§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDSir, in rising in pursuance to the notice I have given to call the attention of the House to the circumstances attending the capture by Federal cruisers of certain British vessels, namely—the Springbok, the barque Science, captured at Matamoras; the ship Margaret and Jessie, and the Saxon, cap- 502 tured within the jurisdiction of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, and to move an address for Papers which will greatly inform the House both as to the events that have taken place, and as to the conduct which Her Majesty's Government have thought it their duty to pursue; I beg to assure the House that it is far from my intention to make any observations, or to embark in a course of discussion that shall tend in the slightest degree to add to that irritation which unfortunately exists on both sides of the Atlantic. And I shall very much regret if the observations I am about to make should lead to a general discussion of the relations existing between the two countries—relations which at the present moment I fear are far from satisfactory, if not alarming. I am sure there is no Member of the House, who, however much he may desire, when the necessity arises, to assert in his place in Parliament the rights and dignity of his Sovereign and his country, who will not at this time rather allay than increase that irritation which I fear exists between the two countries. Therefore, I shall limit my observations strictly to the subject to which my notice refers. I shall scrupulously avoid alluding even to that correspondence which has passed between the two Governments in reference to the Alabama and the Oreto, her sister ship, on which I think claims have been somewhat inconsiderately urged on the one side, and, at the same time, I am bound to say, properly and justly repudiated on the other. Neither shall I refer to the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the detention of certain vessels in course of construction at Liverpool, nor to the correspondence referring to it. My object on the present occasion has an English interest only. It is to ascertain the details of captures which have made a most painful impression on the public mind; and also to ascertain whether, as I hope will prove to be the case, the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government has been such as becomes a British Government. Before I enter into a consideration of the Question now before us there is one observation I cannot refrain from making. It is this, that I think that during the past Session of Parliament, and even at the commencement of the present Session of Parliament, the House of Commons has not been treated by Her Majesty's Government with that candour, fairness, and frankness to which I think it is entitled. I hold in my hand a collection of papers 503 given by the Government of the United States, at the earliest moment, to the Congress, which omits no one topic which has been the subject of discussion, either as regards the seizing of vessels from British ports, the enlistment of British subjects, in the military and naval service of either belligerent, or the fitting out and arming of vessels in British ports. On all these subjects the Congress were provided by their Government with the earliest and the fullest, and most ample information; but yet here the House of Commons has been left in the dark as to the circumstances that had transpired—circumstances affecting, not only the commercial interests of the country but its honour and dignity. The Government remain perfectly silent until the information is elicited from them by some hon. Member who is prompted by a constituency or by information he has received to make the inquiry. Now that is a wrong principle for the Government to go on; it is not just to the House of Commons, and, what is more, it is not just to themselves; because their position would be stronger, their language much more powerful, if it was known that their opinions were backed by the entire confidence of a House of Commons possessing a full knowledge of everything that is passing. Now, with reference to the cases of the four vessels as to which my notice particularly refers. I again say I wish to learn from the Government the correct circumstances and the course which the Government has pursued. The first case is that of the Margaret and Jessie. During the past Session of Parliament on three several occasions I attempted to obtain information from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on that case; but on those occasions I was answered that I should have the information as soon as Her Majesty's Government obtained it. I have not, however, received it up to this moment. The circumstances of the Margaret and Jessie are these. She is not a British vessel but a Confederate vessel, owned by a Confederate citizen; she was pursued by one of the Federal cruisers into British waters, and for an hour and a half the pursuit was kept up within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty and within the territorial dominion of this country. The Federal cruiser threw shot and shell into the Confederate vessel, and ultimately, after an hour and a half's chase within the limits of English jurisdiction, and at no time more than 400 or 500 yards from the 504 land, a shot hit the Confederate vessel, damaged her machinery, and she sunk at a spot not more than 300 yards from one of the Bahamas. The position also was such that the shot and shell sent from the Federal cruiser passed over the Confederate vessel and went crashing into a plantation adjoining the village, on British soil, so that the inhabitants, in fear for their safety, were obliged to quit their habitations and take refuge at a distance. I think that is a most glaring instance of the recklessness which individual commanders in the Federal service have in several cases exhibited in the pursuit of their enemy, and of their total disregard of the rights of other Powers, and a stronger one could not be given. Now, Sir, I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government, what course they have pursued on this subject; and I wish to know if they have placed all the depositions which are in their possession, or which can be procured, before the Federal Government; and whether they have demanded from that Government the satisfaction for this breach of territorial independence of their country to which they are entitled. I am quite aware that the British Government are in possession of those depositions and the correspondence of the Governor of Bahama on the subject; and I further ask the Government for copies of all correspondence with the Governor of the Bahama islands, and all correspondence between the owners of the Margaret and Jessie and the Government of the United States and its representative in London on this subject.
The next case as to which I desire information, is that of a vessel called the Springbok. The first course adopted by the American Government, in order to put down the trade that had grown up between certain British and neutral ports and the Confederate States, was to capture every vessel they could catch, on the plea that she was about to break the blockade, though really she was bound to a neutral port. I will not say one word with reference to the trade that has sprung up between Nassau and other neutral ports and the Confederate ports. I regret myself the existence of that trade; but, at the same time, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office having in effect said that the trade as far as Nassau was as legitimate as the trade with Liverpool, I or any other port in these islands, it was impossible for the Government to allow it to be interfered with by any process contrary 505 to international law. In the case of the Springbok, the Prize Court in the State of New York assumed a position which Prize Courts in the United States had never previously attempted to occupy. The decision of the Prize Court of New York is such that it has not only attracted the attention of all engaged in commercial pursuits in this country, but it has attracted the attention of lawyers and of governments abroad. One of the most eminent lawyers in Paris, closely connected with the Foreign Office of France, has stated the views of the Government of France with reference to the doctrine laid down by the Prize Court in the case of the Springbok; because it does not only concern the Government and the commercial community of this country, but concerns every neutral and maritime power, whose rights are grossly outraged. I do not think it desirable to enter into a discussion on the merits of these decisions, or that the House should constitute itself into a Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Courts of the United States. But it is of importance to call attention to the statement made by M. Vignaud, that this decision involves three important and flagrant violations of international law. First, the arbitrary assimilation and reducing of goods, the subjects of commerce, to what are called contraband of war; secondly, the arbitrary seizure of the whole of the cargo, because amongst it there might be some small articles considered to be contraband; thirdly, the seizure and illegal confiscation of neutral property, under a neutral flag, between two neutral ports, under the pretext that the cargo had an ultimate destination to a belligerent port. If there are three such points as this, is it not time for the Government, not only to make reclamations of right, but to state their opinion that these doctrines are contrary to those hitherto understood and accepted as international law; and that in allowing the case to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, they are not to be understood as giving their adhesion to such questionable doctrines. I wish, therefore, to know from Her Majesty's Government what course they have taken in reference to the decision given by Judge Betts in the Prize Court; and I wish also to ask for copies of the correspondence between the owners of the Springbok and Her Majesty's Government, and between Lord Lyons and the Government of the United States, with reference to the judgment the Prize Court has given.
506 The third case is that of the Science, a vessel seized in the waters of Matamoras. This is another remarkable instance showing how the officers of Federal ships have step by step encroached on the rights of neutrals and the principles of international law. The case of the Science is this: She was a British vessel owned at Waterford; she took a cargo for Matamoras, consigned to British merchants resident there. Previous to her capture she had been at Matamoras ten weeks, and had been boarded by several Federal men of war. During that time she had disembarked all her cargo, and it had been sent to Matamoras, and at the time of her capture was in the customhouse in the custody of the Mexican authorities. No doubt could be entertained that the vessel was neutral: she carried a neutral cargo, and there could be no doubt as to her destination, as she was then at her destination and her cargo discharged. On the 5th of November she was seized by the Federal cruiser Virginia, on the ground that the cargo that she had brought was intended for the use of the Confederate Government, although that cargo was then on neutral ground in charge of a neutral Government. The Science was at the time of her seizure engaged in loading a cargo of cotton and hides, which again was neutral property, for this country. She was nevertheless seized by the Government of the United States, and was carried off to New Orleans, where her master and crew were set on shore without money, and without protection, and without any attention being shown to them by any person connected with the Federal Government; and the return cargo at this moment is left to abide the decision of the Prize Court, on the plea that she had brought to a neutral port neutral property which might ultimately reach the hands of the Confederate Government. Now, I think a more outrageous breach of every doctrine of the law of nations could not be mentioned. Therefore I beg the Government to say, whether the facts I have stated are correct, and whether they are prepared to give the House the fullest information as regards these facts, and the course the Government have pursued with reference to them?
The last case to which I have to call the attention of the House is that of the Saxon, which was captured by the notorious cruiser the Vanderbilt in waters which are within the jurisdiction of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. This is a case to which I cannot refer without a feeling of 507 pain—I had almost said without a feeling of irritation—for it has resulted in one unfortunate British subject, in his own vessel, under a British flag, in the execution of his duty, and within the jurisdiction of the British Crown and in British waters, being murdered by a person claiming to he a Federal officer. The case of the Saxon is this:—She left Table Bay on the 2nd September last with a cargo of cattle for Ascension, which she reached on the 17th of the month. She proceeded, by orders, from Ascension to Angra Pequina, an island which has been declared by proclamation within the jurisdiction of the Cape of Good Hope. I believe it is stated by the American Government that that proclamation was not officially furnished to them. Whether this is so or not, it will not alter the fact, that on board a British vessel, under a British flag, a British sailor has been murdered by the intemperate conduct of a Federal officer. The Saxon arrived at Angra Pequina in ballast, and the captain received orders to take in a cargo of skins and wool. It was taken from the beach by the crew and some men, but no men belonging to the Atlas were so employed. The importance of this observation is derived from the fact that the Atlas had brought a cargo of coal to the island, which was believed to be for the use of the Confederate cruisers. The Saxon had completed her loading, and was preparing for sea, when on the morning of the 30th October the captain observed a large steamer, which proved to be the Federal cruiser Vanderbilt The cruiser sent an armed boat to the Saxon in charge of Beldon, the senior, and Donoghan, the junior officer. The crew made no resistance. They were told to go below. As Mr. Gray, the mate, was going down the ladder, the American officer Donoghan gave him a push. The mate was turning round to see who pushed him, but was making no resistance. He was unarmed, and had no weapon in his hand. But the American officer deliberately drew his revolver and shot him dead on the spot. There has appeared in the papers a letter purporting to be from Her Majesty's Government to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen, the effect of which was that the Government had represented to the Government of the United States that if the circumstances were as they were represented, it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the American officer ought to be put on his trial for murder. I 508 wish to know if the circumstances I have stated are correct, and if that is so, then I say that the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, as represented in the letter I have referred to, is a course not sufficient for the occasion, and unworthy of their position as a British Government. When under the flag of this country, and in British waters, an English subject is brutally murdered, without excuse, offering no resistance, is it sufficient for the Government to say there is good ground, in their opinion, for putting the Federal officer on his trial? Ought not their language rather to have been—"We send you the fullest information we have; if it is correct, we demand as a right that the officer shall be put upon his trial, and receive the punishment his crime deserves?" As regards all these four cases, I have put them fully before the House in no spirit of hostility, but with a view to obtaining clear information as to the spirit in which the Government have acted, and I trust that we shall find their conduct has been such as becomes a British Government and a British nation.
§
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence with the Governor of the Bahama Islands, with reference to the sinking of the Margaret and Jessie in British waters.
Of all Correspondence with the owners of the Margaret and Jessie.
Of all Correspondence with the Government of the United States, or their Representative in London, or Lord Lyons, on the same subject.
Of all Correspondence between the owners of the Springbok and Her Majesty's Government, and also between Lord Lyons and the Government of the United States, with reference to the judgment of the Admiralty Court at New York.
And, of all Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the owners of the vessels the Science and the Saxon, and of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States on the same subject,"—(Mr. Seymour Fitz-Gerald,)
—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE ATTORNEY GENERALSir, I shall have no difficulty in giving the House such information as, I am sure, the House will desire to receive consistently with the course of the negotiations going on with the United States. In the first place, with 509 regard to the Margaret and Jessie, I believe that the hon. gentleman's account is substantially accurate. He may rest satisfied both that the Government have taken the course that might have been expected from them, and also that the answer received from the United States tends at least to show no insensibility on their part as to what it would become them to do, assuming the facts related by the hon. Member to be made out to their satisfaction. The hon. Gentleman says he referred to this subject last Session, and was told by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, that at that time the Government had not received sufficient information. The fact, I believe, is, it was not until a subsequent period that the correspondence commenced, and then on the facts reported to the Government a communication was immediately made to Mr. Seward, who referred to Captain Trenchard, the commander of the Federal cruiser. Captain Trenchard denied that he had chased a Confederate vessel at all within British jurisdiction. At the same time, Mr. Seward said that if it should appear that any act of hostility or pursuit had been committed within the maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain the act would be disavowed, and ample redress would be promptly given. After a short time had been given to the American Government for inquiry, Her Majesty's Government informed Mr. Seward that the facts as originally stated by them had been confirmed by subsequent reports, and they mentioned the circumstance of the balls having struck objects on the shore as making it certain that the firing had taken place within our territorial jurisdiction, and urged that the matter might receive the most prompt attention. Early in September a verbal communication, stating that the matter was still the subject of inquiry, was received from Mr. Seward, and subsequently he applied to Lord Lyons for a copy of the evidence which had been laid before Her Majesty's Government on the question. That was sent in November or December last, and on the 20th of January, Mr. Seward, acknowledging its receipt, said the evidence would receive the most attentive consideration; and if it could be done with due regard to justice and the honour of the United States, it would give the President pleasure to make such a decision as would give satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government; but if further investigation was required, then they reserved to themselves the right to make that in- 510 vestigation. I think, therefore, the House will see that Her Majesty's Government have taken exactly the same course with respect to this Confederate vessel as if it had belonged to one of Her Majesty's own subjects. Of course, when there is a controversy as to facts, we cannot, in a highhanded manner, insist at once on a decision being taken on the statement of one side only: we cannot refuse further inquiry, however confident we may be that the evidence is sufficient, or that the investigation, if fairly conducted, can have only one result.
Now, I come to the second case, which is that of the Springbok; and here I must remind the House how unadvisable it is that questions which are pending before judicial tribunals should be made the subject of discussion here, not only on account of the difficulty which hon. Members must feel in judging questions which, after all, are questions of law, and require some study and knowledge to understand, but because you will be prejudicing the parties concerned if you enter into a premature discussion of the merits of each case. The case of the Springbok has been decided in the Prize Court of the First Jurisdiction, and is now under appeal to the Superior Court. I shall, therefore, take the liberty of saying that, in the remarks which I propose to make, I shall neither state the substance of any representations which, from such imperfect information as we have had, may have been made by Her Majesty's Government; nor, on the other hand, do I intend to express any opinion whatever as to the facts of the case. But with regard to the principles of the judgment of the United States' Prize Court, I should be ashamed of myself if I were not to do justice to that Court, and to the Judge' who presides over it, whatever criticisms and comments may have been made by any writer on the other side of the Channel. Her Majesty's Government have been only very recently supplied with full copies of the judgment pronounced in that case—so recently that I think it not impossible that the French writer to whom my hon. Friend referred, may have proceeded upon some other information than the printed judgment of the learned Judge. But, be that as it may, we all know very well that the French writers do not accept in all respects the same views of maritime and international law which have always prevailed in this country. No doubt if we were to accept their judgment with respect to the decisions of Lord 511 Stowell during the last French war, we should say that the greater part of the law laid down by that eminent and learned Judge is wrong. And I will repeat that, though in the judgments of the United States' Prize Court there may be passages open to criticism upon matters of legal theory, and although I am far from saying that they have always applied the principles of law correctly to the facts of the case, yet I am not aware of one single decision pronounced during the war in any one of those courts which does not bear upon the face of it signs of an honest intention to administer the law as received in the United States; and the case of the Springbok is no exception to that rule. In all the three points to which my hon. Friend has referred, whether or no the principles were rightly applied to the facts and evidence, the decision come to was based on principles, be they right or be they wrong, which were principles of our own Prize Courts in the war with France. In the first place, my hon. Friend has said that the presence of a limited quantity of contraband has been made to affect the cargo as a whole. In the decision I find a very considerable quantity of contraband stated to have been proved in evidence; some articles, such as army blankets, cavalry boots, and so on, might perhaps, if they stood alone, have been justly regarded as ambiguous. But there were 360 gross of brass navy buttons marked "C. S.N.," Confederate States Navy, having a character entirely unambiguous, and giving a character to the rest. Our courts have laid down that when you find the same persons who are concerned in shipping contraband cargo concerned also in shipping cargo not contraband, you may confiscate the whole of it. I cannot adopt, therefore, the criticism of the French writer upon the principle on which the United States' Prize Court has acted, because that principle is, so far, exactly the same as has been laid down in our own courts. But there is another principle which requires to be enunciated with more distinctness than has been done by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend in ambiguous terms has spoken as if the Court had decided that the mere fact, that the goods on board might ultimately find their way to a belligerent, although they were being actually transported to Nassau, a neutral port, was sufficient for the condemnation of the cargo. If that were so I should entirely agree with my hon. Friend and say, 512 that was a principle unknown to international law, and one against which this country ought to protest. But that is not the ground upon which the judgment is based. It is based upon this: that upon the evidence, rightly or wrongly, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the direct destination of the cargo was to the Confederate States. Judge Betts, in delivering judgment in this case, says—
I am entirely satisfied, from all the evidence in the case, that the cargo of the Springbok was intended to be delivered in the enemy's country, by transhipment at Nassau into a vessel in which it should be carried through the blockade, and that such was the intended destination of the cargo on its departure from England.I hope the Court of Appeal will do justice, if the facts are not such as to justify this conclusion; but if the conclusion of fact on the part of the Court of First Instance was just, that is a principle of law which has been acted upon in this country. Lord Stowell, in his judgment in the Thomyris case, says—It is a clear and settled principle that the mere transhipment of a cargo at an intermediate port will not break the continuity of the voyage, which can only be affected by a previous actual incorporation into the common stock of the country where the transhipment takes place. If there was nothing more than a transhipment of the cargo from one vessel to another, that will not alter the transaction in any respect, and it must still be considered as the same continuous voyage to the port where the cargo was ultimately to be delivered.It is of great consequence that those of our merchants who are engaged in this contraband trade should understand these things, and should know that the law of nations is not so weak and so easily eluded as to be unable to draw the distinction between the two cases. In this very judgment the Judge says distinctly, that if the articles, contraband or not contraband, had really to be delivered at Nassau and left there, the cargo would not have been condemned; and that is the principle of our own courts. It is, of course, possible that the Judge of the American court may have been wrong in his facts, but the question is now one for a Court of Appeal; and we must not be drawn by French authority, Confederate authority, or any other authority, into denying those principles of law which were built up and established by ourselves during the French war.With regard to the third case, which is in its earliest stage, as far as our information goes, the facts reported to us corre- 513 spond very much with what has been stated by my hon. Friend, and there was only one course which the Government could take—namely, to represent to the United States' Government, that if it were really true that a ship which had bonâ fide imported goods of any description into Mexico had been afterwards seized because she was loading cotton which may have come from the Confederate States, this Government cannot possibly acquiesce in that seizure; and if any Prize Court of the United States should on such grounds condemn the vessel, which I think improbable, Her Majesty's Government could not acquiesce in such a decision. But the Government have had information, as yet, from one side only, although, as it came from a respectable quarter, they do not doubt its truth. All the Government could do was to transmit the statements made to them to the proper quarter, with a representation that the case is one deserving the prompt and serious attention of the United States' Government, and that they trust it will be dealt with in the same manner as the United States' Government have professed to act in similar cases, and not only have professed, but have really acted. For that case of the Science, so far as at present appears, is precisely the same as that of the Labuan, which actually passed through the Prize Court, and was released on the ground that the circumstances did not justify the capture.
I come now to the case of the Saxon, and here I must concur with my hon. Friend in expressing my deepest regret for the occurrence which has taken place; for if the information is correct—and there is no reason to doubt its correctness—a most wanton and barbarous murder was committed on an unoffending person on board that ship. The same information which we have received also leads us to hope, that as soon as the circumstances are known in the United States the Government will hasten to make such reparation as is in its power. When the matter came to the knowledge of Captain Baldwin, of the Vanderbilt, he expressed his regret in terms becoming an officer in his position. With respect to other information which we have received, as to this ship, I must use some degree of reserve. There are things which might hot be quite to the interest of the owners if I were to make them the subject of attention in this House. The Saxon was seized by the United States' ship Vanderbilt as a prize, and 514 taken to America, where it now awaits the judgment of a Prize Court. On what grounds I can only conjecture. Her Majesty's Government sent instructions to Lord Lyons to represent the circumstances, so far as they were known, to the Government of the United States. At first sight, at all events, it appears extraordinary that a ship belonging to the Cape Colony, which could not possibly be suspected of an attempt to break the blockade or to carry contraband to the Confederate States of America, should be seized; but I should be uncandid if I were to say that no information has reached Her Majesty's Government of a character to enable them to conjecture what answer may possibly be given to an inquiry on the subject. If our conjecture be right, the answer would be that the case was about to be tried in the Prize Courts, where the validity of the facts and the grounds on which the law applied to them would be the subject of investigation, and therefore we must wait to know what those grounds are before Her Majesty's Government can decide upon the course they should adopt with respect to the capture of that ship, or say or do anything which in the Prize Court might operate to the prejudice of those who would there be the claimants of the vessels. I must, however, make an observation upon what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken as if this ship was taken within British jurisdiction. That I believe to be a mistake. The fact is, that the island referred to by the hon. Gentleman was at one time proposed, by the Colonial authorities, to be annexed to the Colony of the Cape; and in 1861 Sir George Grey, the Governor of the Cape, issued a proclamation, subject to Her Majesty's confirmation, declaring the island to be so annexed. That confirmation, however, never was given, and possession of it was never taken in Her Majesty's name, or by Her authority; so that we have no right or title, as between ourselves and the United States, to represent that island as part of Her Majesty's dominions. The mainland opposite the island does not belong to the Colony of the Cape, and, under all these circumstances, the case is one simply of capture, though requiring the most grave consideration on the part of the United States. With regard to this case, the hon. Gentleman expressed his astonishment that Her Majesty's Government had merely represented to the Government of the United States that, if the facts reported to them were 515 correct, it appeared that a murder had been committed, for which the murderer ought to be brought to trial. I want, then, to hear what he would have done. It appeared from his statement that he would have done the same thing, only in more flourishing language; but I cannot see that a remonstrance is less in point of gravity because it is made in terms of moderation and courtesy. With regard to the production of papers, the Government have no motive, as far as they are concerned, to withhold them; and if the House gives credit to the statement I have made with regard to the Margaret and Jessie and the Science, I believe Her Majesty's Government would appear to have taken such a course as the country would wish; but I submit that it would be much wiser not to press for such papers while negotiations are pending. The object of the Government is to bring these communications to a successful result. The effect of producing papers and taking discussions on them may possibly be different in this country from what it is in the United States, the Government of which have produced papers of the kind. They, of course, know best what they ought to do on the point; but I have a feeling that some negotiations would be prosecuted with better chance of success if they were not made the subject of comment in all the newspapers of the American Union. Remarks which may be of an irritating nature, and open to answer, might possibly thwart, rather than assist, the course of pending negotiations. Therefore I would humbly recommend to the House to abstain from calling for these papers until the negotiations are brought to an end. With respect to the Saxon, I do not think that it would be expedient in the interest of the parties concerned that the papers should be given.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILSir, I do not think the explanation of the hon. and learned Attorney General, able and ingenious as it was, will be very satisfactory to the commercial community of this country, or to those whose interests are compromised by the course of action taken by the United States. The practice of the Government, as we have often had reason to complain in respect to several matters which have occupied our attention, has been to withdraw all information from the cognizance of the House, and to the utmost possible extent to neutralize that prerogative of supervision which is one of the attributes this House 516 should most jealously cherish. They have done it at times by refusing papers, or delaying papers; at others by making unintelligible answers to questions which have been subsequently contradicted elsewhere. But I think the Attorney General has done it in quite as effective, though in a more ingenious way, when he tells us he absolutely declines to go into any of the evidence upon which these condemnations of the property of British merchants has taken place. It is quite obvious that however accurate the law laid down by the tribunals of the United States may be, yet those tribunals, if they choose to stretch their facts to meet their law, can commit any amount of injustice on the property of the merchants. It is of no use to tell us what the law is; I should have a poor opinion of the acumen of the Government of the United States if they gave us false law, when they could so much more easily have recourse to false facts. If their law is false, reference can be made to Lord Stowell, and they can be told that their law is wrong; but a far more simple and obvious course for them to take is to stretch and distort the facts. On all occasions the Attorney General is accustomed to express an unlimited admiration of the courts of the United States. The sentiment is a novel one in this House and in this country. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was ever so strongly inspired before it became a matter of Government policy to yield everything the United States may demand. But be that as it may, I do claim for this House the right of discussing the evidence on which the decisions of the American courts are rested, and to exact from the Attorney General an account of the reasons why he acquiesces in what appears to be a manifest injustice against British subjects. The question of the vessels condemned in the Prize Courts is far from being the gravest charge of the hon. Member for Horsham. The gravest of the charges was the murder case; and in respect to that murder case all we are informed of is that our Government have told the United States that it deserves their gravest consideration. The Attorney General told us also that the captain of the Vanderbilt, Captain Baldwin, had expressed his regret at the occurrence in terms which became his position. I cannot help remembering that this is not the first case of the murder of a British subject in foreign parts which we have dealt with during the present Session—during 517 even the present week. I cannot help contrasting the manner in which Her Majesty's Government dealt with another case where a British subject was murdered, not in the execution of his duty, but in a somewhat questionable position—not by a reputed officer of a foreign state, but by a mere ordinary swordsman. In the latter case the British Government were not satisfied with polite expressions of regret, or with declaring that the matter "deserved the gravest consideration." I want to see some of the energy displayed at Kagosima applied to the murder committed by the officer of the United States. Now, Sir, we must not run away with the idea that we can take this case in an isolated way. We must not imagine that we can burn towns at one end of the world for the murder of a British subject, and be satisfied with a few polite expressions in the other in a similar case of murder at the other end, without foreign nations observing the contrast. The contrast between the ordinary policy of this Government towards America, and perhaps I might add to other Powers, such as Russia—the contrast between that policy and the policy we have pursued in the East has created a most bitter feeling of contempt amongst all those who criticise us abroad. Two years ago a movement was made in this House with respect to the American blockade, and the Attorney General then defended that blockade with singular skill and ingenuity. Being however rather hard driven in his legal argument, the hon. and learned Gentleman resorted to a theological argument, and told us that we ought to respect the blockade, because we ought to do to others as we would that they should do unto us. For my own part I failed at the time to understand what part the Confederates bore in the application of that golden rule, but still it had a great effect upon the House. I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that practice of Christian love, however estimable and admirable, can be applied in a one-sided and partial manner without exposing us to awkward misconstructions. If a man runs away in battle his conduct may be interpreted in various ways. You may say, taking a vulgar view of it, he runs away because be is afraid; or you may take a charitable view, and say he runs away because he is actuated by a profound conviction of the horrors of war; or you may say he has a Christian appreciation of 518 doing to his neighbour as he would that his neighbour should do unto him. But it will always be necessary, if you are inclined to examine whether his peculiar conduct is to be accounted for upon one theory or the other, to see what he does when he deals with an adversary weaker than himself. If you find that he has no scruples about kicking the lesser antagonist, then you may fairly come to the conclusion that all his professions of moderation and humanity are simply disguises for his terror of a powerful opponent. Such, I am afraid, is the kind of criticism to which the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this and other matters is exposing us abroad. Our character among foreign nations is rapidly declining. There is a fearful contrast between the conduct of the Government towards the strong and their conduct towards the weak. Unlimited ferocity in the East, unlimited humiliation in the West—such is the simple programme of the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers. I do not think that the British people will very long endure the humiliation through which the policy of the Government is dragging them. This case and that case may perhaps be overlooked, but if I am not greatly mistaken a bitter feeling of indignation is arising and spreading every day. If the conduct of the Government is not more in conformity with the generous instincts of a people whose principle it is to show boldness towards the strong and tenderness towards the weak—I venture to say there will be an outbreak of indignation that will hurry us into some war far more disastrous than those which Government are seeking in so humiliating a manner to avoid.
§ COLONEL SYKESsaid, that Mr. Gray, the unfortunate chief mate of the Saxon, who was murdered by Lieutenant Donoghan, of the Vanderbilt, belonged to a family in his constituency, and his death had left his wife and infant children destitute. The sorrowing relatives had forwarded to him a copy of the South African Advertiser, dated the 19th December, 1863, containing the sworn depositions of the master and several of the able seamen of the barque Saxon, taken before the resident magistrate of Cape Town, on the 2nd December, 1863. It appeared that that vessel arrived at Angra Pequina Island on the 16th of October, spent eleven days there in getting; ready for sea, and then took in her cargo, which consisted not of contraband of war, but of skins and wool. On the 30th Oc- 519 tober she was just about to weigh anchor when a vessel appeared in the offing, and an armed boat's crew came on board, under the command of one of the lieutenants of the Federal American ship of war Vanderbilt. The officer demanded the captain's papers, which, after some demur, were given, and then returned to his ship, leaving his men on board the barque. Soon after, another boat's crew, also armed, boarded the Saxon. A junior officer, named Donoghan, accompanied the party. The crew were driven below, and Captain Shephard was sent below to his own cabin, and a sentry posted at the door. He came up again, but was once more ordered down. What followed was told in the depositions of Horace Carew, able seaman, one of the Saxon crew, who swore—
Captain Shephard then went aft, and it was then I saw Mr. Donoghan standing in the break of the poop, with several of his own men near him. Mr. Gray was half-way up the ladder, when he was ordered down by Mr. Donoghan. I was distant about six or eight yards from them. Mr. Donoghan said 'Go down.' Mr. Gray did not answer or do anything, when the officer repeated the order for him to go down, adding, 'or I will shoot you.' Mr. Gray at the time was facing him, when the officer pushed him on the right shoulder with his left hand, and Mr. Gray stumbled and tried to recover himself, and, as he turned his face towards the officer, he (that is the latter) drew a revolver and shot him.The Captain (Shephard) states, that the bullet struck Mr. Gray in the back of the neck, so that the unfortunate man was not presenting his front to his murderer when this most wanton and atrocious act was committed. Mr. Gray was unarmed, and so also were the other men of the Saxon. Captain Baldwin of the Vanderbilt ordered Captain Shephard to come on board; but he did not at first allude to the death of Mr. Gray; subsequently, however, he expressed his regret at it, but no man with the common feelings of humanity could do otherwise. One of the officers said, the murderer was under arrest. There was a sad want of courtesy, to say the least of it, in the Americans not permitting any of the crew of the Saxon to follow the body of their deceased countryman when it was carried on shore for burial. An officer of the Vanderbilt took charge of the funeral, but the second mate of the Saxon slipped into the boat in the dark, and, in spite of the prohibition, accompanied the body. He (Colonel Sykes) received from Mr. Gray's relatives in Aberdeen a letter acquainting him with the grievous loss which the family had sustained, and putting forward 520 a claim for redress and recompense. That letter he immediately forwarded to the Foreign Office, and Earl Russell, with a promptitude which did him honour, sent an answer the next day, stating that if the depositions of the master and men of the Saxon were correct, wilful murder had been committed, and that the murderer ought to be brought to trial forthwith. The noble Lord added that the matter had already received the notice of the Government, that the Law Officers of the Crown had been consulted, and that a despatch, based on their opinion, had been sent to Mr. Seward. Mr. Gray's relatives had expressed their gratitude to Earl Russell for his prompt attention to the case; and he was satisfied that the Government would do all they could, not only to bring the murderer to trial, and, if convicted, to secure his execution, but also to obtain recompense for the destitute and suffering family of the unfortunate man.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEobserved, that Angra Pequina, the island which the Saxon had visited, was one of several spots along the South Coast of Africa, where various commodities, such as oil, wool, &c, were stored up, while waiting to be conveyed to the Cape. Having arrived in that position, the master proceeded to clean and paint his ship, in which operation he was occupied eleven days. The fact showed that he had no reason for concealment; as if any of his cargo had been contraband of war, the captain would have been only too anxious to get away as soon as possible. Part of his crew were on shore when the Vanderbilt came in sight. A large party of armed men were sent on board, although the crew of the Saxon had no arms whatever, and might have been kept under control by two or three men with cutlasses. The Americans were armed with cutlasses and revolvers, and were described as a most savage set of men. In the depositions taken at the Cape, Lieutenant Donoghan was stated to be in a very excited state, which probably meant that he was drunk. The master of the Saxon was sent below, and when the chief mate was going on to the raised quarter-deck to speak to the lieutenant, the latter pushed him back by the shoulder. By an instinctive movement the mate endeavoured to right himself, and as he turned round Lieutenant Donoghan shot him through the neck dead. Captain Baldwin and the other two lieutenants of the Vanderbilt expressed their regret, and 521 it appeared that the officer who committed the murder expressed his regret also. The remark made by some of the Vanderbilt men was that Lieutenant Donoghan was a good shot with the revolver, but was somewhat hasty. What was the subsequent conduct of Captain Baldwin? He would not only not permit the crew of the Saxon to bury their own comrade, but it did not appear that he ever placed Lieutenant Donoghan under arrest. That fact alone showed that Captain Baldwin, instead of being a bland officer of the Chesterfield school, as he had been represented by the Attorney General, was neither more nor less than an accomplice. It appeared, moreover, that he did not hesitate to violate the usages of civilized warfare by sending the crew of the Saxon to an island where they had to undergo great hardships before they were able to procure food and shelter. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that Her Majesty's Government had made proper representations to the Federal authorities. In fact, their conduct—and in this he believed he was expressing the general feeling both in that House and out of doors—was the conduct of a bully to the weak and of a coward to the strong. He would remind them, however, that in former times the captain of a British merchantman had appeared at the bar of that House with his ears in his hands, he having been denuded of them by pirates on the Spanish Main; but although they were repudiated by the Spanish Government, the atrocities committed led to a war in which the honour of England was fully vindicated.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would not have ventured to intrude any observations of his own upon the attention of the House had he not felt, especially after the remarks of the Attorney General, that a little more discussion was required. He would remind hon. Members that last year, when the case of the Springbok was brought forward, the Government did everything in their power to stifle debate. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office expressed his indignation that the point should have been raised at all; the hon. and learned Attorney General expressed his belief that the mention of the subject was premature; and the hon. Member for the City of London lent the weight of his commercial experience in recommending delay, and expressing his confidence in the noble Lord at the head of the Government. A year had passed away, and it was impossible to say that the facts were 522 better known, or that greater confidence was felt in the administration of the law in the American courts. He had taken the trouble to ascertain the circumstances under which the Springbok had been seized, and could give his hon. and learned Friend a little information on the point; for although he had cited the printed copy of the judgment, his perusal of that judgment must have been very cursory. The Springbok was chartered by a merchant in London in the usual way through a broker, to carry a cargo of lawful merchandise from Liverpool to Nassau, at the rate of 25s. per ton. As the cargo consisted of lawful merchandise the owner was compelled to carry it. His position, consequently, was a very hard one, for while under a legal liability to carry the cargo, both ship and merchandise were seized by the Americans. The case involved two questions—first, the seizure of the ship, and next the seizure of the cargo. Not a single remark had been made by the Attorney General upon the condemnation of the ship. His hon. and learned Friend had correctly cited an extract from the judgment with regard to the seizure of the cargo, and had also referred to Lord Stowell's decision in the case of the Thomyris, which was, however, distinguishable from the present case; but he quite forgot, that, in another place, the case of the Springbok had been discussed during the last Session, and that the Foreign Secretary had stated that, a vessel going to Nassau, intending afterwards to make another voyage, could not legally be captured on her way thither; and that statement was immediately confirmed by a great legal authority, Lord Cranworth.
§ MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKLord Cranworth, after citing a leading decision of Lord Stowell, declared that a neutral vessel carrying contraband of war could not legally be stopped on her way to a neutral port, whatever might be her subsequent destination. But in spite of that authority, his hon. and learned Friend had quoted with approbation the decision of Judge Betts, who said—
I am entirely satisfied, from all the evidence in the case, that the cargo of the Springbok wan intended to be delivered in the enemy's country, by transhipment at Nassau.Thus it appeared that Judge Betts himself —that great authority—admitted that the cargo and ship were bound for a neutral 523 port, and that that neutral port was the bonâ fide destination of the ship. But ill at was not all. His hon. and learned Friend would never contend that contraband of war would condemn a ship if the owner was innocent. But Judge Betts further said—The court is of opinion that, under all the circumstances disclosed, the vessel must be held to have been carrying on the unlawful enterprise of transporting contraband articles on their way to the enemy's country, and that her owners are responsible for the unlawful transportation of the contraband articles and for the acts of the master to such an extent as to justify the condemnation of the vessel.According to that doctrine, for which no valid reasons were given, the Federal cruisers might seize vessels going from Liverpool to Scotland, from Holyhead to Dublin, or elsewhere. As an additional reason for the confiscation of the ship and cargo Judge Betts said that—The failure of the master of the ship to demand and carry with him full and clear invoices, containing full particulars of his cargo, was a deliberate one, because he says (Int. 31) that the invoices were to be sent to Nassau by mail steamer, thus showing that he knew of the existence of invoices of the cargo; and that he declares his ignorance of the contents of the cargo, or that there were any goods contraband of war on board—an ignorance which the Court cannot, under the circumstances, regard as a real ignorance, and which, if it were a real ignorance, is inexcusable on the part of a master in time of war. The conclusion is irresistible, that the master was carrying this cargo, composed, in part, of contraband articles, under false papers.Now he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was informed, that in sailing vessels it was unusual to send invoices, and that they were invariably sent by post and were not placed in the hands of the captain. The hon. and learned Gentlemen had dwelt upon the right of appeal, but that right was but cold comfort; for although the vessel was captured in February, 1862, there was no chance of the appeal being heard by the Supreme court before December, 1864. Thus the American Government could stop our commerce by seizing our ships and hanging up the litigation in each case for a period of eighteen months, or more Moreover, Federal Judges were not like English Judges; although many of them were high-minded and learned men, yet for the most part they went out with the Government. These inferior Judges might have a bias, therefore, to the prejudice of British subjects, and with regard to their decisions Her Majesty's Government might make some further represen- 524 tations. He felt compelled to make these observations, because unless some pressure were put upon the noble Lord the Prime Minister, no justice would be done to British subjects. The noble Lord was a brave man against a feeble adversary. If he had to face a Greek or a Neapolitan his courage was enormous—he would execute severe reprisals against Brazil; he would levy war upon the defenceless Chinese or Japanese; but the moment he was placed in front of an antagonist whose physical or moral strength was in the least degree formidable, he shrank from the contest, and left the injured British subject to obtain his remedy as best he could. Any Gentleman who had ever experienced the misfortune to urge in that House the claims of a British subject, could testify to the truth of these remarks. The noble Lord was sometimes afraid even of an Italian. But when he had to meet "the great Abraham," "he bent low, and in a bondman's key, with bated breath and whispering humbleness," said, "Fair Sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last; you spurned me such a day, and for these courtesies I now obey your bidding." He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) trusted the House and the country would, call on the noble Lord to vindicate those rights and privileges to which Englishmen were entitled.
§ MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he did not propose to enter into the general question. He merely wished to correct an error into which the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth had fallen. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he should have expected that the man Donoghan, who shot Gray, the mate of the Saxon, would have been placed under arrest. But if he had read the depositions carefully he would have found this passage in the evidence of one of the witnesses:—"I asked the officer on board where Donoghan was, and was told that he was under arrest." That was a sufficient answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observation, and showed that assertions of that kind made in that House ought to be received with great caution; because when it could he shown that one inaccurate statement had been made, accompanied by a very strong expression of feeling, some distrust might fairly be entertained as to the correctness of other statements thus put forward. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last had raised a question as to whether the invoices were sent on with the vessels, and stated that 525 he was informed they generally were not. He might on that point tell the hon. Gentleman that his own experience was entirely the reverse of that, and that the invoices usually were sent on with the vessels. He wished next to notice an observation from the noble Lord the Member for Stamford. The noble Lord said he was sure that the mercantile community would not be satisfied with the ingenious statement of the learned Attorney General. Now, he did not know what authority the noble Lord had to speak for the mercantile community, but he would tell the noble Lord that he was not the person to whom the mercantile community would give their confidence or ask to represent their feelings. The manner in which he dealt with these questions in that House was not such as entitled him to such confidence. When allusion was made to the opinion of the mercantile community, it was necessary to ask whether those who professed to express that opinion were in favour of a forcible intervention on the American continent. Those of the mercantile community who favoured the contraband trade, and who were opposed to the Federal Government exercising the powers which justly belonged to it, would naturally be extremely dissatisfied with the statement of the learned Attorney General. On the other hand, those who were adverse to the contraband trade, and who would be sorry to see the British Government interfere in any way with the American contest, were perfectly satisfied with the mode in which these exceedingly intricate, difficult, and embarrassing questions were dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. They did not expect their Government to take up every case with hot haste and to demand instant satisfaction, or threaten reprisals, without any examination of its merits. They saw in the American Government a Government entitled to respect. The United States were governed by laws similar in many respects to our own; they were governed by men of education, by men as well qualified to give expression to right feelings and sound opinions as any others; and, therefore, when he heard it stated that our Government were not regarding their duty because they did not force on matters to an immediate, hasty decision; because they did not put an undue pressure upon the American Government, he said he could not concur in that opinion; and in that he believed he correctly expressed the feelings of the mercantile community, if not 526 of the country, at least of the City of London.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that, coupling the observations which had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman who sat immediately behind Her Majesty's Government with those made by the learned Attorney General, the House of Commons on that occasion seemed to him to be assisting at the funeral rites and final internment of that celebrated historical personage the "Civis Romanus." When he recollected how the noble Lord had once promised that an Englishman, wherever he went, should be as safe as the ancient Roman, who cried, "Civis Romanus sum," he owned that he had listened with pain to the statement of the learned Attorney General, in which he told them that the American captain had done all that could have been expected of him, and had expressed regret at the barbarous murder, by one of his officers, of an inoffensive Englishman. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Crawford), who claimed—he knew not how rightly—to represent that great body the English mercantile community, endorsed every word and every action on the part of the English Government, and looked with undiminished confidence upon the conduct of the Federal Government of America. The hon. Gentleman was not very polite in the observations he addressed to his noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil), whose opinions, expressed so eloquently that night, he was inclined to think would make far more way in the mind of the English people than those just uttered by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had told his noble Friend that he had no claim to and could not be supposed to enjoy the confidence of the English mercantile community. Might he express the hope that the hon. Gentleman, sitting as he did immediately behind the Government, and on all occasions, as far as he knew, sympathising with them and voting in their favour, did not represent the opinions or the sentiments of the English mercantile community? The learned Attorney General had given reasons why the papers moved for by his hon. Friend (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) should not be produced. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last was quite wrong if he supposed that his hon. Friend had made any defence of the merchants who might be engaged in contraband proceedings; all his hon. Friend had asked for was the production of papers which would show to the House and the 527 country how Her Majesty's Government had discharged one of the most important of the functions which devolved upon them at that moment. The learned Attorney General had said, that in his opinion it would be inconvenient for the public service—nay, in one instance, prejudicial to the English claimants themselves, if these papers were produced. But with respect to the first case mentioned by his hon. Friend—namely, that of the Margaret and Jessie, he understood from the Attorney General that all the papers were complete but the final answer of the American Government. In many other instances of a similar kind, however, the papers were given to them in detail. They had had, he forgot how many, papers presented on the subject of the Alabama; and he thought it would be satisfactory if—in the case of the Margaret and Jessie, at all events—the papers which were complete should be submitted to the House without delay. His noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil,) had pointed out the bad impression being created in the public mind at home from the apparent—he was quite prepared to believe it was not real—want of earnestness on the part of Her Majesty's Government in pressing that grievous case on the attention of the American Government. But, in addition to the feeling which was gradually increasing in England, they ought not to shut out from their consideration the feeling which must prevail in our colonial dependencies which had been the scenes of these outrages. Taking the case of the Margaret and Jessie, it was known that as far back as June last the most pressing representations were addressed to Her Majesty's Government by the Governor of the Bahamas on that subject. What was the first notice taken by the Government of that most serious case? In answer to a question put in the other House by a noble Lord who supported the policy of the Government, Earl Russell said that the Governor of the Bahamas "had not mentioned the circumstances of the case from his own knowledge; he only said that there was a report to that effect." Why at the time that Earl Russell made that statement he was informed—and from what they had heard from the Attorney General it was evident—that the British Government were in possession of no less than thirteen duly-signed declarations narrating the whole facts of the case. And, more than that, he was prepared to state that at the moment when 528 Earl Russell gave that answer Her Majesty's Government were in possession not only of all those declarations, but also of the fragments of a shell which had been fired on the Island of Eleuthera. There was a feeling growing up in the Colonies that the English Government were not as energetic as they ought to be in repelling these outrages; and English naval officers, from some reason or other, did not appear to those who witnessed their operations to be animated by that earnest spirit in checking such acts which their colonial fellow-subjects expected would be manifested in accordance with the terms of the Queen's proclamation. He should like to know whether any instructions subsequent to the issue of the Queen's proclamation had been sent to the Admiral or senior officer on the station of the Bahamas, that might afford inducement to officers not to prevent Federal men-of war anchoring there, as it was understood they were prohibited from doing under the Queen's proclamation. No one could be surprised that an uneasy feeling had grown up in our colonial dependencies, and he entirely agreed in all that had fallen from his noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil), in his vigorous, manly, and energetic speech, with regard to the tone in which the learned Attorney General had dealt with the subject.
§ MR. BENTINCKsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) that it was the duty of the Government to deal with the affairs of the kind under consideration with the greatest possible circumspection and deliberation: but he could not agree in the eulogy that the hon. Member had passed on the general conduct of the Federal Government, nor did he believe that eulogy would be endorsed by the opinion of the country. He would go further, and say, that judging from what they had seen on various occasions of the conduct and disposition of that Government, they had no right to put implicit faith that cases such as they were then discussing would be dealt with by that Government in the spirit with which they ought to be. It was, therefore, the more incumbent on that House to express strongly the opinions they entertained on the subject. He agreed with his noble Friend the Member for Stamford, that a strong impression was rapidly growing in the country, that the national honour was not always maintained, and that they were too much in the habit of truckling to the 529 strong and bullying the weak. He had listened with great pleasure to the hon. Member for Horsham and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, because from what they had said he had good reason to hope that they would not be found siding with an opinion which had been expressed on both sides of the House, that our armaments should be still further reduced, and he hoped to have their support at least in maintaining at their fullest efficiency the armaments of this country. He could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth in thinking that the blame attaching—he would not say to the injured honour of this country, but he might say—to the sullied honour of the country, entirely rested with the present or any former Government. He thought that a portion of that blame ought to be shared by the House of Commons. It was quite clear that the honour of the country could not be maintained by words. It had been said during the Session, and he thought with great truth, that the country had been brought into discredit by uttering threats which she was not in a position to carry out. How did that opinion hear on the subject they were then discussing? Assuming that the honour of the country had been assailed by the Federal or any Government in Europe, he would ask the House of Commons how they proposed to meet the insult? Were they to meet it by a reduction of armaments? Were they, by a reduction of the naval and military forces, to place the country in a position in which she would be unable to maintain her honour both by sea and land? They had already learned from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that a reduction of some sort was about to be made in our military armaments; and, as far as could be gathered from public rumour, it was not intended to propose any increase in the naval armaments. He wished to know whether, under those circumstances, the House of Commons would not be much to blame if the honour of the country were not properly maintained. He would be told that an increase in the estimates could not originate in that House; it must be proposed by the Government. But he would appeal to any Member of that House whether of late years estimates had not been framed much more with a view to popularity than to practical utility, having regard to expediency rather than to the demands of the country. The Government would propose an increase in the 530 Army and Navy Estimates if they were sure of the cordial support of the majority of the House of Commons. So long as reduced estimates were popular in that House so long would the Government continue to frame the estimates for popularity and not for utility. It should be remembered that it was only by strong armaments that the honour of this country could be maintained. Let, then, his hon. Friends who agreed with him in this opinion exert themselves to maintain strong armaments, which were the best means of upholding the honour of the country. Let them do this, or have the discretion to hold their tongue.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI hope after the discussion which has taken place, the hon. Member for Horsham will not press for these papers. The greater part of the papers for which he has moved relate to questions of law still pending, or questions under discussion between the two Governments; and, as was stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, injury even to the parties concerned would arise in some cases from the premature production of the papers moved for. We have heard this evening the cuckoo cry frequently urged in this House by those who like general assertions better than particular proof, that Her Majesty's Government are in the habit of bullying the weak and truckling to the strong. I entirely deny that assertion. The Government are anxious on all occasions to assert the lights and vindicate the honour of the country, whatever be the method we adopt to accomplish these objects. I think it right, however, to state with regard to the Government of the United States—what has indeed been already stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General—that we have no reason to mistrust the equity and independence of the tribunals of the United States which have to try questions such as those now under discussion; and it is but due to the Government of the United States to say, that they have invariably received our representations in a spirit of respect, equity, and justice. And in proof of this—to show that, when we had a strong case of remonstrance, justice has been done to us by the United States, I need only refer to the case of the Trent, in which the Government of the United States very handsomely and properly did justice to the demands we made, and the rights they did not deny. Therefore, I think it is prejudicial to the good under- 531 standing between the two Governments, which are on good terms, that we should here accuse a foreign Government of that of which it is not guilty, and express mistrust of their equity and fairness when nothing has occurred to justify us in making these imputations. I think it only right, in regard to the tribunals and Government of the United States, to declare that such accusations are not just, and that nothing has occurred to warrant them.
§ LORD LOVAINEsaid, he wished to point out to the noble Lord that his reference to the case of the Trent was not a very happy one. The manner in which the Federal Government had acted did not give one a very high opinion of their equity or courtesy. In giving up those persons whom they had illegally seized, they said the men were not worth quarrelling about, and they gave them up accordingly.
§ SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Horsham for having brought so important a subject under its notice. But, at the same time, his hon. Friend was too good a Parliamentary tactician to think of pressing his Motion to a division after the speech of the noble Lord, and the skilful and adroit statement of the Attorney General, that the production of the papers would be prejudicial not only to the Government but to the individuals specially concerned. He wished, however, to call the attention of the Government and of the House to the fact that, in relation to the Saxon, there were two totally different questions involved. As he understood the case, that vessel had been seized under extraordinary and suspicious circumstances, and had been taken from the vicinity of the Cape of Good Hope to New York for adjudication as a lawful prize. The Attorney General had said that the House ought not to discuss that part of the case, as it might prejudice the Saxon and her owners, and that it was not proper to anticipate legal decisions by relying upon ex parte information. That might be conceded, but the seizure of the vessel and the murder of the mate were two different questions. If the Saxon had broken the blockade, or committed any other marine delinquency, those were merely civil questions to be tried in the civil courts, but it was different with respect to the murder. Let them wait, if it was thought most proper to do so, until the cautious procrastinating proceedings in the Prize Courts had exhausted themselves, so far as the question of maritime 532 rights was concerned; but let them not unnecessarily wait one day or one hour before claiming full satisfaction for the murder of a British subject. He understood that that murder was committed in the middle of the month of October last, and, therefore, there had been ample time for all the information to arrive in this country, and for proper representations to have been made to the American Government, and for that Government to have taken some steps in the matter. The information which he wished to elicit from the Government was, not only whether they had made any strong representation to the United States' Government, but also whether they had received any official information that the American Government had taken any steps in consequence. There could be no valid excuse for delay when the murder of a British subject was alleged, and it was the duty of the British Government to demand and of the American Government to institute the promptest measures to investigate the charge.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Baronet that the capture or condemnation of the vessel was a totally different question from that of the murder of the mate. The one was a question to be dealt with by the Prize Courts, but the other was a criminal offence. It was an offence, too—if the information they had received were true—of great enormity. True it was that the officer said it was an accident, but that was an explanation which it was difficult to reconcile with the statements that were made by others. In order to set the hon. Baronet right upon the question, he could assure him that there had been no delay on the part of the Government in making the necessary representation. He could not at the moment give the precise date of the supposed murder, but the first information of it which was received by the Attorney General and himself was about three weeks since. They had lost no time in advising the Government that a demand should be made upon the Government of the United States that the offender should be put upon his trial. There had not yet been time to receive an answer to that demand, but it was expected by the next mail. He trusted that the hon. Baronet and the House would see that no time had been lost, and that the Government had made the only representation to the United States Government which they could make. He confessed he was surprised to hear the 533 noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) say that this country was eternally disgraced and humiliated because the Government had merely required that a supposed murderer should be brought to trial. He had waited to hear what it was the noble Lord would suggest ought to have been done to save the honour of the country. If the Government had received the benefit of the advice of the noble Lord, it was difficult to understand what stronger course he would have recommended than that which had been pursued, unless, indeed, a demand that the accused should be hanged without a trial. Or perhaps the noble Lord who referred to Kagosima would recommend an immediate bombardment of New York. Such would appear to be the character of the counsels which the noble Lord would offer to a Government unfortunate enough to have him for an adviser.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he much rejoiced to hear the statement of the Solicitor General, as it relieved the House from the doubt which had been created by the speech of the Attorney General. There was so marked a distinction between a question of prize capture for contraband of war and the murder of a British subject, that the House felt disappointed at the want of decision in the expressions of the Attorney General upon that subject. They were now told that a pointed demand for the trial of the accused officer had been made, but the Attorney General left it to be assumed that the Government had been satisfied with expressions of regret.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would beg leave to explain. He wished to remind the House that he distinctly stated the Government had demanded that the officer should be put upon his trial.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he had failed to catch any such decisive statement in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, but he was glad to find that such a demand had been made. When a murder of a British subject had been committed on board a British ship, the boarding of which seemed to be without excuse, if no prompt steps were taken by the Government, it would lend cogency to the imputation that our policy was to coerce the weak, but to Submit to the strong. It was, therefore, satisfactory to hear that a proper demand for redress had been made upon the United States' Government. With respect to the seizures of vessels for breach of blockade, he was not inclined to dis- 534 agree with the Attorney General, that it would be proper to await the decisions of the Prize Courts; and until we had reason to suspect them of injustice or unfairness, which was not the case at present, their decisions must be accepted.
§ MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to say one word by way of explanation. The noble Lord seemed to think that he had moved for those papers with the view of casting blame upon the American Government. But he had expressly guarded himself against being actuated by that motive, and he had stated that his only object was to obtain information with respect to the course which had been pursued by the Government of Her Majesty. He would not, under the circumstances, proceed further with the matter. But he would reserve to himself the right to bring the case of the Saxon again before the House, in case he should find that steps had not been taken for its satisfactory settlement.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.