hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
French Forrest 25 1 Browse Search
United States (United States) 20 0 Browse Search
C. L. Vallandigham 18 0 Browse Search
Thomas J. Jackson 14 2 Browse Search
Privates Adams 12 0 Browse Search
Hooker 11 3 Browse Search
George B. McClellan 10 0 Browse Search
Barksdale 9 1 Browse Search
France (France) 8 0 Browse Search
Richmond (Virginia, United States) 7 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: May 13, 1863., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 47 total hits in 23 results.

1 2 3
Roeback (search for this): article 13
The late debate in the British Parliament. a charge on the Yankee race by Mr. Roeback--they are Uncivilized, and unfit to Receive International Court sales. In the House of Commons, on the — thault., Mr. Roebuck said he wished to ask a question of great importance. [Hear, hear] He alluded to the proceedings of an Admiral in the United States service, with respect to an English merchant ship going from an English port to a neutral port. [Hear, hear,] He wished to preface his question with one or two observations. Mr. Knightly rose, amid some confusion, to put it to the speaker, whether the honorable and learned member was not infringing the rules of the House. [Cries of "good" addressed to Mr. Roebuck, followed this interruption.] Lord Palmerston interposed. He said, "May I be just allowed to answer my honorable and learned friend's question?" [Loud laughter.] Speech of Mr. Roebuck. I know the noble Lord is an older man than I am; but still, ol
H. Cairns (search for this): article 13
ough in the Government to leave the matter in their hands. With regard to the conveyance of the mails the question had not been fairly represented to the merchants, who had requested that a mail agent should be placed on board vessels carrying mails to Mexico, or that they should be relieved of the obligation of carrying them lest they should be likely to be seized from having hostile correspondence in the mails, and in compliance the Government had relieved them of the obligation. Sir H. Cairns asked if it was to be understood that vessels carrying mails to a neutral port were regarded as liable to seizure on account of the correspondence in the mails? If that principle was to be laid down the mail packet between Dever and Calais was liable to be seized by an American cruiser. Mr. Malins, in common with all English men, was humiliated at the unaccountable timidity of Government in not making the rights of English merchants respecting, and in protecting English vessels in
A. Churchill (search for this): article 13
would rise in his place and say that the pretensions of the Federal Government were unjustifiable. Lord Taunton could not agree in any censure on the Government, which, as long as it pursued the same dignified and prudent course, would, whatever was the result, be supported by all classes. In reply to Earl Maimesbury, Earl Russell said that he would endeavor to lay on the table the opinion of the law officers of the crown on Monday. In the House of Commons, on the 24th, Lord A. Churchill asked whether merchant ships in the prosecution of a voyage between neutral ports would be legally justified in defending themselves by the use of arms from capture by the cruisers of the Federal States. The Solicitor-General said that merchant ships under the circumstances mentioned would certainly not be justified in defending themselves from capture by the use of arms. If any such attempt were made on the part of merchant ships it would expose them not only to capture, but to j
Peacock (search for this): article 13
not to be passed over tacitly, but called for a strong expression of opinion from Government. Mr. R. Crawford said that at the proper time lie he was prepared to go into the case of the Peterhoff; but after the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, it would be most improper and dangerous, considering the character of the subject, to continue the debate on the present occasion. He must express his regret for the language of the honorable member from Sheffield. Mr. Peacock said it was very inconvenient to discuss a question of such importance without having more authentic information than a newspaper correspondence. He therefore moved an amendment for the production of all the official correspondence relating to the matter. Mr. Newdegate denounced Mr. Roebuck's language. Mr. Layard deprecated a continuance of the discussion, and hoped that the House had confidence enough in the Government to leave the matter in their hands. With regard to the co
Dever (search for this): article 13
s carrying mails to Mexico, or that they should be relieved of the obligation of carrying them lest they should be likely to be seized from having hostile correspondence in the mails, and in compliance the Government had relieved them of the obligation. Sir H. Cairns asked if it was to be understood that vessels carrying mails to a neutral port were regarded as liable to seizure on account of the correspondence in the mails? If that principle was to be laid down the mail packet between Dever and Calais was liable to be seized by an American cruiser. Mr. Malins, in common with all English men, was humiliated at the unaccountable timidity of Government in not making the rights of English merchants respecting, and in protecting English vessels in, their legitimate trade. The mail question. In the House of Lords, on the 24th, Lord Ridesdale referred to Mr. Seward's instructions to the naval officers of the United States cruisers, directing that the mails should not be
Malins (search for this): article 13
ation of carrying them lest they should be likely to be seized from having hostile correspondence in the mails, and in compliance the Government had relieved them of the obligation. Sir H. Cairns asked if it was to be understood that vessels carrying mails to a neutral port were regarded as liable to seizure on account of the correspondence in the mails? If that principle was to be laid down the mail packet between Dever and Calais was liable to be seized by an American cruiser. Mr. Malins, in common with all English men, was humiliated at the unaccountable timidity of Government in not making the rights of English merchants respecting, and in protecting English vessels in, their legitimate trade. The mail question. In the House of Lords, on the 24th, Lord Ridesdale referred to Mr. Seward's instructions to the naval officers of the United States cruisers, directing that the mails should not be opened when seized on board any ship, but should be either given up to t
Derby (search for this): article 13
States Government either claimed the right of opening and using the mails, or expected that the English Consul should do so, and hand over to them any correspondence which they suspected. He wished to know if it was with these instructions the noble Earl had expressed himself satisfied. Earl Russell, who was all but inaudible, was understood to say that this order had been modified, but that the practice was in a great degree sanctioned by the decision of Lord Stowell. The Earl of Derby said that nothing could be more monstrous than this claim on the part of the American Government; what was still more astonishing was that her Majesty's Government should in any way acquiesce in it. The Marquis of Claricarde hoped the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration. Lord Chelmsford asked if there was any truth in the report that four more British vessels had been seized, as stated in the evening papers. Earl Russell said that Government had re
Knightly (search for this): article 13
a charge on the Yankee race by Mr. Roeback--they are Uncivilized, and unfit to Receive International Court sales. In the House of Commons, on the — thault., Mr. Roebuck said he wished to ask a question of great importance. [Hear, hear] He alluded to the proceedings of an Admiral in the United States service, with respect to an English merchant ship going from an English port to a neutral port. [Hear, hear,] He wished to preface his question with one or two observations. Mr. Knightly rose, amid some confusion, to put it to the speaker, whether the honorable and learned member was not infringing the rules of the House. [Cries of "good" addressed to Mr. Roebuck, followed this interruption.] Lord Palmerston interposed. He said, "May I be just allowed to answer my honorable and learned friend's question?" [Loud laughter.] Speech of Mr. Roebuck. I know the noble Lord is an older man than I am; but still, older as he is, he will not take me in that way. [A la
Hardwick (search for this): article 13
re British vessels had been seized, as stated in the evening papers. Earl Russell said that Government had received information that vessels had been seized in the act of breaking the blockade. He wished to explain that, in answer to Lord Lyons, Mr. Seward had written a letter to Mr. Wells modifying the instructions issued by the latter to the officers of the Federal navy, and it was to this letter he referred. He would, however, consult the law officers of the crown. The Earl of Hardwick said that the vacillation shown by the Government would, as a matter of course, be attributed to fear. He hoped that the Secretary of State would rise in his place and say that the pretensions of the Federal Government were unjustifiable. Lord Taunton could not agree in any censure on the Government, which, as long as it pursued the same dignified and prudent course, would, whatever was the result, be supported by all classes. In reply to Earl Maimesbury, Earl Russell said that h
Joseph Wells (search for this): article 13
any way acquiesce in it. The Marquis of Claricarde hoped the Government would take the matter into their serious consideration. Lord Chelmsford asked if there was any truth in the report that four more British vessels had been seized, as stated in the evening papers. Earl Russell said that Government had received information that vessels had been seized in the act of breaking the blockade. He wished to explain that, in answer to Lord Lyons, Mr. Seward had written a letter to Mr. Wells modifying the instructions issued by the latter to the officers of the Federal navy, and it was to this letter he referred. He would, however, consult the law officers of the crown. The Earl of Hardwick said that the vacillation shown by the Government would, as a matter of course, be attributed to fear. He hoped that the Secretary of State would rise in his place and say that the pretensions of the Federal Government were unjustifiable. Lord Taunton could not agree in any censu
1 2 3