§ MR. GREGORYsaid, that in consequence of the news which had arrived from America since he had given notice of his question on this subject he had been obliged to alter its wording. Mr. Lincoln had proclaimed a blockade of the ports of the seven Confederated States, and, therefore, it was necessary to ask a question with regard to other two States which were in an attitude of hostility to the United States, although they did not belong to the South. He had to ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary—1st. Whether any attempt of the Government of the United States to levy Federal Dues off Foreign Vessels outside the ports of North Carolina and Virginia before such vessels break 1565 bulk will not be an infringement of International Law, and, if so, whether our Minister at Washington has received instructions to that effect? 2nd. Whether the Government of the United States has been informed that a blockade of any port of the Southern Confederated States, unless effective, will not be recognized? 3rd. The Government of the United States having refused to relinquish the belligerent right of issuing Letters of Marque, the seven Southern Confederated and Sovereign States having become to the United States a separate and independent and foreign Power, whether Her Majesty's Government recognize the right of the President of the Southern Confederacy to issue Letters of Marque, and, if so, whether our Minister at Washington has been notified to that effect?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLSir, in regard to the hon. Gentleman's first question, I have to say that, having consulted the Queen's Advocate with respect to Federal dues to be levied outside the ports of North Carolina and Virginia, he stated to me that the answer to such a question must depend entirely upon the circumstances of the case, and that it could not at all be declared beforehand whether such an attempt to levy dues would be according or contrary to international law. Of course no instructions on that subject have been sent to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington; but I am in a position to state that Lord Lyons is of opinion that such an intention would be found impracticable, and would not be likely to be effective. With respect to the hon. Gentleman's second question, whether the Government of the United States have been informed that a blockade of any port of the Southern Confederacy unless it were effective would not be recognized, I certainly have not felt it necessary to give any instructions to our Minister on that subject. It is well known to Lord Lyons, and it certainly has been declared law by the United States, that no blockade could be recognized or deemed valid unless it were an effective blockade; and I have no doubt that there would be no difference between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States on that point. With regard to the hon. Member's next question as to the belligerent right of issuing letters of marque, I must, in the first place, wait for more explanation, and, in the second place, reserve part of the answer which I have to give. With respect to 1566 belligerent rights in the case of certain portions of a State being in insurrection, there was a precedent which seems applicable to this purpose in the year 1825. The British Government at that time allowed the belligerent rights of the Provisional Government of Greece, and in consequence of that allowance the Turkish Government made a remonstrance. I may state the nature of that remonstrance, and the reply of Mr. Canning. "The Turkish Government complained that the British Government allowed to the Greeks a belligerent character, and observed that it appeared to forget that to subjects in rebellion no national character could properly belong." But the British Government informed Mr. Stratford Canning that "the character of belligerency was not so much a principle as a fact; that a certain degree of force and consistency, acquired by any mass of population engaged in war entitled that population to be treated as a belligerent, and, even if their title were questionable, rendered it the interest well understood of all civilized nations so to treat them; for what was the alternative? A Power or a community (call it which you will) which was at war with another, and which covered the sea with its cruisers, must either be acknowledged as a belligerent, or dealt with as a pirate;" which latter character, as applied to the Greeks, was loudly disclaimed. In a separate despatch of the same date (12th of October, 1825), Sir Stratford Canning was reminded that when the British Government acknowledged the right of either belligerent to visit and detain British merchant vessels having enemy's property on board, and to confiscate such property it was necessarily implied as a condition of such acknowledgment that the detention was for the purpose of bringing the vessels detained before an established Court of Prize, and that confiscation did not take place until after condemnation by such competent tribunal. The question has been under the consideration of the Government. They have consulted the law officers of the Crown. The Attorney and Solicitor General, and the Queen's Advocate and the Government have come to the opinion that the Southern Confederacy of America, according to those principles, which seem to them to be just principles, must be treated as a belligerent. But further questions arise out of that question, with respect to which we are still in doubt—as what are the alterations which are to be made in 1567 the law of nations in consequence of the declaration of Paris; and those questions being of a difficult and intricate nature have not yet been determined upon. They are still under the consideration of the Government, and will be still further considered before any declaration is made to other Powers.