§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is prepared to propose the grant of any compensation to Captain Blakeley for the loss occasioned to him by the detention, without cause, of the vessel Gibraltar;" and whether the Government will lay upon the table the depositions or informations upon which the Government acted in that case? In the business-like state of the House [there were but fourteen hon. Members present] he owed an apology, perhaps, for bringing the matter forward. But he did so because he be- 988 lieved the interests of a meritorious individual had suffered at the hands of the Government. The facts of the case were very simple. Captain Blakeley shipped two guns to a neutral foreign port on board the Gibraltar at Liverpool. They were fort guns, weighing twenty one tons each, and therefore could not possibly be used for the armament of any ship, much less a small schooner like the Gibraltar. In fact, it would have been impossible to use use them on board the Duke of Wellington. Upon the 10th of June the Government, acting, he believed, upon the information furnished by Mr. Adams, sent down to stop the ship from going to sea. There was no doubt such a step was legal, but whether in this case it was not an extreme exercise of the power was a point which he should like to submit to the Solicitor General. If the detention of the ship had been but for two or three days, until some competent person had ascertained that there was no ground for the supposition that those huge guns could be used for the armament of the ship, there would have been no ground of complaint. But, instead of that, the vessel was detained from June 10 to June 30, and he was told that even then she would not have been released had not the matter been accidentally mentioned in that House. A telegram was sent down the next day, and the detainer of the collector of customs was taken off. She had been detained upon the supposition that these enormous guns could be used for the armament of the ship, but the real truth was that the American Minister was desirous of preventing the Gibraltar putting to sea with those guns, which might, through some neutral port, eventually find their way into the Confederate States. Captain Blakeley had lost considerably by the act, not only by demurrage, in failing to comply with a contract, but an impression had gone abroad among those who had employed him, not only in the Confederate States but in all parts of the world, that he was the object of special aversion to the American Ambassador, and that the American Ambassador had the power, through the British Government, of interrupting his trade. He (Lord Robert Cecil) had been assured by Captain Blakeley that orders to a large extent which would naturally have been given to him had been sent to France in consequence of this act of the Government. The French trader stood in a fortunate position as compared with our mer- 989 chants. Our Government had a policy, which was to stand up boldly for the rights of Englishmen when a weak Power was in question; but when they had to deal with a strong or combative power like America, their enthusiasm and valour wasted away. [Viscount PALMERSTON: The Trent affair.] The noble Lord referred to the Trent affair. That subject had been invaluable to the Government, for they had traded on it ever since. Every act of concession, every act of mean submission to which the Government had consented since then had been excused by a reference to the Trent affair. But anybody who looked back to that affair would see that the action of the Government was neither so prompt nor so decided as they wished their countrymen to believe. It was only when they discovered the intensity of the indignation felt by Englishmen of all opinions and creeds, that they felt themselves bound at the peril of their places to take those active measures of which they had since made such judicious use. But the Emperor of the French laid under no such suspicions. The Emperor, undoubtedly, defended the interests of his subjects against weak Powers, but he also defended them against strong Powers; and the result had been that a large portion of the trade which our countrymen, in consequence of their superior skill and energy, would otherwise have possessed, bad been carried to France, because merchants and shipowners knew, that happen what might, the American Government would not dare to commit an outrage upon the French flag. There were many sufferers in this country from that feeling, and none greater than Captain Blakeley, who, as he was informed, had lost from £20,000 to £30,000 in consequence of the action of the British Government. [A laugh] The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) laughed at that statement. He did not pro fess to have seen the accounts; but if there was anything in the general opinion that any guns manufactured by Captain Blakeley would be stopped at the instance of the American Ambassador, even the hon. Member for Sheffield would admit that such an opinion would be very prejudicial to a man's business. It was true that Captain Blakeley might have a right of action in a law court, and no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not fail to advance that argument; but the cost of legal proceedings was so enormous, and the facilities for lengthening them out and carrying a case 990 from court to court were so illimitable, that the Government, if they chose to use the power of their long purse, might break any law with impunity. Captain Blakeley had his remedy, undoubtedly; but in getting it the Government could put him to such enormous expense that probably, as a prudent man, he would find it more judicious to remain silent. But, having done him that injury by their own act, the Government ought to deviate from the strict legal right, and make some compensation to a gentleman who had been the victim of their mistaken action. He hoped the Government would make no objection to laying on the table the informations or depositions on which they had acted. There was a great desire to know who it was that had set the Government in motion. By producing the depositions they might possibly free themselves from the suspicion of having acted on the information of spies furnished by the American Government; but if they refused them, they would certainly be liable to that suspicion. He bad been strongly pressed to ask, too, for the opinions of the Law Officers; but he should not make the request, as he was aware that the Government would be supported by the usages of the House in refusing to grant it. But, if he was not misinformed, those opinions had not been used merely for the information of the Cabinet, but had been sent down to the authorities of the Customs, and had there been converted, as it were, into the orders of the Government to their subordinates. If that were the case, they had lost the sacredness of their character, and no longer possessed the privilege of secrecy. He was told, too, that these opinions went beyond the law of the case, and contained suggestions on matters of policy. If the House allowed a practice to grow up of turning the opinions of the Law Officers, which were never made public, into orders to the subordinate officers of the Government, and of introducing into them suggestions of policy as well as mere opinions on matters of law, it would in time find many matters withdrawn from its cognizance which ought to have been submitted to it. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to contradict the rumour to which he referred, and would be able to promise that some compensation should be given to Captain Blakeley.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMy answer to the noble Lord's Question will be very simple, and I am afraid very dry. The case of Captain 991 Blakeley is in no way before me, I have no official knowledge of it, and it would be absurd in the Finance Minister to propose a grant of compensation to a person from whom or on whose behalf no appeal has been made, and who he has therefore no reason to believe had suffered any wrong. That is really the only answer I have to give to the first part of the noble Lord's Question. With regard to the latter part of the Question, it had escaped my notice, or I should have referred to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I am not able to answer it, but I should say that it is an entirely unusual course to produce such informations or depositions. The noble Lord has mode a mistake in putting this Question to me, and in making it the vehicle of an attack upon the general policy of the Government in respect to America, and particularly in reference to the Trent. He would have done better to call the attention to these matters of the proper departments which have cognizance of such things, than to put a question to the Finance Minister, who has no departmental knowledge of the circumstances, and whose only accidental connection with it is, that as it involves a matter of money, it may some time or other come under his consideration, and also that the Treasury is the medium for transmitting to the Customs authorities the instructions received from the Foreign Office. The Foreign Office is the Department which is responsible for taking the judgment of the Law Officers, and it is the Foreign Office which directs all proceedings in such matters. The Foreign Office forms conclusions, and the Treasury transmits those conclusions to the Customs authorities. As far as my information goes as to this case, it is at variance entirely with the statement of the noble Lord. If I am not misinformed, the Government did not volunteer any interference in the case of the Gibraltar. An inquiry was addressed to them by parties connected with her to know whether the guns would be of themselves a cause for the detention of the vessel. No time was lost in investigating the point, and at the earliest possible moment a clearance was given to her. In point of fact, there was no delay in her departure for which the Government can be responsible. When I heard the description given by the noble Lord of the Trent case, of which I know something, I became a little suspicious of the circumstances of the Gibraltar, of which I know 992 nothing. A more complete, entire, and absolute misconstruction and misrepresentation than the noble Lord has given of the conduct of the Government in reference to the Trent it is impossible to conceive. On the part of the Government I entirely repudiate the charge of truckling to the United States. The Government have acted towards the United States with feelings more liberal and more just than those displayed by the noble Lord, who seems to have entered into this question in a spirit of the most decided partisanship. It has been the duty of the Government in difficult and complicated circumstances to steer an even course, and they have endeavoured to steer that course. They have been taken to task in this House and out of it for their slowness in putting the principles of the Foreign Enlistment Act into operation on behalf of the Government of the United States, and now the noble Lord more rudely attacks them for sacrificing the interests of this country in deference to the United States. We appeal to the public from the noble Lord, and I feel perfectly convinced that the public will give us credit for an honest endeavour to do our duty and for being incapable of the conduct which the noble Lord imputes to us when he says our principle and policy are to bully the weak Powers of the world and truckle to the strong.