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
United States (United States) 14 0 Browse Search
England (United Kingdom) 8 0 Browse Search
Meade 7 3 Browse Search
France (France) 6 0 Browse Search
Massachusetts (Massachusetts, United States) 6 0 Browse Search
Charles Isaacs 6 0 Browse Search
Bombay (Maharashtra, India) 6 0 Browse Search
Chase 6 4 Browse Search
King 6 0 Browse Search
Robert E. Lee 5 1 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of The Daily Dispatch: March 15, 1864., [Electronic resource]. Search the whole document.

Found 29 total hits in 12 results.

1 2
Lancaster (United Kingdom) (search for this): article 5
pology in the same spirit in which it has been offered, and are truly glad that the matter has been settled in a manner honorable to both parties, and calculated to improve the friendly relations which her Majesty's Government are always anxious to main with the Government of the United States." The tobacco at Richmond. Mr. Layard, in reply to Sir R. Clifton, stated that it was true that her Majesty's Government, on the application of the French Austrian Governments, had consented that those Governments should pass a quantity of tobacco through the blockade, with the approval of the American Government. The tobacco was the property of the Austrian and French Governments, and was in Richmond when the civil war broke out. Her Majesty's Government had not made a similar application for the passing of cotton for the benefit of the distressed operatives of Lancashire. The case of cotton was altogether different, as it was not held by the Government, but by private individuals.
Carnarvon (United Kingdom) (search for this): article 5
be known, and that if the Government have shown proper activity it should also be made clear. The course taken in the House of Commons is therefore not contradictory to the course which I have taken with regard to those papers. Neither is there any difference between the Attorney General and myself, because the objection to the other papers being produced was made on account of the Attorney General, and not on account of the foreign affairs of the country.--[Hear, hear.] The Earl of Carnarvon.--I wish to call your lordships attention to a matter which I think is not of that infinitesimally small character. It relates to a promise which I understood the noble Earl to have given in this House about a week since in reference to a motion which I then made. My motion contained three points. The first was a return of claims made on the American Government by British subjects; and I certainly was astonished to hear that it would take two months to draw up, inasmuch as I believed th
England (United Kingdom) (search for this): article 5
sident disapproves and regrets," and though "the President has reason to believe that the proceedings thus disapproved were taken by the officers concerned under the influence of a patriotic and commendable zeal, yet he has "directed that they shall be censured for this violation, and he will take such other means as may be necessary to prevent a recurrence of the grievance complained of." Mr. Seward closes by announcing that he is "fully determined to make all the amends that are due to Great Britain in the premises. " To these statements Earl Russell promptly responded that "her Majesty's Government accept that apology in the same spirit in which it has been offered, and are truly glad that the matter has been settled in a manner honorable to both parties, and calculated to improve the friendly relations which her Majesty's Government are always anxious to main with the Government of the United States." The tobacco at Richmond. Mr. Layard, in reply to Sir R. Clifton, s
United States (United States) (search for this): article 5
y the Attorney General and the law officers of the Crown. As I recollect it, my statement was not that the production of the correspondence as relating to the United States and this country would be dangerous, but that the Attorney-General was of opinion that its production would lead to incomplete discussion in the House of Commo the House of Commons were at once granted in this House — The fact is that when my noble friend moved for a general account of the number of cases between the United States and this country, I did object, and I said that there were twenty volumes of papers already bound, and matter for twenty volumes more, the production of which onorable to both parties, and calculated to improve the friendly relations which her Majesty's Government are always anxious to main with the Government of the United States." The tobacco at Richmond. Mr. Layard, in reply to Sir R. Clifton, stated that it was true that her Majesty's Government, on the application of the Fr
Laird (search for this): article 5
European intelligence. The last European papers contain some interesting intelligence, from which we make some selections: Lord Russell's Speech on the Detention of the Confederate rams. In the House of Commons, on the 25th ult., the Earl of Derby stated that the Government had promised to lay before the House the correspondence with the Federal Government relative to the seizure of Laird's rams, but had failed to do so.--He asked the reason of this discrepancy: Earl Russell--The statement of the noble Earl would be very striking if he had correctly remembered the facts of the discussion to which he alludes. The noble Earl has represented the case as if I had stated that the production of the correspondence to which he now alludes between Mr. Adams and me was dangerous to the public service, and as if I had been supported in that opinion by the Attorney General and the law officers of the Crown. As I recollect it, my statement was not that the production of the co
Layard (search for this): article 5
ll the amends that are due to Great Britain in the premises. " To these statements Earl Russell promptly responded that "her Majesty's Government accept that apology in the same spirit in which it has been offered, and are truly glad that the matter has been settled in a manner honorable to both parties, and calculated to improve the friendly relations which her Majesty's Government are always anxious to main with the Government of the United States." The tobacco at Richmond. Mr. Layard, in reply to Sir R. Clifton, stated that it was true that her Majesty's Government, on the application of the French Austrian Governments, had consented that those Governments should pass a quantity of tobacco through the blockade, with the approval of the American Government. The tobacco was the property of the Austrian and French Governments, and was in Richmond when the civil war broke out. Her Majesty's Government had not made a similar application for the passing of cotton for the be
Derby (search for this): article 5
European intelligence. The last European papers contain some interesting intelligence, from which we make some selections: Lord Russell's Speech on the Detention of the Confederate rams. In the House of Commons, on the 25th ult., the Earl of Derby stated that the Government had promised to lay before the House the correspondence with the Federal Government relative to the seizure of Laird's rams, but had failed to do so.--He asked the reason of this discrepancy: Earl Russell--The statement of the noble Earl would be very striking if he had correctly remembered the facts of the discussion to which he alludes. The noble Earl has represented the case as if I had stated that the production of the correspondence to which he now alludes between Mr. Adams and me was dangerous to the public service, and as if I had been supported in that opinion by the Attorney General and the law officers of the Crown. As I recollect it, my statement was not that the production of the co
Adams (search for this): article 5
the Government had promised to lay before the House the correspondence with the Federal Government relative to the seizure of Laird's rams, but had failed to do so.--He asked the reason of this discrepancy: Earl Russell--The statement of the noble Earl would be very striking if he had correctly remembered the facts of the discussion to which he alludes. The noble Earl has represented the case as if I had stated that the production of the correspondence to which he now alludes between Mr. Adams and me was dangerous to the public service, and as if I had been supported in that opinion by the Attorney General and the law officers of the Crown. As I recollect it, my statement was not that the production of the correspondence as relating to the United States and this country would be dangerous, but that the Attorney-General was of opinion that its production would lead to incomplete discussion in the House of Commons upon partial information, and therefore would be injurious to the
House (search for this): article 5
ch they have pending in a court of law. [Hear.] With regard to the other papers referred to by the noble Earl the case is not quite what he imagines it to be — that papers moved for and refused in the House of Commons were at once granted in this House — The fact is that when my noble friend moved for a general account of the number of cases between the United States and this country, I did object, and I said that there were twenty volumes of papers already bound, and matter for twenty volumes ountry.--[Hear, hear.] The Earl of Carnarvon.--I wish to call your lordships attention to a matter which I think is not of that infinitesimally small character. It relates to a promise which I understood the noble Earl to have given in this House about a week since in reference to a motion which I then made. My motion contained three points. The first was a return of claims made on the American Government by British subjects; and I certainly was astonished to hear that it would take two
R. Clifton (search for this): article 5
to Great Britain in the premises. " To these statements Earl Russell promptly responded that "her Majesty's Government accept that apology in the same spirit in which it has been offered, and are truly glad that the matter has been settled in a manner honorable to both parties, and calculated to improve the friendly relations which her Majesty's Government are always anxious to main with the Government of the United States." The tobacco at Richmond. Mr. Layard, in reply to Sir R. Clifton, stated that it was true that her Majesty's Government, on the application of the French Austrian Governments, had consented that those Governments should pass a quantity of tobacco through the blockade, with the approval of the American Government. The tobacco was the property of the Austrian and French Governments, and was in Richmond when the civil war broke out. Her Majesty's Government had not made a similar application for the passing of cotton for the benefit of the distressed op
1 2