are extravagant and extraordinary, and that they show too much irritation at imaginary wrongs? Added to this, if they are to be told that their claims are extravagant and extraordinary on American principles, may they not justly conclude-in view even of a few such specimens of those principles as we have re-produced that the consummate English lawyer, who speaks for the Government in this debate of May 13th, supposes that he can mould facts as well as arguments to suit his purpose, and that, having attempted to prove that the escape of the Alabama was all right, and having succeeded in convincing his countrymen of it, he now thinks he may, with equal success, attempt to convince Americans that their neutrality, in Washington's day, was all wrong, and that they know nothing about their own history or jurisprudence? POSTSCRIPT. Since the preparation of most of our matter, as above, for the press, the Atlantic steamer brings intelligence of the termination of the Laird iron-clad prosecution by compromise; and though the matter does not strictly fall within the scope. of our undertaking, we feel impelled to give it a word of passing comment. Of course, as a matter of practical preservation of the peace between two nations, and of the removal of a ground of quarrel, -purposely started, perhaps, to bring on a war between them, we rejoice in the settlement, and deem it of the highest mutual advantage. But looking at the compromise in the light of its moral bearing, and of its importance as an international precedent, we are tempted to ask our English friends, if they feel entirely contented with their own transaction? Does it not strike them a little like compassing justice through the medium of-what is usually considered a Yankee device-a trade? Shakspeare says: "And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself But here, we would suggest, is it not the law itself that “buys out" the wicked prize? Perhaps it was their experience of English justice in the Alexandra case that determined the Cabinet to end the ironclad controversy by process of bargain and sale. And considering the Attorney-General's experience in the "smooth running" of English law in the Alexandra instance, we do not wonder at his heartily coöperating in any expedient to get rid of the agency of the courts in this case. Certainly, it was better to bargain for a decision beforehand, at almost any price, than to take the chance again of having the judge borrow his law from Webster's Dictionary, then deny that he had instructed the jury at all, and then (mistakenly, we concede) recommend the Crown to go up on appeal, to be finally answered at the end of a year, that there was nothing before the court above, and no law to be gathered from the court below. Now, if it be added to this keeping back from the courts, that a settlement (a trade, in effect) has to be made with a set of legal opponents whom Earl Russell likens to a parcel of housebreakers, stealing out of a mansion-house at three o'clock in the morning with a sackful of plate on their backs, we confess that the attitude of the imperial government is, to our eyes, neither dignified nor creditable. By way of contrast, we would ask the candid Englishman, If the rustic republic across the water-seizing the Republican and the Cassius at a time when it could hardly reckon eight years of national existence-telling the French ministers that the matter was in the hands of the law, and "till that decision was had, the Government of the United States should pursue what they think right, with firmness, as is their duty," and that France must wait till the courts had spoken- and keeping hold of "the wicked prize with a strong hand, till, in the one case, it rots at the wharf, and in the other, has to ask for mercy and dismantle itself— then, when the courts had dealt with these vessels and found their powers defective, this same rustic (and, so-called, lawless) republic, voluntarily amending its statutes so as to clothe its judiciary with the required powers, and convicting and punishing the equipper of the Cassius, and compelling the recal of the French minister for participating in these infractions of its neutrality- we ask the candid Englishman, If this same rustic republic-in all these transactions, forced upon it in the performance of its neutral obligations does not appear to better advantage, than his own imperial government, in this Laird compromise ? We know that comparisons are so odious, that we can hardly expect an affirmative answer to our question. But we feel entire confidence in asking our English friend another interrogatory, the counterpart of that just put:- Would he have commended a settlement of the iron-clad question on the part of the United States, if made by them under circumstances parallel to those in which his own country has just made it? APPENDIX. EXTRACT FROM THE SPEECH OF MR. THOMAS BARING, AND THE SPEECH OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, IN FULL. WE give a portion of the very candid and honorable speech of Mr. Thomas Baring, and the entire speech of the AttorneyGeneral, as reported in the London Times of May 14th. We regret that our limits do not permit us to add also the able. and high-toned speeches of Messrs. Forster, Cobden, and ShawLefevre, in the same debate. Our American readers, however, will feel less regret at the omission, as they have had a very general opportunity of seeing them (certainly Mr. Cobden's) through the extensive reprints of the New York journals, and as a pamphlet edition of them has just appeared in this city, on the eve of our going to press with this note : THE GEORGIA. Mr. T. BARING, in rising to call attention to the circumstances under which this vessel has been allowed to enter the port of Liverpool, and to put a question on the subject, said, that as he brought this matter before the House simply as one of English interest, he should not refer to the feelings or prospects of either of the contending parties, nor should he endeavor to provoke an expression of sympathy with either side. He wished to make no charge against the Government, and, if he referred at all to the past, it would be to illustrate the position in which the country was placed as to its international engagements. An incident had recently occurred which was of a most extraordinary character. A vessel of war carrying, as they were told, the flag and commission of the Confederate Government, had recently entered the port of Liverpool. She was still there, and when the House heard her history, it would be somewhat surprised at the course which had been pursued. This was her history:-The Japan, otherwise the Virginia, commonly known as the Georgia, was built at Dumbarton on the Clyde. She was equipped by a Liverpool firm. Her crew was shipped by the same Liverpool firm for Shanghai, and sent round to Greenock by steamer. She was entered on the 31st of March, 1863, as for Point de Galle and Hongkong, with a crew of forty-eight men. She cleared on the first of April. She left her anchorage on the morning of the 2nd of April, ostensibly to try her engines, but did not return. She had no armament on leaving Greenock, but a few days after her departure, a small steamer called the Allar, freighted with guns, shot, shell, &c., and having on board a partner of the Liverpool firm who had equipped her and shipped her crew, left New Haven and met the Georgia off the coast of France, near Ushant. The cargo of the Allar was successfully transferred to the Georgia on the 8th or 9th of April; her crew consisted of British subjects. The Allar put into Plymouth on the 11th of April, bringing the Liverpool merchant who had directed the proceedings throughout, and bringing also fifteen seamen who had refused to proceed in the Georgia on learning her real character. The rest of the crew remained. At the time of her departure, the Georgia was registered as the property of a Liverpool merchant, a partner of the firm which shipped the crew. She remained the property of this person until the 23d of June, when the register was cancelled, he notifying the collector of her sale to foreign owners. During this period — namely, from the 1st of April to the 23d of June, — the Georgia, being still registered in the name of a Liverpool merchant, and thus his property, was carrying on war against the United States, with whom we were in alliance. It was while still a British vessel, that she captured and burnt the Dictator, and captured and released under bond the Griswold, the same vessel which had brought corn to the Lancashire sufferers. The crew of the Georgia was paid through the same Liverpool firm. A copy of an advance-note used was to be found in the diplomatic correspondence. The same firm continued to act in this capacity throughout the cruise of the Georgia. After cruising in the Atlantic, and burning and bonding a number of vessels, the Georgia made for Cherbourg, where she arrived on the 28th of October. There was at the time much discontent among the crew. Many deserted, leave of absence was given to others, and their wages were paid all along by the same Liverpool firm. In order to get the Georgia to sea again, the Liverpool firm enlisted, in Liverpool, some twenty seamen, and sent them to Brest. The Georgia left Cherbourg on a second cruise, but having no success she returned to that port, and thence to Liverpool, where her crew have been paid off without any concealment, and the vessel is now laid up. Here, then, was the case of a vessel clandestinely built, fraudulently leaving the port of her con |