§ MR. HALIBURTONrose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for information relative to the capture of a ship under the Confederate flag, by a Federal vessel of war, within the harbour of Pankbar, in Nova Scotia, and under the guns of the fort; whether complaint had been made of this outrage to the Government of the United States, and, if so, what answer had been given thereto; and to move an address for copies of correspondence thereon? The hon. and learned Member said, that the vessel in question was sailing from one port to another of the United States, when she was captured by a body of men on board who claimed to be Confederates holding commissions from the Confederate authorities. She was afterwards brought to a port and received certain supplies and shipped a certain number of men. She then proceeded further towards Nova Scotia, and finally entered the harbour of Pankbar. While there she was pursued by an American man-of-war, captured, and carried to Halifax, where she was given up to the Admiralty. He did not wish to inquire as to whether a piratical act had been committed, nor did he want to inquire into the subsequent proceedings of the Court of Admiralty at Halifax. What he wished to know was whether any complaint had been made, on 824 the part of this country, of the capture to which he referred; and, if so, what reply had been returned on the subject by the Federal Government. The outrage itself was one about which there could be no dispute; and it was well that it was so, for there had been exhibited by the American authorities a carelessness in their statements of facts and a looseness in their preparation of public documents in those instances which, he would simply say— for he did not like to use harsh or coarse language—contrasted very unfavourably with the accuracy which we displayed. In support of that view, he might mention that in a case which occurred off the West Indies, where a Federal man-of-war chased a vessel ashore and fired broadside after broadside into her at a distance of only 300 yards, it was maintained on the part of the Americans—nay, sworn—that the vessel was at the time three leagues away, and nothing but the production of the shot and fragments of the shell could convince them that they were wrong. In the same careless manner it was asserted, on their part, in the case in which a vessel was seized near the Cape of Good Hope and the mate shot by one of the American officers, that it was all a matter of the purest accident; that the officer had presented the pistol by accident, that it went off by accident, and that by accident the man was killed. He alluded to these cases in illustration of the carelessness to which he had just adverted; but, in the present instance, the facts were too strong and too well authenticated to admit of denial. The capture of the vessel was well known to the inhabitants of a large fishing village in the vicinity of the spot where the seizure took place; it occurred under the guns of the neighbouring fort, in view of two regiments, and while the vessel was within 300 yards of the shore. But the case was one which only afforded a single illustration in connection with a very painful subject. It was a source of constant complaint that vessels lawfully trading with the Bermudas and Nassau were condemned by the American Prize Courts without rhyme or reason; and although the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Palmerston), the other evening, passed a high eulogium on the American Courts, stating that they were very impartial, and that this country ought to be satisfied with their decisions, yet he must be allowed to remark that that was the very reverse of the opinion which was generally entertained with respect to them. 825 Indeed, the Americans themselves did not speak very highly of them; and it was, therefore, no harm to say, that while the Supreme Court in America had ever since the days of Washington borne the highest character for the intelligence, learning, and ability of its members, the decisions of the inferior Courts, whose Judges were generally chosen for political objects, and because of the political opinions which they held, were beneath contempt, and, to use the language of Americans themselves, not to be trusted. There was, therefore, not unnaturally a very general feeling among the colonists, that when their property was seized by the Federal vessels, it was very often wrested from them by the ruling of those inferior Courts in defiance of law and reason. They felt, moreover, that the Americans were a people who would just go as far as they were allowed, and that when they took a step they were disposed to go a step further if not checked. They saw that the Americans were constantly making inroads into Canada in pursuit of deserters, at whom they fired, and sometimes captured and took back—for such things were repeatedly done, although we learnt nothing of their occurrence from the public prints or from the Government; they felt that there was a lawless people in their neighbourhood who were bound by no ties, who disregarded international law, who resorted to violence and force; and it was because the colonists felt all this, that he had deemed it to be his duty to bring the case of the capture of the vessel, to which his question related, under the notice of the House of Commons.