them that they would get much larger sums of money if they would enlist as soldiers in the United States' array. The information received at the Home Office was referred to the Irish Government. The matter was investigated, and no evidence except that of this person named Pike could be had; and it was alleged that this man Pike had been engaged by Finney, as an assistant, but had not received the reward which he thought sufficient, and that being excited by that circumstance, he invented this story of the recruiting. It was further alleged that the real object of Finney was to engage men to be employed on railways in the United States. The Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland investigated the matter, and they were of opinion that, if there was no other evidence but that of Pike against this man, that evidence would not be believed, and that consequently there was no chance of a conviction in a court of law. When they gave that opinion, the Home Office here arrived at the conclusion that it was not desirable to institute a prosecution. It must be borne in mind that the United States' Minister has said, and said with perfect truth, that owing to the great number of men employed in the Federal army, and owing to the great number of railway works which are now in course of construction in the United States, there are many railway companies in America which are anxious to obtain men and ready to pay them high wages. It is very possible that, under these circumstances, some companies may be trying to engage men in Ireland. The Chicago Railway Company is known to have hired men for the purpose of working on their line; and we have information that this person, named Finney, hired a room in Dublin a few days ago, and there engaged a considerable number of young men who are going, or
  1326
  are gone, to the United States. My noble Friend must perceive that even although it could be proved that many of those young men are arriving in New York, tempted by the large bounty offered to them, many enter the army of the United States, yet if they go from this country without any contract to enter the army, if they go for the purpose of obtaining good employment and good wages, and wait till their arrival in New York to decide whether they will be railway labourers or soldiers, there can be no ground for a prosecution under the Foreign Enlistment Act. My noble Friend has told us, in the most circumstantial manner, of a person known to have been engaged, according to his opinion, in the horrid plot of taking men in contravention of the Foreign Enlistment Act, to be employed in the army of the United States. One would have expected that a person with the activity, the patriotism, and the knowledge of law possessed by my noble Friend, would have been able to pursue this man to conviction; but there the story ended, my noble Friend saying there was no evidence, and that therefore he had dismissed the charge. I have heard of a man in the county or the city of Cork, who was said to have engaged labourers on the promise of a large amount of wages or a large amount of pay; but it appears that he began by asking the persons who were to enter into the contract with him for threepence each, and when he had collected a sufficient number of threepences, he and his comrades went off. That was not a transaction from which the United States gained much. Another case alluded to by my noble Friend was that of a man-of-war at Queenstown. Undoubtedly there were a number of men found on board the Kearsage, a United States man-of-war, who were said to have been engaged as seamen, and to have been carried off. On hearing this report, I at once wrote a complaint to the Minister of the United States in London, informing him of the facts that had reached me, and at the same time telling him that I had heard the Consul of the United States had been instrumental in enlisting these men, and expressing a hope that a thorough inquiry would be made. The Minister of the United States wrote to say that, so far as the Consul was concerned, he denied all knowledge of such a transaction, and his Excellency furnished me with a copy of a letter from the captain of the Kearsage, which is as follows;—
  "United States' steamer Keartage,
  At sea, Deo. 7.
  "Sir,—A party of men, either by connivance of the crew or otherwise, were concealed on board this vessel on the night of her departure from Queenstown, the 5th ult. These men, I learn, were in expectation of being enlisted in the service of the United States after the Kearsage had proceeded to sea, but found their mistake. To have turned them ashore at Brest would have been to open to them the temptation to enlist on board the Florida. I therefore determined to leave them at Queenstown as soon as it was practicable. You will please notify Admiral Jones that I informed him that no enlistments would be made at Queenstown. I have, therefore, sent on shore this party, that no charge of subterfuge may be alleged in the premises.—Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
  "JNO. A. WINSLOW, Captain.
  "E. G. Eastman, Esq., United States' Consul, Queenstown."
  I do not know that the captain could have behaved otherwise than he did. When we found that these men had been enlisted, Her Majesty's Government consulted the Law Advisers of the Crown, and they directed that a prosecution should be instituted, and, as far as I know, the prosecution is going on. A suspicion may arise that the captain was aware that these persons had been enlisted before they went on board, but all I can say is, that the captain gives the explanation which I have read for your Lordships. At all events, these men are not serving on board the Kearsage, and therefore, in that case, we have no complaint against the United States' Government. With regard to the United States' Consul, that officer denies any knowledge of the matter, and therefore nothing more can be required of him. These are the cases which have occurred in the present year. I quite agree with my noble Friend, that every case of this kind ought to be watched; and the police in Ireland, and the Government of Ireland, are ready to watch them. I also quite agree with my noble Friend, that no violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act ought to be permitted without a prosecution, if there is evidence to sustain one; and on that principle Her Majesty's Government have determined to act. My noble Friend has said what he has never been able to prove—that the neutrality of Her Majesty's Government has not been an impartial neutrality. Well, the United States' Government are of opinion, that from the very beginning Her Majesty's Government have taken a side favourable to the Confederate States, and that allowing the latter belligerent rights—which they say induced other nations of Europe to allow them the
  1328
  same rights — was very partial conduct, because it was very favourable to the insurgents. I have always contended against that pretension. We considered that, as the Confederate States comprised so many of the States of North America, were inhabited by so large a population, and contained so much of the wealth that had existed in the United States, our decision was not a partial but a perfectly impartial decision, founded on the fact that the Confederate States were entitled to belligerent rights. No doubt it may be said, and it has been said, that this advantage has enabled them to derive very considerable supplies, and so enabled them to carry on the war against the Federal States. On the other hand, the Confederate States made their complaint with respect to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, whom they have all along conceived to be partial as against them. I must say that, though they are entitled to impartial conduct, they are not entitled to any other conduct at our hands; because, though recruiting for the Confederate States does not take place in this country, as far as we are aware, conscription does take place as regards British subjects residing in the Southern States. When we have endeavoured to obtain redress for this, we have found that the Consuls, who were appointed when all the American States were united, have on a sudden been driven from the Confederate States, and there is no one there who can take up the case of British subjects, who are very frequently forced into the Confederate ranks against their own will. This and other hardships are inflicted upon British subjects in the Confederate States, and from the loss of Consuls they are not able to make complaints and obtain the redress to which they are entitled. But, my Lords, with regard to the whole matter of this war, it has been the determination of Her Majesty's Government to pursue an impartial neutrality. That course has been steadily pursued. I see no reason myself for our taking part either with the Northern States or with the Southern; and we are determined to continue to maintain a course of impartial neutrality.
  The EARL of DONOUGHMORE: I think, my Lords, we should feel indebted to the noble Marquess for bringing this subject forward. The fact of agents of the United States' Government having been, for a considerable period, endeavouring to entice the Irish subjects of Her Majesty

  1329
  into the military service of the United States is notorious. I have listened with the greatest attention to the speech just made by the noble Earl, and I must say that I never heard the noble Earl repudiate the statement of the noble Marquess opposite. The noble Earl will not say whether he will admit that statement or deny it. Now, I will just ask your Lordships to compare the conduct of the Government in this matter with the course taken by them in reference to the rams at Birkenhead, which it was alleged had been built for the Confederate States. The noble Earl mentioned one case in which there appeared to be some prospect of prosecuting to conviction, but as the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland had expressed their opinion that there was not sufficient evidence to convict, the noble Earl, or rather the Home Office, retired from the prosecution. But I will ask the noble Earl whether, when, on the 3rd of September last, he ordered the rams to be detained, he had received the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown here that there was sufficient evidence to prove a contravention of the Foreign Enlistment Act? If he had not received that opinion, the noble Earl's course of action was founded on principles entirely different from those he had pursued with regard to what has taken place in Ireland. And this is what the noble Earl calls impartial neutrality. No sensible man would consider the principles which influenced the noble Earl in both cases as similar. Now, what the noble Earl's motives may be in the matter I cannot tell. I will not say what his reasons are for neglecting this important subject—for refusing to exert the vigilance and the power of the Government to protect the poor people of Ireland from being tempted from their homes to die on a foreign soil in a quarrel not their own. Are those reasons to be found in the fact that they are poor Irish only, and that he has no sympathy for them? The noble Earl denies the imputation. But will he deny, that if the same attempt had been made to enlist Englishmen, the authority of the Government would not have been very quickly exercised to protect them. There is a society in Ireland which has been often mentioned in the public newspapers, and I wish to obtain some information from Her Majesty's Government as to whether their attention is directed to the proceedings of that society. I allude to the society called the Fenian Brotherhood. I do not know the meaning of the words. Perhaps the
  1330
  noble Lord opposite can explain it. The object of this society is to recruit for the American army in Ireland, and to promote a feeling of disaffection to the British Crown; and it holds out a vague hope to its members that, when the American war is finished, the Federal army will turn its arms against this country. The proceedings of this society are so contemptible, it would be ridiculous and absurd to discuss them seriously. Of course, no man of any sense or prudence could think that any danger could arise to this kingdom from their idle vapouring. "Cannot you let it alone," was a favourite maxim of a former colleague of noble Lords opposite, and perhaps the Foreign Secretary would do well sometimes to remember it; but this principle ought not be applied to the Fenian Society. Contemptible as it is at present it may at last become inconvenient to the Government and difficult to be put down. So long as the Members confine themselves to mere words, and to ridiculous articles in certain newspapers, I concur with Her Majesty's Government in the wisdom of ignoring them. But when their proceedings assume the phase of enlisting men for the armies of a foreign Government, when they commence drilling men in Ireland for the service of the United States' Government, I think—not for the interests of Her Majesty's Government, because it is utterly impossible that any such result as is expected by the Members can ever arise, but in mercy to the poor deluded men themselves—that it is the duty of the Government to come forward and put a stop to these proceedings. It is notorious that the Fenian Brotherhood have enlisted a large number of the Irish people in the interest of America— that some of the members walk openly about the streets in the American uniform. It is, therefore, time for Her Majesty's Government to act in the matter, and by a strong hand to suppress this ridiculous movement. If they do not take action in time they may, perhaps, in the end be driven to shed the blood of their own people.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I have failed entirely to make out, from the speech of the noble Earl, any case against Her Majesty's Government. Upon the question of neutrality, as your Lordships are aware, both the North and the South were constantly bringing accusations against the Government for being partial and showing favour to one side or the other, and these

  1331
  charges are also made in this country by persons who sympathize with the one or the other. It is quite clear that any person who endeavours to remain neutral between two opponents will be open to such charges, and exactly the same attacks have been made against the Government by those who in this country sympathize with one or other of the belligerents. But these accusations are, in fact, the best proof that the Government have been actuated by a sincere wish to maintain a fair and impartial position between the two contending parties. The noble Earl taunted the Government with want of courage in dealing with these enlistments, which he said were now quite notorious. Well, but if they are notorious, why does not the noble Earl offer some specific proof of their existence? The Government have given to the police instructions of the most positive nature to make inquiries on this subject. And yet the only cases of which we have knowledge are of the most trumpery character. In one case a man was said to have engaged a clerk and an office for this purpose, but he left without even paying the unfortunate clerk. Another case attracted great attention on the part of the Government. A factor engaged several hundreds of men to work upon an American railway. This was said to be merely a colourable pretext, and the men, we were told, were really recruits for the service of the United States. The Government immediately made the most rigid inquiry, and the factor who was charged with this offence came to the office of the Chief Secretary, and proved there, by incontestable documentary evidence, that those persons were really engaged to work upon the railway; that the railway company were suffering from a dearth of labour; and that these supposed recruits were engaged bonâ fide to supply this want. Does the noble Earl opposite think it would have been proper, on the part of the Government, to have interposed obstacles in the way of a legitimate transaction of that kind? The noble Earl alludes to persons who go about wearing the American uniform. I have seen persons wearing the French and Italian, and many other different uniforms, walking about the streets of the metropolis; but it would never occur to any of your Lordships that this was a fact which required the action of the Government. What sort of action, then, is it that the noble Earl wants? There was only one case which appeared, on inquiry, to bear
  1332
  out the charge of enlistment for the military service of the United States. The Government submitted the whole evidence to the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland, and their distinct advice was, that the evidence was not sufficient to lead to a conviction. Now, would it have been courage, or would it have been simplicity, on the part of the Government to have disregarded that advice, and to have taken the law into their own hands? If noble Lords are of opinion that the Government ought to have done more and to have gone further, I really think they ought to have produced some better information than the Government possess to show that recruiting is really carried on in Ireland by the United States' Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I wish to remind my noble Friend who has just sat down, that he has omitted to answer one point — whether Her Majesty's Government has received, through the police, any information in regard to the fact that persons are now being drilled and taught military exercises in Dublin, Cork, and other large cities? And, if so, whether they had taken any steps in the matter?
  EARL GRANVILLEcould say nothing as to the etymology of the word "Fenian," but the attention of the police had been directed to the military drilling which was said to be going on in Ireland. He could not at that moment give any detailed information on the subject, but this he could say—that the police had come to the same conclusion as that which seemed to have been arrived at by many of their Lordships —namely, that the organization was a perfectly contemptible one.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in reply, said, he would withdraw his Motion; but in doing so, could not allow to rest upon himself, and upon his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Donough-more), the reproach which was cast upon them by the noble Lords who sat upon the Treasury Bench, that, knowing cases in which there had been breaches of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the law of the land, they did not prosecute and bring to conviction the offenders. It was evident that the Government in this House, when they cast this reproach, were not aware of the position to which the magistrates of Ireland were reduced, who were not allowed to search into matters which concerned the peace of the country. The police took such inquiries into their own hands, and gave no information about them to the unpaid

  1333
  magistrates, but brought whatever they could find out to the stipendiary magistrate, whom alone they obeyed. The Government had ceased to consult persons of property and influence in the country. A noble Friend, a Lord Lieutenant of a county, told him that the men who had served in the militia of that county had been drawn away, and were now serving in the United States' army; and that he had not heard a word on the subject either from the Government or the military authorities.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.