RETURNS MOVED FOR.

HC Deb 20 February 1862 vol 165 cc526-32

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, he rose to move an Address for Returns relative to the number of vessels that had, during the past six months, broken, or attempted to break the blockade of the Southern ports of America. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would see the propriety of laying those Returns on the table. Unless they were produced, it would be impossible to discuss fully many questions likely to arise in the present unfortunate position of affairs in America. The production of the Returns would go a long way towards enabling them to form an accurate opinion on such questions as the efficiency or non-efficiency of the blockade of the Southern ports, and whether the Government had endeavoured to carry out that policy of neutrality to which it was pledged both by Her Majesty's Proclamation and its own declarations. It was an imperative duty of the Government to furnish the most reliable evidence on all these points. It had been frequently stated that the blockade was ineffective, and that therefore an English fleet ought to be despatched to break it; and an hon. Member had given notice of Jus intention to move a Resolution declaring that the blockade was merely a paper one. Of course to force the blockade meant war with America, and consequently, if such a Resolution were to pass, it would be tantamount to a declaration of war. But he believed that the House was not now in a position to discuss that question, or to adopt such a Resolution; and therefore he asked from the Government the fullest information. As far as the House and the country were informed, there seemed to be no justification for calling the blockade a paper one. On the contrary, the distress which had been occasioned in Lancashire and in Lyons by the dearth of cotton seemed to show that the blockade was most effective. If it were true that the planters, acting under the orders of Mr. Jefferson Davis's Government, refused to sell, in the expectation of forcing the Government of this country to come to the assistance of the Southern States, he hoped no person in that House would consider himself bound to support a policy so selfish, and that the wrath of distressed operatives and sympathizing protectionists would not be directed against the Federal Government. No doubt numbers of vessels had run the blockade, but he submitted that the inference from that was, not that the blockade ought no longer to be recognised, but that the American Government had been unable to accomplish an impossibility—namely, the hermetically Beating of 3,000 miles of coast. The Returns for which he asked referred exclusively to British vessels, and that chiefly for this reason, that according to the statements which had appeared in the newspapers, especially in The Times, it was only British vessels which had run the blockade. No doubt the enterprise of British sailors was to be applauded, but it ought not to be permitted that a spirit emanating from purely selfish motives should set at defiance the policy of neutrality to which Her Majesty's Government had pledged the country. It was notorious that many persons in this country were anxious that the Southern States should be recognised, and imagined that if they could show that the blockade had not been altogether perfect, they could obtain such recognition; but he maintained that the Government could not, without a forfeiture of their consistency and dignity, listen to persons who, having set at defiance the Queen's Proclamation, and run the blockade with vessels laden with munitions of war, adduced this fact as a proof that the blockade was ineffective, and asked the Government to recognise the Southern States, to force the blockade, and, if need were, to declare war against the United States. In the year 1848 measures were adopted to prevent a vessel fitted out for the assistance of the Sicilian Parliament from reaching its destination; but although the attention of the Government had been most publicly called to the fact that vessels were loading in English ports with munitions of war for the Southern States, no steps had been taken to prevent them accomplishing their voyages. An allusion, in a recent letter of Earl Russell's, to what had occurred at the port of Nassau, confirmed a report that vessels notoriously destined for the Southern States, and laden with articles contraband of war, had been permitted by the authorities to enter that port, to refit, and to receive supplies of coal and other necessaries; but if that had occurred, while at the same time vessels belonging to the United States had been refused the necessary supplies, surely the authorities at Nassau deserved some more direct censure than that contained in the letter of the noble Earl. He hoped that the Government would give these papers, and, by doing so, would show their anxiety to afford the fullest possible information, and to maintain friendly relations with the great republic of America. The hon. Member concluded by moving— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return of the number of British Vessels, with the names, as far as can be ascertained, of their Captains and Owners respectively, that have succeeded, within the past six months, in running the Blockade of the Southern Ports of America: Similar Return as to the British Vessels that have been captured or destroyed in the attempt to break the Blockade: And, Return of the number and description of British Vessels, if any, that have put into the Port of Nassau, N. P., and other Colonial Ports, laden with articles contraband of war, and with supplies for the Confederate States, and that have been permitted to refit and supply themselves with stores by the authorities in those places, in contravention of the Queen's Proclamation, and of the neutrality which it is the expressed desire of Her Majesty's Government to uphold.

Question proposed.

MR. LAYARD

said, he regretted he was unable to give the papers asked for by the hon. Member. He did not think it at all desirable to enter into a discussion of the subject of the blockade that evening, seeing that notice of a Motion had been given which would bring the whole matter fully before the House in a few days. He regretted the Motion had been made, when on the next day, or Tuesday at the latest, the whole of the papers on the blockade would be laid upon the table of the House. He must decline to give this particular return, however, for two reasons. The first was, the Government had not the information asked for; and the second, if they had, they would not feel justified in giving it; for it was hardly to be expected that the Government would lay on the table a list of wrong-doers who had broken the blockade, and he was sure the hon. Gentleman would be the last person to wish them to do so. All the information the Government could give would be given in the papers which would be laid on the table immediately. He trusted his reply would be satisfactory to the hon. Member.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Sir, I think it desirable that a few words should be said to correct a total misapprehension of a matter of law into which the hon. Gentleman opposite (The O'Donoghue) has fallen. He implies, by the terms of his notice of Motion, and has more distinctly stated in his speech, that all masters of British merchant vessels who may have run the blockade with articles contraband of war on board have been guilty of illegal acts, in violation of Her Majesty's Proclamation, which the Government of this country, having their intention called to them, ought to have interfered to prevent, but had not done so. He has also suggested that the authorities of the port of Nassau were subject to serious blame for having permitted ships under similar circumstances to call at that port and to take in supplies, and to have the benefit of calling and remaining there when they had on board articles contraband of war, which the hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that Her Majesty's Proclamation had made it illegal for them to have on board, and which, therefore, they could not be permitted to carry without a violation of neutrality. In all these respects the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood the effect of the Proclamation and the law. This country is governed by law, and except as far as Her Majesty's Government have powers by law to control the action of private British subjects, whether masters of ships or others, of course they are perfectly powerless in the matter. The only law which enables Her Majesty's Government to interfere in such cases is the Act commonly called the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the whole nature and scope of that Act is sufficiently and shortly set out in the title. It is— An Act to prevent the enlisting and engagement of Her Majesty's subjects to serve in foreign service, and the fitting out or equipping in Her Majesty's dominions vessels for warlike purposes without Her Majesty's licence. That Act does not touch in any way whatever private merchant vessels, which may carry cargoes, contraband or not contraband, between this country or any of the dominions of Her Majesty and any port in a belligerent country, whether under blockade or not, and the Government of this country, and the Governments of our colonial possessions, have no power whatever to interfere with private vessels under such circumstances. It is perfectly true, that in the Queen's Proclamation there is a general warning at the end, addressed to all the Queen's subjects, that they are not, either in violation of their duty to the Queen as subjects of a neutral Sovereign, or in violation and contravention of the law of nations, to do various things, one of which is carrying articles considered and deemed to be contraband of war, according to law or the modern usages of nations, for the use or service of either of the contending parties. That warning is addressed to them to apprise them, that if they do these things, they will have to undergo the penal consequences by the statute or by the law of nations in that behalf imposed or denounced. In those cases in which the statute is silent the Government are powerless, and the law of nations comes in. The law of nations exposes such persons to have their ships seized and their goods taken and subjected to confiscation, and it further deprives them of the right to look to the Government of their own country for any protection. And this principle of non-interference in things which the law does not enable the Government to deal with, so far from being a violation of the duty of neutrality—which the Government are sincerely anxious to comply with—is in accordance with all the principles which have been laid down by jurists, and more especially by the great jurists of the United States of America. In order that the hon. Gentleman may understand exactly how the case stands, I may be permitted to read a short passage from one of the works of these writers. Wheaton, who, as everybody knows, has written one of the most valuable treatises on the subject that were ever composed, says— It is not the practice of nations to undertake to prohibit their own subjects, by previous laws, from trafficking in articles contraband of war. Such trade is carried on at the risk of those engaged in it, under the liabilities and penalties prescribed by the law of nations, or particular treaties. Wheaton then goes on to justify the conduct of the United States for not interfering to prevent the supply of arms to Texas, then at war with Mexico, and says— The Government was not bound to prevent it, and could not have prevented it without a Manifest departure from the principle of neutrality, and is in no way answerable for the consequences.

Chancellor Kent

in his hardly less admirable work says— It is a general understanding that the Powers at war may seize and confiscate all contraband goods, without any complaint on the part of the neutral merchant, and without any imputation of a breach of neutrality in the neutral Sovereign himself. It was contended, on the part of the French nation in 1796, that neutral Governments were bound to restrain their subjects from selling or exporting articles contraband of war to the belligerent Powers. But it was successfully shown, on the part of the United States, that neutrals may lawfully sell at home to a belligerent purchaser, or carry, themselves, to the belligerent Powers contraband articles, subject to the right of seizure in transitu. This right has since been explicitly declared by the judicial authorities of this country. The right of the neutral to transport, and of the hostile Power to seize, are conflicting rights, and neither party can charge the other with a criminal act. I think, therefore, the House will see very clearly that the Government at home and the colonial authorities at Nassau have taken the only course which it was possible to take consistently with the law of the land—which they were bound in any case to follow—or with the rules established by the law of nations as recognised by the United States themselves.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, he should be sorry to press for the return in opposition to the wishes of the Government. It was evident, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken, and the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, were not quite of one mind. In opposition to the law, as stated by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had alleged, as one reason The Solicitor General for refusing the return, that it would, in fact, be a list of guilty criminals.

MR. LINDSAY

said, he hoped that if any British vessels had, as a matter of fact, been destroyed or captured while endeavouring to break the blockade a statement of the circumstances would be given to the House.

MR. LAYARD

was understood to state that some particulars of the nature referred to would be included in the papers promised by the Government.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.