additional by the Hibernian.
Federal Government, and had lain there for months, and been denied a trial or release unless they took the oath of allegiance. He hoped the Government would take earnest steps in the case at once, and declare what was to be the position of British subjects in the Federal States. Earl Russell said that Lord Carnavon could hardly have read the papers which had been laid on the table, for if he had he would have seen that these cases had been brought under the notice of the Government Neither had he made allowance for the peculiar state of affairs in the United States, which justifies urgent measures. In England Parliament had given Government, in times of difficulty, authority to arrest persons on suspicion, and it had been frequently done without their being brought to trial. This Government had complained of the arbitrary manner in which these arrests had been made by the authority of the President, without legislative sanction. He was no disposed to defend the acts of the United States Government. Congress had decided that the prerogative belonged to the President, and if he believed that parties were engaged in treasonable conspiracy, as alleged, he (Lord Russell) did not see how Her Majesty's Government could interfere with a practice absolutely necessary, although it was exercised with unnecessary harshness. The American Government alleged they had undoubted proof of the complicity of these persons in conspiracies. This, Her Majesty's Government was not in a position to contradict, but they had entered strong remonstrances against the manner in which the arrests were made and the prisoners treated. The case of these persons would be earnestly watched by them. Earl Maimesbury, in asking for the papers connected with the blockade, complained that the Times had deliberately represented that Earl Derby advocated its being forcibly raised. He approved of the conduct of the Government, and the question was one for them alone to decide, but it was desirable to know what was the real state of the blockade. He expressed doubts of the policy of the declarations of Paris in 1856, and did not believe they would or could be carries out in great wars, when circumstances would be too strong for abstract principles. Earl Russell said that on the first night he was glad to find that the noble Earl opposite had approved of the conduct of the Government; and the country must feel confidence when all its leading men were agreed. The papers were now being printed. They would be in their Lordships' hands before long, and he hoped they would reserve their opinions till then, considering the importance of the question. In the House of Commons, on the 10th inst., Mr. C bden gave notice that at an early day he intended to bring under the consideration of the House the state of international and maritime laws as it affects the rights of neutrals. The London Daily News reviews the engagement at Mill Spring, Kentucky, as a genuine and important Federal success, and thinks if, as it may reasonably hope, that the Federal troops engaged in it may be taken as more tentative specimens of the Union army, as it has become under McClellan, the result of rapid and decisive action cannot be doubted. The diplomatic correspondence concerning the intervention in Mexico has been laid before Parliament. The Times, in an editorial article on Burnsides Expedition, says the force engaged is plainly inadequate to the service expected; and if Burnside wishes success, he will entrench himself, establish a good base of operations, and a wait reinforcements before running the risk of penetrating the enemy's country. Earl Russell in a letter to Sir Charles Wyke touching the rumor that the Archduke Maximilian would be called to the throne of Mexico, says:--If the Mexican people, by a spontaneous movement, place the Austrian Archduke on the throne, there is nothing in the Convention to prevent it; on the other hand, we could be no parties to forcible intervention for this purpose.