MR. T. BARINGI rise to call attention to the circumstances under which the Georgia has been allowed to enter the port of Liverpool and to put a question on the subject. As I bring this matter before the House simply as one of English interest, I shall not refer to the feelings or prospects of either of the contending parties, nor shall I endeavour to provoke an expression of sympathy with either side. I wish to make no charge against any one, and, if I refer at all to the past, it will be merely for the purpose of illustrating the position in which the country is placed as to its international engagements. The question is one of very considerable importance, and deserves, I am persuaded, the serious consideration of the House. An incident has recently occurred which is of a most extraordinary character. A vessel of war carrying, as we are told, the flag and commission of the Confederate Government, has recently entered the port of Liverpool. She is still there, and when the House hears the history of her career, it will be somewhat surprised at the course which has been pursued. This is her history:— The Japan, otherwise the Virginia, commonly known as the Georgia, was built at Dumbarton, on the Clyde. She was equipped by a Liverpool firm. Her crew was shipped by the same Liverpool firm for Shanghai, and sent round to Greenock by steamer. She was entered on the 31st of March, 1863, as for Point de Galle and Hong Kong, with a crew of forty-eight men. She cleared on the 1st of April. She left her anchorage on the morning of the 2nd of April, ostensibly to try her engines, but did not return. She had no armament on leaving Greenock, but a few days after her departure a small steamer called the Allar, freighted with guns, shot, shell, &c., and having on board a partner of the Liverpool firm who had equipped her and shipped her crew, left Newhaven and met the Georgia off the coast of France, near Ushant. The cargo of the Allar was successfully transferred to the Georgia on the 8th or 9th of April; her crew consisted of British subjects. The Allar put into Plymouth on the 11th of April, bringing the Liverpool merchant who had directed the proceedings throughout, and bringing also fifteen seamen who had refused to proceed in the Georgia, on learning her real character. The 468 rest of the crew remained. At the time of her departure the Georgia was registered as the property of a Liverpool merchant, a partner of the firm which shipped the crew. She remained the property of this person until the 23rd of June, when the register was cancelled, he notifying the collector of her sale to foreign owners. During this period—namely, from the 1st of April to the 23rd of June, the Georgia being still registered in the name of a Liverpool merchant, and thus his property, was carrying on war against the United States, with whom we were in alliance. It was while still a British vessel that she captured and burnt the Dictator, and captured and released under bond the Griswold, the same vessel which had brought corn to the Lancashire sufferers. The crew of the Georgia was paid through the same Liverpool firm. A copy of an advance-note used is to be found in the diplomatic correspondence. The same firm continued to act in this capacity throughout the cruise of the Georgia. After cruising in the Atlantic and burning and bonding a number of vessels, the Georgia made for Cherbourg, where she arrived on the 28th of October. There was at the time much discontent among the crew. Many deserted, leave of absence was given to others, and their wages were paid all along by the same Liverpool firm. In order to get the Georgia to sea again, the Liverpool firm enlisted, in Liverpool, some twenty seamen, and sent them to Brest. The Georgia left Cherbourg on a second cruise, but having no success she returned to that port, and thence to Liverpool, where her crew have been paid off without any concealment, and the vessel is now laid up. Here, then, is the case of a vessel clandestinely built, fraudulently leaving the port of her construction, taking Englishmen on board as her crew, and waging war against the United States, an ally of ours, without having once entered a port of the Power the commission of which she bears, but being for some time the property of an English subject. She has now returned to Liverpool, and has returned, I am told, with a British crew on board, who, having enlisted in war against an ally of ours, have committed a misdemeanour in the sight of the law. We hear nothing of the steps which, under those circumstances, were taken by the Government, but I feel assured they have done all that lay in their power, and was consistent with 469 their duty under the existing law to prevent the repetition of such an outrage. It is, therefore, not their conduct in the matter, but the impotency and insufficiency of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which our courts of justice find it impossible to interpret, that I wish to bring under the notice of the House. Many of these vessels are afloat committing injury on our ally. The vessels to which I allude, are vessels which would undoubtedly have been arrested if time had been given, and if their purpose had been known. The question is, in fact, can we be said to be carrying out our obligations as a neutral Power towards a belligerent which is an ally, in a manner consistent with International Law, though it may he in harmony with our municipal law, while such a state of things is permitted to exist? For my own part, I have no wish to lose myself in the mazes of a legal discussion on the subject, but common sense, as well as International Law, I believe, prescribe that a neutral should act towards a belligerent who is an ally, as she would like, under corresponding circumstances, to be done by. It was in order to prevent a war between neutrals and belligerents that the Foreign Enlistment Act was passed; and if vessels are allowed to proceed on a course of devastation, if they are admitted into the ports of our dependencies and colonies, and not only that, but to put into ports in this country, is it not, I will ask, time to consider whether we should not do our duty towards others, and whether the existing law affords us the means of protecting the interests of our ally as well as our own? The question as to the extent to which those vessels ought to be admitted to the ports of our colonies and dependencies is, I contend, one of serious importance; but it is, at the same time, one as to which I think there can be no doubt what course the Government should adopt. When a vessel fraudulently leaves our ports, which we know would have been arrested here had her objects been ascertained and her construction certified, and proceeds to carry into effect proceedings of hostility against an ally to the endangering of the peace of this country, it seems to me that it is the duty of the Government to avail themselves in her case of the powers which they possess, and by proclamation to shut our ports against her. If the House will permit me, I will read on the subject a passage from a writer on International Law, who 470 signs himself "Historicus," and who says, speaking of the Alabama—
First of all, the English Government must decide on the best information at their disposal, whether she was or was not unlawfully equipped in this country in breach of our neutrality. Their decision on this point ought to be final, for they are the sole judges of it, and the Federal authorities may inform their judgment, but cannot question their determination. If the English Government determine that the Alabama was net unlawfully equipped within the realm, she will, of course, enjoy the privileges and immunities of any other lawful belligerent cruiser. If, on the other hand, she is decided to have been unlawfully equipped, then she ought to be forbidden access to any port within the jurisdiction of Great Britain. If she comes within our ports with a prize, her prize should be taken from her, and restored to her original owner, and she herself compelled to depart.There is another extract from the same writer, to which I wish also to invite the attention of hon. Members. It is as follows: —Now, it is a sound and salutary rule of international practice, established by the Americans themselves in 1791, that vessels which have been equipped in violation of the laws of a neutral. State shall be excluded from that hospitality: which is extended to other belligerent cruisers, on whose origin there is no such taint. Accordingly, the Cabinet of Washington compelled all the French privateers which had been illegally fitted out in America against England to leave the ports of the United States, and orders were issued to the Custom House officers to prevent their return. This course of proceeding appears equally consonant to the principles of law and the dictates of policy. The question then remains—Was the Alabama unlawfully equipped and manned within the jurisdiction of Great Britain? Now, setting aside the vexed question of equipment, I think there can be very little doubt on that of enlistment. The question is one which from its very nature is not and cannot become the subject of judicial determination, because a neutral Government cannot exercise a jurisdiction over such a vessel. It is a matter on which the Executive of the neutral Government must, according to the best information it can obtain, form its own judgment, and that judgment is final and conclusive on all parties. Now, I observe that in a despatch dated March 27, 1863 (Parliamentary Paper, p. 2), Lord Russell writes, "The British Government has done everything in its power to execute the law; but I admitted that the cases of the Alabama and the Oreto were a scandal, and in some degree a reproach to our law.' Now, with the greatest deference to those persons who may be of an opposite opinion, I submit that vessels of which such a statement can be properly made—and that it was properly made no one acquainted with the circumstances of their outfit and manning can honestly doubt—are not entitled to the hospitality of the country whose laws they have eluded and abused. I think that to deny to the Florida, and Alabama access to our ports would be the legitimate and dignified manner of expressing our disapproval of the fraud which 471 has been practised upon our neutrality. If we abstain from taking such a course, I fear we may justly lie under the imputation of having done less to vindicate our good faith than the American Government consented at our instance on former occasions to do.Again, Earl Russell, in a despatch written in the month of June, said that the British Government had done everything in their power to execute the law, but he confessed that the case of the Alabama was a scandal to our laws. Now, such vessels as the Georgia are vessels which avowedly ought to have been stopped if their purpose had been known. They are vessels whose destination is to roam about, never getting home, and which are tainted with the offence of having violated our neutrality. They are vessels, therefore, which, on every ground, have no claim to the hospitality of the country, and I am bound to say that both our international obligations and a due regard for our own interests ought to have led us to exclude them from our ports. The Georgia, has arrived in Liverpool and there discharged her crew, and what guarantee have we that other vessels may not do the same; that our neutrality may not be violated, and that we may not hereafter have to deal with a state of things in which our position will be reversed. While, therefore, I am anxious to express my belief that under the law as it stands we cannot carry our international obligations fully into effect, I am likewise desirous of inviting the attention of the House to the situation in which this country will be if the precedents now established are acted upon in the event of our being involved in war, while other States are neutral. Under the present construction of our municipal law there is no necessity that a belligerent should have a port or even a seashore. Provided she has money, or that money is supplied to her by a neutral, she may fit out vessels, and those vessels need not go to the country to which they are said to belong but may go about the seas dealing destruction to British shipping and property. Take the case, which I hope we shall avoid, of our being at war with Germany. There would, as things now stand, be nothing to prevent the Diet of Frankfort from having a fleet. A number of the small States of Germany might unite together and become a great naval Power. Money is all that is required for the purpose, and Saxony without a seashore might have a First Lord of the Admiralty without any docks, who might have a large fleet at his disposal. 472 The only answer we could make under those circumstances to France and the United States, who as neutrals might fit out vessels against us on the pretence that they were German cruisers, was that we would go to war with them; so that by the course of policy which we are pursuing we render ourselves liable to the alternative of having our property completely destroyed, or entering into a contest with every neutral Power in the world. We ought, under these circumstances, to ask ourselves what we have at stake. I will not trouble the House with statistics on the point, but we all know that our commerce is to be found extending itself to every sea, that our vessels float in the waters of every clime, that even with our cruisers afloat it would not be easy to pick up an Alabama, and that the destruction of our property might go on despite all our power and resources. What would be the result? That we must submit to the destruction of our property, or that our shipping interests must withdraw their ships from the ocean. That is a danger, the apprehension of which is not confined to myself, but is shared by many who are far better able to form a judgment than I am. Recollect that your shipping is nearly twice as large as that of the United States. If you follow the principle you are now adopting as regards the United States, you must be prepared to stand the consequences, so strongly was this felt by shipowners that memorials have already been addressed to the Government upon the subject. Last year such a memorial was sent to Earl Russell by the shipowners of Hull, and, if I am not misinformed, a similar one has been sent by the shipowners of Belfast to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for that borough, who has forwarded it to the noble Earl. The memorialists stated that they viewed with the greatest apprehension the permission which has now been given for the violation of our neutrality and the clandestine furnishing of ships to a belligerent; and last night the hon. Member for Liverpool presented a petition, signed by almost all the great shipowners of that place, enforcing the same view and expressing the same anxiety. I am a little surprised at this manifestation, because what is happening around us is a source of great profit to our shipowners; but it is a proof that they are sensible that the future danger will far preponderate over the present benefit and advantages. Merchants and shipowners 473 are generally a quiescent body, attending to their own affairs and leaving the concerns of the country to those in whose abilities, position, and experience they have confidence, and on whom they can rely, on whatever side of the House they may sit, patriotically to unite to avert the evils against which private indiduals cannot secure themselves. I think it a matter of regret that no proposal is made by the Government for the modification of the existing law, and I cannot imagine that if such an attempt were made hon. Members on my own side of the House, who may at times be placed in power, would refuse to assist in taking steps to insure this country against the dangers which menace its commerce. We ought, I think, no longer to dally with this question. It is one of immense importance and of a most dangerous character. Neither the Government nor anyone else in this House, I am sure, can be deterred from proposing or adopting a necessary measure by the fear that they may be taunted with acting at the dictation, of the United States. No one can be more indisposed than I should be to sacrifice the rights, the interests, or the honour of the country to the dictation of a foreign Power, but no one can be more convinced that we ought to blush for ourselves and our country if we are deterred by the fear of some newspaper taunt, some electioneering speech, or some piece of stump oratory, from yielding to the dictation of reason and good sense, and applying a remedy where an evil has been proved to exist. I have heard it said that this is not the time to take such a step, that we ought to wait until the war is over, when we could pass an Act without apprehension that its purport or intention might be mistaken. Has any Foreign Enlistment Act been ever passed in time of peace? Our own Act was passed in 1819, while Spain was at war with her colonies. And let the House remember the act of General Washington, perhaps the boldest act in the life of that illustrious man, when he issued his proclamation to prevent the citizens of the United States from taking part in a war against Great Britain. The whole feeling of that country was on the side of France. "France and Freedom!" was, as a cry, opposed to "Great Britain and Tyranny!" All the recollections of the past war with Great Britain were fresh in the memory of the Americans, and their gratitude to France 474 was still alive. Popular feeling was strongly against General Washington, and yet he perilled his power, his influence, and his popularity, and had the courage to propose and carry a measure for which he was afterwards praised and blessed by his countrymen, because they recognized it as being in accordance with wisdom, with their own interests, and with justice. What is the moral? The moral which I draw from that is that, whatever may be our individual sympathies or our wishes and views as to the causes or results of the pending contest, we need not be afraid of being charged with acting under the dictation of a country which is now engaged in the most exhausting conflict that has ever occurred. We ought not to yield to sympathy when the dictate of duty is clear that we should act to others as we would that they should act to us; we ought not to be prevented from adopting such a measure as may avert the calamity to which I have adverted so imperfectly, but which now looms in the view of every shipowner; we ought not to be deterred from passing such an Act as will protect this country against the charge of being neutral only when it suits her purposes, and violating it when it suits her interests. I cannot help thinking that if there is to be a change of the law this is the moment when those who guide and control our destinies are bound to consider what course shall be pursued. We could do it now without giving rise to any idea that we have been threatened. If we do it now we may save ourselves, while if it is delayed we cannot avoid retribution hereafter. If we miss this opportunity, what we may do at a time of general peace will not be accepted when war occurs. We shall be referred back not to what we have done after the war is over, but to the acts which we have sanctioned by our present policy. I am anxious to ask the Government whether they do not see that what has occurred at Liverpool may lead to our neutrality being called in question, that it perils the performance of our national obligations, and may seriously affect our interests and welfare in the future.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALSir, with many things which have been said by my hon. Friend in the course of his able and temperate speech I entirely agree. No one who has observed the conduct which the Government have endeavoured to pursue with regard to this 475 important and intricate political subject during the past two years can doubt that, whether successfully or otherwise, they have endeavoured to the best of their power to vindicate the laws of this country, and, at the same time, to fulfil the obligations of a sincere and impartial neutrality. I know that these professions will not meet with the assent of those who, in their own minds, have no sympathy with the neutrality itself, who have given themselves, doubtless under the impulse of generous motives, to entire, unqualified, and enthusiastic sympathy with one or the other of the belligerents. Nevertheless, I have such confidence in the justice and right feeling of the country as to believe that the people of England generally will perceive that the Government, in the course which they have pursued in circumstances of no slight difficulty, have really desired to maintain the law and preserve the honour of the country, and at the same time not to deviate from the path of a real and impartial neutrality. Addressing myself first to the last and most generally important of the topics of my hon. Friend's speech, I need hardly say that we are quite sensible of the gravity of the public evil which, exists when merchants or any other persons, in this country hold themselves at liberty, by all kinds of shifts and evasions, to treat with contempt Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality; to make themselves parties in a war in which Her Majesty has proposed to be neutral; to shelter themselves under those opportunities of escape which the just regard of the law of our country for persons accused of any offence invariably offers; and to do acts which in their immediate effects place in peril the friendly relations of this and another great nation, and which, in their ultimate consequences, may possibly recoil with disastrous and destructive effect upon the trade and commerce of their own country. The Government had some right to hope that in the circumstances of such a war as this English merchants occupying eminent positions would not spell out the law under the advice of lawyers, saying "I cannot find it in the bond," and availing themselves of every means of escape which ingenuity can suggest hasten to plunge this country into peril, and create a precedent for future mischiefs and dangers, against which the law of this country seeks to provide. I hope the time will 476 soon come—indeed, I think I may infer from the memorial to which my hon. Friend has referred that the time has already come, when the voice of the mercantile community of England will be raised, so that those who may be unwilling to hold themselves bound by Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality shall see that they cannot expect the moral support of the great body of their fellow-countrymen. I must endeavour to show that the conduct which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government on this subject has been, at least, of that character which the country had a right to expect. The House is aware that there are only three vessels which are alleged, and in those cases I do not say the allegations are well founded, as they have never been brought to the test of judicial proceedings, but there are only three vessels altogether which are alleged to have been fitted out in this country in violation of the law, and with the practical effect of placing this country in the situation of ministering in an important and formidable manner to the warlike requirements of one of the two belligerents. Her Majesty's Government believe that the law was intended to strike, and does strike, at such acts. With regard to those three ships, the House will recollect that the first which left the shores of this country, the Oreto, afterwards the Florida, left before any information upon which the Government could act had been imparted to them. That vessel was afterwards arrested at Nassau, was tried there and acquitted, but it was found that there was reasonable cause for the arrest. So far the Government was not to blame. As to the next ship, the Alabama, I need not repeat what was said upon a former occasion as to the steps which were taken by the Government, after full consideration of the evidence laid before them, with a view to arrest that vessel. It is well known to the House and to the country that orders to that effect were given, but the ship in the meantime made her escape. Then, lastly, there was this vessel, the Georgia, as to which no information whatever reached Her Majesty's Government; no evidence upon which we could act, until she was actually gone. So successfully disguised were the real designs of those connected with that ship that, as my hon. Friend has stated, the crew were actually engaged for a voyage to Shanghai, and all other arrangements 477 for arming her were made with a view to concealment and disguise, and it was only off the coast of France that, meeting another vessel, she received her armament and re-enlisted her crew. The Government, therefore, had no opportunity of interfering so as to stop that vessel. If there be those who think that all those proceedings connected with these ships were perfectly lawful, they will, I am sure, join with me in regretting that, if lawful, they were not also open, avowed, and above-board. It does not seem altogether probable, that if the persons engaged on these proceedings had believed in their lawfulness, they would have taken all possible pains to disguise their real character. Afterwards, as the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government took action in the case of the Alexandra, and since then they have done the same with regard to two other vessels, concerning which I will say nothing, as they will soon be the subject of judicial trial. I may also mention that in Scotland the Government directed the seizure of the vessel Pampero, under the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the result of that proceeding has been that a verdict has been given by consent for the Crown, and that, while great liberality has been shown in waiving the forfeiture to the Crown, security has been taken against the employment of the vessel for any belligerent service, and the authority of the law has been successfully vindicated. I am happy to be able to say that, whatever may have been the difficulties which in these cases the Government have had to encounter in point of law or evidence, the interference of the Government does appear to have been productive of good effect, as it has impeded the progress of the system of fitting out naval armaments for a belligerent State. We have no reason to believe that the efforts of the Government have been unsuccessful in their practical object, nor even so far as regards the elucidation of the law; although it would, perhaps, be premature to express a confident opinion upon a subject concerning which high authorities have differed. But I cannot avoid expressing a sanguine hope that the result of the measures taken by the Government will be to clear up some of the difficulty attaching to the construction of the law, and to lead in future to a better observance of it. I am encouraged in that hope by the fact that in the Court of Exchequer two learned Judges adopted the construc- 478 tion of the Act upon which the Crown had been advised to proceed, Their construction has since received the endorsement of a learned Judge in the Queen's Bench, under circumstances which make it probable that other Judges of that Court may concur in his opinion, and in the case of the Pampero, in Scotland, the Judges of the Court of Session pronounced opinions tending, to a great extent, to confirm the construction of the Act contended for by the Crown.
The result of all this is to leave the Government in a situation in which they have a right to hope that the law, as it is, may in all such cases be capable of being vindicated, and that steps taken to vindicate it will not fail in their object; and therefore the House will probably think that it will not be improper, instead of now suggesting a change of the law, for the Government to act upon that view; but if it should prove to be otherwise, and that the present law is not sufficient, then I trust they may hereafter look for that support and encouragement from this House and the country which upon a subject so important it is essential to obtain. If, in the absence of such support and encouragement, proposals for a change of the law were ineffectually made, it would commit those who ought to have the common interest of the country at heart, to a premature expression of opinion, which might have disastrous effects upon the future of this country. We think, therefore, that if it should ever become necessary to consider the subject, it should be considered at a time when no party feelings nor temporary sympathies may exist to induce the House to take a course which it may be difficult afterwards to retract, and which, if persevered with, might be attended with serious consequences to the welfare of the country. Under these circumstances, the House will, no doubt, consider that Government are doing right in adhering to their original hope that the law as it is may be found sufficient for its purpose, and, at all events, that they ought not to propose any change in the law until they are convinced that there is an absolute necessity for it, and that such proposals will receive the encouragement and support of the House and the country, without which they could not be carried into effect. Having said that, I will address myself to the particular subject of the Motion of my hon. Friend.
479 I have shown that with regard to the former history of the Georgia, the Government have omitted nothing which they could do under the circumstances. That ship has now returned as a Confederate ship—a public ship of war, with a regular commission as such. I must here notice one observation of my hon. Friend. He says that from the 1st of April, 1863, until the following 23rd of June, this ship—the Georgia—was registered in this country in the name of a British owner, a merchant of Liverpool, and that therefore she was cruising, burning, and destroying vessels at a time when she was a British ship. I must demur altogether to the law of my hon. Friend in that respect. The register is nothing but the evidence of the title of a British owner for a municipal purpose in this country. A ship which has a British register, and which is afterwards transferred to a foreign belligerent Power, cannot, from the mere fact of her still remaining registered in England as the property of a British owner, in any way be justly styled a British ship. Nor can it be said that she has not become what this vessel really is —a public vessel of war. I regret that my hon. Friend should have used an argument that may seem to give countenance to assertions which have repeatedly been made, but which are quite destitute of foundation, that these ships are British pirates. They are not British, and they are not pirates. That expression is untrue in fact, dishonourable to this country; and I trust that all those who have the honour of this country at heart, whatever they may see to condemn in the conduct of persons concerned in fitting out and navigating such vessels as those referred to, will not give encouragement to a proposition so extravagant, and so completely without foundation.
I now come to the point suggested by the Motion of my hon. Friend. He points to the fact that the Georgia is now at Liverpool under circumstances which show that she has never been in any Confederate port. Whether on that account she ought to have been allowed to come in or not I will notice hereafter. The ship, however, came to Liverpool, being at the time a regularly commissioned public ship of war. There is no doubt she was entitled to come in in that character by licence of the Crown, as long as the rules issued by Her Majesty in January, 1862, remain unaltered, because those rules permit ships of 480 war belonging to both belligerents to come into our ports under certain restrictions. They must not remain more than twenty-four hours, except for repairs; they must not receive repairs in the nature of warlike equipment; and there are strict limits as to leaving as soon as the repairs are completed. This ship being a public ship of war of the Confederate States, is permitted to come into our ports, and so conies in lawfully as a ship of war. The Government desired to have information regarding the circumstances under which she had entered our port, and as to the length of time she was likely to remain. They understood she had been brought into dock, it was presumed, for the purpose of repair, and it was afterwards stated that she was likely to be dismantled and sold. If the latter were the case, there would be no harm done to the other belligerent Power by relieving her from all fear of further opposition on the part of the dismantled vessel. On the other hand, if there be no positive pledge that she will not leave as a ship of war, it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to require her to depart as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend has, however, raised a larger and more general question, for he has asked whether the Government think the admission of such ships as he describes that ship to be consistent with their international obligations, their profession of neutrality, and the preservation of British interests. The Government certainly has not considered the limited and qualified admission of ships of this kind into British ports to be at all inconsistent with their duty in any respect. But for the first element in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention—that the vessel was originally manned and equipped from British ports—I think that every one would grant her right to admission into our ports, in the same way, and under the same conditions, as ships of the Federal States are admitted. I must, however, notice that my Friend has imported into the case a consideration which has been frequently dwelt upon in the various publications issued upon this subject—namely, that the ship has never been in any of the ports of the belligerent Power under whose flag she sails. It is argued that this is a circumstance which prevents a ship from acquiring the character of a belligerent ship of war. It has been supposed that there is some rule or 481 other, some settled principle of International Law, which will bear out this conclusion. It should not be our practice to invent new rules of International Law to suit particular cases, and I may state that such a rule as this was never heard of. To say that a country whose ports are blockaded is not at liberty to avail herself of all the resources which may be at her command in other parts of the world, that she cannot buy ships in neutral territory and commission them as ships of war without bringing them to her own country first, is a doctrine which is quite preposterous, and all the arguments founded upon such a doctrine only tend to throw dust into men's eyes and to mislead them, We cannot, therefore, upon those grounds make this ship an exception to our ordinary rules. And now I come to the real question. I have not the least doubt that we have a right, if we thought fit, to exclude from our own ports any particular ship or class of ships, if we consider that they have violated our neutrality; but such power is simply discretionary on the part of the Government, and should be exercised with a due regard to all the circumstances of the case. Does the circumstance of a ship happening to have been fitted out in violation of the neutrality of a neutral nation entitle her, in the first place, to be refused recognition as a public ship of war? Happily, we find an answer to this question in the history of the jurisprudence of the United States; and I do not find that the United States, which have really settled all the doctrines of law applicable to this kind of violation of neutrality by fitting out vessels in their ports for belligerent nations, ever adopted the practice of inquiring into the previous history of public ships of war which laboured under the suspicion or allegation of having been fitted out in their ports in violation of their neutrality. In the case of the Santissima Trinidad, Mr, Justice Story said—
In general, the commission of a public ship, signed by the proper authorities of the nation to which she belongs, is complete proof of her national character. A bill of sale is not necessary to be produced, nor will the courts of a foreign country inquire into the means by which the title to property has been acquired. It would be to exert the right of examining into the validity of the acts of the foreign Sovereign, and to sit in judgment upon them in cases where he has not conceded the jurisdiction, and where it would be inconsistent with his own supremacy. The commission, therefore, of a public ship, when duly 482 authenticated, so far at least as foreign courts are concerned, imports absolute verity, and the title is not examinable. The property must be taken to be duly acquired, and cannot be controverted. This has been the settled practice between nations, and it is a rule founded in public convenience and policy, and cannot be broken in upon without endangering the peace and repose as well of neutral as of belligerent Sovereigns. The commission in the present case is not expressed in the most unequivocal terms, but its fair purport and interpretation must be deemed to apply to a public ship of the Government. If we add to this the corroborative testimony of our own and the British Consul at Buenos Ayres, as well as that of private citizens, to the notoriety of her claim of a public character, and her admission into our own ports as a public ship, with the immunities and privileges belonging to such a ship, with the express approbation of our own Government, it does not seem too much to assert, whatever may be the private suspicion of a lurking American interest, that she must be judicially held to be a public ship of the country whose commission she bears.The ship Independencia, to which those words applied, was one by which the United States Foreign Enlistment Act had been violated; and in the case of the Cassius also, under circumstances like those of the Georgia, it was decided that neither the ship, nor her officers, could be made amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, when she came in, after having taken prizes, in the character of a public ship of war. The other belligerent has, indeed, no concern whatever in the course which the neutral Government may think fit to adopt with reference to this vessel; and if the Government refused her admission to the ports of the United Kingdom, it would only be done for the purpose of vindicating our authority. I cannot find, however, that the United States ever followed such a course, with respect to a ship of this character. The Santissima Trinidad and the Cassius were both received into the ports of the United States, were held not to be amenable to their courts of law, and were never ordered by the Government to leave any port. There are, also, a very considerable number of cases reported in which prizes, taken by ships fitted out in breach of the neutrality laws of the United Stales, and afterwards brought into the ports of the United States, were Cither restored, or questions raised in courts of law as to their restoration; but I can find no instance of any prohibition or exclusion from any port of that country of any ship, being a public ship of war, which had taken any one of those prizes. We are not, therefore, following the authority of any 483 precedent in the United States, if we exclude this vessel from our ports. The hon. Member for Huntingdon, has asked if the Government think the admission of such vessels to British harbours consistent with our international obligations. This question renders it necessary to determine the precise right of the other belligerent in this matter. Now, upon this question, I will quote from another judgment of Mr. Justice Story, in reference to the case of the Amistad de la Rues. In discussing this matter, I hope not to utter a single word in the slightest degree offensive to any one in the United States, and least of all to their Government; but I cannot help wishing that the authority I have mentioned had been more recollected when, over and over again, those extraordinary and extravagant demands were made upon our Government to pay the value of all the ships taken on the high seas by the Alabama and similar vessels. I need hardly remind the House that in 1793, when the United States did give us compensation for certain prizes not restored, that compensation was strictly limited to ships brought into their ports by ships fitted out in violation of their laws, and was not extended to any prizes taken upon the high seas and not brought into their ports. They did not even restore, or make compensation for, prizes which had been brought into their ports by French privateers, fitted out in those ports before the time when they expressly prohibited that practice. All they did was to name a particular date, and to prohibit the French from fitting out more privateers, or bringing in any more of their prizes after that date. Mr. Justice Story thus lays down what is the limit of the obligation which the neutral owes to the belligerent in this matter—When called upon by either of the belligerents to act in such cases, all that justice seems to require is, that the neutral nation should fairly execute its own laws, and give no asylum to the property unjustly captured. It is bound, therefore, to restore the property if found within its own ports; but, beyond this, it is not obliged to interfere between the belligerents.So that he distinctly says, we are to execute our laws fairly, we are to give no asylum to prizes captured by ships fitted out in violation of our neutrality, which are property unjustly captured; but he does not say that an asylum may not be given to public ships of war, whatever their previous history; and he adds that, beyond the limits which he mentions, we are not 484 obliged to interfere between the belligerents. The authority of Mr. Justice Story, therefore, excludes the proposition, that belligerents have any rights entitling them to require interference by the neutral, to the extent of excluding absolutely from her ports ships of this description, if it does not seem to the neutral herself necessary so to do. I say, then, we have done all which that authority requires us to do. And now I will ask what reasons there are for the hesitation of the Government to take the extreme step of absolutely excluding these particular ships from our ports when, at the same time, all the ships of the United States Government are admitted. Some reasons can be given; the House will judge of them; I believe they have had considerable influence upon the determination of the Government upon this question, and I think they are such as are consistent with an honest desire to maintain our neutrality and fulfil our international obligations. In the first place the maintenance of neutrality is plainly consistent with the maintenance of our own rights, and I entirely repudiate the argument which has been sometimes used, that you are not to enforce your own laws, because the effect of doing so may possibly be to put one of the parties to greater disadvantage than the other. Neutrality does not require that you should at all consider that. On the other hand, where you have no law to enforce, then it becomes worthy of consideration whether you may not be weighing down the balance in a manner not entirely consistent with neutrality, if you adopt voluntarily a rule which would practically exclude from the asylum you allow in your ports the whole of the navy of one belligerent, and no part of the navy of the other belligerent. That is one consideration. And then there is another. The whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument assumes that the facts, and the law applicable to the facts, are substantiated, that we are in a position as between ourselves and the Confederate States to treat the matter as beyond controversy, and to assume that the Georgia was, in fact, fitted out in violation of our neutrality. Now, we may have very strong reason to suspect this, and may even believe it to be true; but to say that we are to act upon strong suspicion or belief against another State upon certain facts which have never been judicially established, and which it is not easy to bring to the test as between Go- 485 vernment and Government—that is a proposition which is not without grave consideration to be accepted. The difficulty of that view is increased by the fact that we have no diplomatic relations with the Confederate States, and cannot communicate with them in the ordinary way. For very good reasons we have not recognized them, and we have not therefore the opportunities of intercourse which recognition gives. What is more, the Government of the United States, by its ships, bars us from the means of communication which would ordinarily exist without recognition. Only the other day Her Majesty's Government were anxious to communicate and remonstrate with the Government of the Confederate States on this very subject, and actually gave a commission to one of our diplomatic servants, a consul, to do so; when it was announced, that the blockading squadron under the orders of the United States Government could not permit even a ship of war of this country to enter into a blockaded port for the purpose of that communication. These circumstances greatly enhance the difficulty of bringing to a practical test the question, whether there has been in this case a violation of our neutrality. Upon that allegation the whole argument depends; and here, again, American authority by no means warrants the notion that you ought to act lightly or without cogent proof. In the case of the Santissima Trinidad, to which I have before referred, Mr. Justice Story says, as to the kind of proof which ought to be insisted on in these cases—In a case of the description of that before the Court, where the sovereignty and rights of a foreign belligerent nation are in question, and where the exercise of jurisdiction over captures made under its flag can be justified only by clear proof of the violation of our neutrality, there are still stronger reasons for abstaining from interference, if the testimony is clouded with doubt and suspicion. We adhere to the rule which has been already adopted by this Court, that restitution ought not to be decreed upon the ground of capture in violation of our neutrality, unless the fact be established beyond all reasonable doubts.There, again, is a principle which the Con federate Government are entitled to have the benefit of, and which makes it matter of serious difficulty to say, that, because we have very strong moral presumptions and very strong reason to believe that a certain ship of war was fitted out in violation of our neutrality, we are, therefore, to act summarily upon that supposition. You 486 have here a mixed question of fact and of law—the facts to be established by evidence, the law to be decided with reference to the facts; and, considering the controversy which has existed as to the bearing and effect of our law, it is not impossible that in some of these cases the Confederate States may have believed that they were acting within that law. All this increases the difficulty; and now I want to suggest some other reasons.Of course, if we act according to the suggestions made to us in this case, we must act on the same principles, and deal out the same measure to the other belligerent. And if we are to proceed on grounds of moral belief, and do not stop to ask whether they constitute adequate legal grounds of action—if we are to proceed upon information of the kind which carries conviction to the mind—it is impossible, I grieve to say, to acquit the agents of the United States, although we may acquit their Government, of acts which, upon a large scale, are inconsistent with our neutrality. The case of the Federal ship Kearsarge was a case of this character. Beyond all question a considerable amount of recruiting was carried on at Cork for the purposes of that ship, she being employed at the time in our own waters, or very near them, in looking out for her enemy; and she was furnished with a large addition to her crew from Ireland. Upon that being represented to Mr. Adams, he said, as might have been expected, that it was entirely contrary to the wishes of his Government, and he was satisfied that there must be some mistake. The men were afterwards relanded, but there can be no doubt that there had been a violation of our neutrality. Nevertheless, we admitted the Kearsarge afterwards into English waters. We have not excluded her from our ports, and if we had, I think the United States Government would have considered that they had some cause of offence. But it does not rest there. I see from the paper that the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) wants information respecting the enlistment of British subjects for the Federal army. Now, from all quarters, reports reach us which we cannot doubt to be substantially true, that agents have been recruiting for the Federal army, with or without the concurrence of the Federal Government, in Ireland, and engaging men under the pretext of employing them on railways and public works in America, but really with the intention of enlisting 487 them, and that many of these men are so enlisted. In Canada and New Brunswick the same practices prevail. Representations have been made to the United States Government respecting particular cases of persons who have been kidnapped into the service and then forced to fight, or treated as deserters, and I feel bound to say that those representations have not met with that prompt and satisfactory attention which we might have expected. How are we to act in this case? Are we to exclude from our ports all the ships of the belligerent whose agents are believed to have been engaged in these practices?—practices which, whatever may be the intention of the United States Government, operate largely to supply their ranks with British subjects in violation of British law. If we are to act in the one case upon suspicion, or upon moral belief going beyond suspicion, it would be difficult to say that we ought not to act so in the other. But in what difficulties we should entangle ourselves were we so to act, not being bound so to act by any international obligation! What may fairly be asked is, that we should do all we can to enforce our own laws within our own jurisdiction: if we do this, we may abstain from doing more, unless, for our own reasons, we find it expedient. That is the course which the Government have taken; that is the course to which they will adhere; and, in view of the difficulties I have mentioned, I think it is a course which is fully justified.
There is one other consideration of importance which I wish to mention; and here again I hope that what I say will not cause offence in the United States, for I state it because it is true, and because it is important that the matter should be understood. The British Government are not assisted by the Government of the United States in matters of this description. The demands which the United States Government make upon us go so far beyond the limits of anything they can be entitled to ask according to any recognized rules and privileges of International Law, that it becomes absolutely necessary that this Government should exercise great caution indeed before they do acts which might possibly be misunderstood, and might give foundation to the idea that they were done under a supposed necessity of complying with demands of this kind. The House well knows that I refer to the extraordinary demands arising out of the 488 case of the Alabama. I have no hesitation in saying that the United States Government by advancing such demands, and by seeking to make our Government responsible for pecuniary compensation for prizes taken by the Alabama upon the high seas and never brought within our ports or in any way whatever under our control, are making demands directly contrary to the principles of International Law laid down by their own jurists; and thereby they render it infinitely more difficult for us at their request to do anything resting on our own discretion, which we are not bound to do in law. What we may fairly say, and what we do say, is this, "We will adhere to the rules laid down by your own authorities. We will execute our own law. We will allow no asylum to prizes or to property unjustly captured. If any such are brought in, any demand for their reclamation shall be investigated. But we will not undertake to recognize claims going beyond these limits. We will not undertake to interfere between belligerents in any other way than that in which we can be shown to be obliged to do so, by the rules of International Law, and the recognized obligations of neutrality."
§ MR. W. E. FORSTER, said, that the strong sympathy which he felt with one of the parties in the American contest might have enabled him to obtain information which otherwise he could not have procured; but he should endeavour to treat the question before the House solely from an English point of view, and in an impartial manner. The instructions issued by the Admiralty with reference to the ships of either of the belligerents which might enter any of our ports were as follows:—
If any ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall enter any port, roadstead, or waters belonging to Her Majesty, such vessel shall be required to depart and to put to sea within twenty-four hours after her entrance into such port, roadstead, or waters, except in case of stress of weather, or of her requiring provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or repairs, in either of which cases the authorities of the port, or of the nearest port (as the case may be), shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twenty-four hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel which may have been allowed to remain within British waters for they purpose of repair shall continue in such port, roadstead, or waters for a longer period than twenty-four hours after her necessary repairs shall have been completed.489 The hon. and learned Attorney General had referred to the case of the Georgia, but he had hardly explained why she had been permitted to stay at Liverpool in the manner she had remained there. There was scarcely a colourable ground for alleging that the Georgia went into Liverpool for repairs. She came over from the coast of France, where she had been staying thirty days in the port of Bourdeaux for the purpose of undergoing repairs, and she came ostensibly to England for the purpose of paying off her crew. He should like to ask whether a Federal vessel of war would be allowed to pay off its crew in one of our ports with the same amount of accommodation as had been given to the Confederates. It was said that no one would have a right to call this vessel a British pirate; he (Mr. Forster) had never called any of those vessels by that name, but they must remember what the Georgia was. The Georgia was a Confederate vessel which notoriously had been built in England and sailed from Scotland, having on board at the time she sailed a crew solely composed of British subjects, with two exceptions, and of those exceptions one was a man belonging to Sweden and the other to Russia. She received on the coast of France her equipment from England, and was owned by an English merchant for months after she had began to take prizes. The certificate stated that she was sold to a foreigner on the 23rd of June, 1863; and though the Attorney General seemed to think very little of the matter, he would perhaps correct him (Mr. Forster) if he was wrong in thinking that the fact of being upon the custom-house register as owned by a British merchant gave her the right of application to British consuls in foreign ports until that register was cancelled. Lastly, this ship, having never been into a Confederate port, had come back to Liverpool under the pretence of paying off her crew. The Attorney General had said that it made no difference whether she had been in a Confederate port or not. He (Mr. Forster), however, thought that it did, because it established a precedent which might be used against this country in the future if it happened to be at war. And this brought them to the point. Had the Government done all they could on behalf of English interests, and in consideration of their position hereafter? He hoped the House would seriously apply themselves to that part of the question,—whether the facility that they 490 had given as neutrals to that vessel would not tell against them in the future, if by an unfortunate circumstance they became involved in war? That question might be divided into two parts; first, whether the International Law as between England and Foreign countries could be put upon a better footing; and whether all had been done that could be done under the existing law, so as to merit in the future that neutrals should behave to us as we should wish to be treated?With regard to the alteration of the law, the Attorney General had given some reasons why it should not be altered; but he did not seem to meet the real point of the question. By that sorrowful war they had an opportunity of putting the International Law of the world upon such a footing as would benefit not only England but civilization in the future. An opportunity presented itself which, he feared, had been lost, but it was for them to see whether it had been lost altogether or not. In the history of international relations, two countries had advocated the rights of neutrals against belligerents—America and France. Now America being a belligerent had asked England to join her in improving the maritime law; and no one would deny that England was in that position that France would have followed her lead in this matter. He might be told that the United States had not honestly and candidly shown a desire to come to such agreement with us; but he thought he could show that she had. On the 19th of December, 1862, Earl Russell wrote to Mr. Adams to the effect, that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government certain Amendments might be introduced in the Foreign Enlistment Act, and that it was willing to receive from the Government of the United States suggestions as to what amendments might with advantage be made in the Foreign Enlistment Act of each country. Mr. Adams did what he could; he sent the suggestions home to his Government; and all that he (Mr. Forster) found further in our blue-book respecting it was a despatch of Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, of 29th February. In that document he said, Mr. Adams intimated that, while the United States Government was ready to listen to any proposition on the subject, they did not see how their law could be improved. It was quite true Mr. Adams had said, the Government of the 491 United States thought their law effective, experience having shown it to be so. He (Mr. Forster) believed it was admitted fey the Law Officers of the Crown that the American law was stronger than ours, especially upon the point where ours had failed; but it was proved by papers which had been laid before the American Congress, that the matter had gone a little further than appeared in our own blue-book. The following was a letter of Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, dated September 16, 1863:—
It will doubtless be remembered that the proposition made by you, which I had the honour of being the medium of conveying to my Government, to agree upon some forms of amendment of the existing statutes of the two countries, in order to make them more effective, was entertained by the latter not from any want of confidence in the ability to enforce the existing statute, but from a desire to co-operate with what then appeared to be the wish of Her Majesty's Ministers. But upon my communicating this reply to your Lordship, and inviting the discussion of the proposition, you then informed me that it had been decided not to proceed any further in this direction, as it was the opinion of the Cabinet, sustained by the authority of the Lord Chancellor, that the law was fully effective in its present state.Was the Attorney General or the Solicitor General prepared to say, after the experience they had, that "the law was fully effective in its present state?" The following was the reply of Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, which had not been published, and which was dated September 25,1863:I deem it incumbent on me, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, frankly to state to you that Her Majesty's Government will not be induced to propose to Parliament any new laws which they may not, for reasons of their own, think proper to be adopted,He (Mr. Forster) took it for granted that they were all agreed that no law should be proposed to the House except from an English point of view and on consideration of English interests; but he was surprised that Her Majesty's Government had not considered how terribly such a state of things as the present would react upon the future interests of this country. Reasons of their own should have induced the Government to put this great question of International Law upon a more satisfactory footing. They should have taken the opportunity to obtain from America and France, the great protectors of neutral rights, such an International Law as would make it impossible for this country in future to be subjected to what America was now suffering from them. Let the 492 House consider what would be their position if they were to experience the same treatment from a foreign country that America had received at their hands. He would not appeal to the case of America herself, because some people might say that whatever principles of International Law we might agree to, America would not abide by them. This he did not believe to be true, and he thought it might be shown to be untrue by past examples. It was impossible, at all events, to charge the Government of America with any unfair conduct in letting their subjects prey upon English commerce. Let them recollect the case of the Maury. The only other case which had been referred to was that of a vessel which it was said had been fitted out to prey upon British commerce during the war with Russia, but that vessel was not armed for such a purpose, and left America after the fall of Sebastopol. It did not appear that any representation had been made anywhere by the British Government that she was ever used for belligerent purposes, and there were affidavits to prove that she had not been so used. On the other hand, they had this fact, that when some subjects of America did engage in unjustifiable proceedings in connection with the Canadian, rebellion, the Government of America brought in a most stringent law to put an end to them. Therefore the assertion, that the American Government would not keep any engagement with them in future was not justified by the past. Let them not suppose that the precedent they were then setting as a neutral would not be used against us by every neutral Power in the future whenever we might be at war. Take the case of a possible war with Germany. Nobody would more deeply deprecate such a war as that than himself, or look upon it with greater horror; but to judge from the language of some of the newspapers, and from some speeches, there were persons who looked upon such a war without any particular feeling of horror. Supposing such a war should unfortunately arise, what would be our feelings if, when by our overwhelming naval force we fancied that we had made every German port safe, one vessel should steal out of Marseilles and another out of Brest, and that, meeting on the coast of Italy, one of them, shipping a crew and armament from the other, should be converted into a cruiser to sail off and destroy British merchantmen in the Mediterranean 493 or wherever she could find them? Should we allow France for a moment to do that? Certainly not, if we dared to prevent her; and with our usual pluck we probably should dare, unless the war were a struggle for our very existence—such a death-struggle in fact as the Americans were then engaged in. That precedent, if we allowed it to be established, meant for us a second war whenever we had a war on our hands, unless we were fighting for our existence, and did not dare to undertake another war. "What a wretched navy," it was said, "the Americans must have not to put these two or three cruisers down!" But it was a comparatively easy matter to carry on operations of this kind. All that a ship of that character had to do was to attack vessels which could not resist her, and run away from those which could. There was not the slightest occasion for them ever to fight a battle. If this country were at war, and if temptations were held out to foreign shipowners, there could be no doubt that, considering the large extent of English cargoes, there would, instead of three or four, be more than thirty ships engaged in preying upon their commerce. It would be a very cheap game to carry on. The persons engaged in it, if they were taken, were only prisoners of war; if they were not taken they made their fortunes. Was it to such risks that they would wish to expose British trade? Our merchants at first were disposed to triumph in the fact that the carrying trade of the United States was being transferred to them, but it was clear now that they had found out that present gain would not be balanced by the probable future loss. In a well known letter, addressed by Mr. Edge to Earl Russell, he stated that the effect up to that time had been that 148 American vessels had been, taken, and two millions and a half of property destroyed; and that was only a portion of the injury which had been done to American commerce, for the premium of insurance had been raised from 5 to 10 per cent, and the American carrying trade had been transferred to other nations, principally to this country. There could not be a stronger illustration of the damage which had been done to the American trade by these cruisers than the fact that, so completely was the American flag driven from the ocean, the Georgia on her second cruise did not meet a single American vessel in six weeks, though she saw no less than, seventy vessels in a very few days. 494 If we did not take care to settle the International Law before a war began, our merchants would be obliged to transfer their ships to foreign flags. Two other results would follow. First, a number of their sailors would be thrown out of employment, and the sources of their navy would be dried up, because their sailors, after a time, would take service in foreign ships. He thought the Ministry should have considered, that it was no question of sympathy with either North or South. It was no question of submitting to the dictation of a Foreign Power. If they interfered, they would be only manifestly doing what was demanded for the protection of British interests. At the meeting of Parliament the Government should have come forward and said, that if the law was effective, it was most difficult to carry it into operation; and that an opportunity was afforded them which they might never have again, of establishing their position for the future. He sincerely regretted that the Government had not discerned how excellent an opportunity had been afforded for that purpose. The question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite was, whether these particular ships, which had notoriously eluded our neutrality, should be admitted into our ports and receive the same hospitality as the ships of any other belligerent. The Attorney General had turned that into a question, whether the whole navy of the Confederates should he excluded from our ports because one of them had broken our neutrality. The and learned Gentleman asked if they hon. would, because men might have been enlisted in Ireland by the agents of the United States, therefore exclude the Federal ships from British harbours? But the cases were not similar at all. If they found that agents of the United States Government were enlisting men in Ireland, they should express their disapproval of it, and say that such agents should never tread on British ground again. But while they did that they might very fairly say also that vessels which left our ports in breach, of our neutrality should not be allowed to return to them. Surely the Attorney General did not mean to contend that in our representations to other nations we were obliged to be armed with the same proof as we should require in the case of one of our own people who had committed an offence against the law. Were there not sufficient grounds for saying, that we ought not to be required to extend to the 495 vessels in question the same degree of hospitality which we would gladly afford to ships which had not broken our neutrality? Then came the point as to what course our interest called upon us to take in the matter; and was it not, he would ask, clearly our interest to prevent the invasion by neutrals of the rights of belligerents, by taking those steps which he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to admit it was in our power to adopt? If, then, it was only a question of discretion, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Cabinet to consider English interests; and also to consider the enormous advantage they would enjoy in future from now adopting a course based upon the true principles of International Law. He wished to add a word with respect to International Law. He did not profess to be able to define what that law was according to precedents; but even a layman might be permitted to state his views in reference to it as based upon the principles of common sense; and what he understood its great object to be, as operating between belligerents and neutrals, was, that there should be such an arrangement between nations, that an individual in a country should not be allowed by the sovereign power of that country to carry on war with other States without the leave of the Government. There was, he maintained, the greatest possible difference between selling munitions of war to either of the parties in a contest and the sending out armed ships from our ports; for in the one case a neutral country was made the basis of hostilities, whereas in the other it was not. He had no wish to enter into the question, whether the Federals had received from us a larger quantity of the munitions of war than the Confederates, though that was a point more open to doubt than some hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to suppose; though, of course, the Federals had received them more easily than the Confederates from the fact that the Confederates had no navy. That was their weakness, it was true; but in war weakness was a fault, and we might very well say to both belligerents when either complained of our furnishing the other with munitions of war, "It is no fault of ours if you do not stop them, and prevent them from being carried into hostile ports?" When, however, it came to be a question of armed ships leaving our own ports, the matter assumed 496 a different aspect, because the only way in which a belligerent could stop them was not by blockading the ports of another belligerent, but the ports of the neutral Power from which they sailed. Let him, however, suppose that the port of Liverpool was blockaded by the United States navy for the purpose of preventing these vessels from leaving it, could any one imagine that we could remain at peace with America? Such, then, being the position of the case, it was evident that if the Government could succeed in obtaining such concessions as he had indicated, and if neutrals were prevented from allowing their subjects to carry on war, they would not only be promoting our interests, but advancing the interests of civilization. He trusted, therefore, that the discussion raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with an authority which scarcely any other Member of that House could command, backed as he was by the strongest possible memorial from the shipowners of Liverpool, would impress upon the Government the necessity of not allowing the opinions which had been expressed to pass by without endeavouring to place us in a better position than that in which we seemed to stand in the event of our unfortunately becoming belligerents ourselves.
§ MR. COBDENI will only occupy the attention of the House for a very few minutes. I wish to say a word or two in reference to what has fallen from the Attorney General. Two questions have been brought under our notice by the statement of the hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject. The suggestions which he makes are, that we should alter our Foreign Enlistment Act, and that we should, in the exercise of the powers which it is conceded we possess, prevent vessels of the description referred to from entering our ports. With respect to altering our laws, the Attorney General has entered into a long argument to show that the law as it stands is effective for the purpose of preventing a breach of our neutrality, but I cannot imagine a more cruel joke than the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech must appear when it comes to be read at Washington. What is the fact? You have been carrying on hostilities from these shores against the people of the United States, and have been inflicting an amount of damage on that country greater than would be produced by many ordinary wars. It is estimated that the loss sustained by the 497 capture and burning of American vessels has been about 15,000,000 dols., or nearly £3,000,000 sterling. But that is a small part of the injury which has been inflicted on the American marine. We have rendered the rest of her vast mercantile property for the present valueless. Under the system of free trade, by which the commerce of the world is now so largely carried on, if you raise the rate of insurance on the flag of any maritime Power, you throw the trade into the hands of its competitors, because it is no longer profitable for merchants or manufacturers to employ ships to carry freights when those vessels become liable to war risks. I have here one or two facts which I should like to lay before the hon. and learned Gentleman, in order to show the way in which this has been operating. When he has heard them he will see what a cruel satire it is to say that our laws have been found sufficient to enforce our neutrality. I hold in my hand an account of the foreign trade of New York for the quarter ending June 30, 1860, and also for the quarter ending June 30, 1863, which is the last date up to which a comparison is made. I find that the total amount of the foreign trade of New York for the first mentioned period was 92,000,000 dols., of which 62,000,000 dols. were carried in American bottoms and 30,000,000 dols. in foreign. This state of things rapidly changed as the war continued, for it appears that for the quarter ending June 30, 1863, the total amount of the foreign trade of New York was 88,000,000 dols., of which amount 23,000,000 dols. were carried in American vessels and 65,000,000 dols. in foreign, the change brought about being that while in 1860 two-thirds of the commerce of New York was carried on in American bottoms, in 1863 three-fourths was carried on in foreign bottoms. You see, therefore, what a complete revolution must have taken place in the value of American shipping; and what has been the consequence? That a very large transfer has been made of American shipping to English owners, because the proprietors no longer found it profitable to carry on their business. A document has been laid on the table which gives us some important information on this subject. I refer to an account of the number and tonnage of United States vessels which have been registered in the United Kingdom and in the ports of British North America between the years 1858 and 1863, both in- 498 clusive. It shows that the transfer of United States shipping to English capitalists in each of the years comprised in that period was as follows: —
I am told that this operation is now going on as fast as ever, Now, I hold this to be the most serious aspect of the question of our relations with America. I care very little about what newspapers may write or orators may utter on one side or the other. We may balance off an inflammatory speech from an hon. Member here against a similar speech made in the Congress at Washington. We may pair off a leading article published in New York against one published in London; but little consequence, I suspect, would be attached to either. The two countries, I hope, would discount these incendiary articles or these incendiary harangues at their proper value. But what I do fear in the relations between these two nations of the same race is the heaping up of a gigantic material grievance such as, we are now accumulating by the transactions connected with these cruisers; because there is a vast amount of individual suffering, personal wrong, and personal rancour arising out of this matter, and that in a country where popular feeling rules in public affairs. I am not sure that any legislation can meet this question. I candidly confess I do not think that if you were now to pass a law to alter your Foreign Enlistment Act you would materially change the aspect of this matter. You have already done your worst towards the American mercantile marine. What with the high rate of insurance, what with these captures, and what with the rapid transfer of tonnage to British capitalists, you have virtually made valueless that vast property. Why, if you had gone and helped the Confederates by bombarding all the accessible seaport towns of America, a few lives might have been lost which, as it is, have not been sacrificed, but you could hardly have done more injury in the way of destroying property than you have done by these few cruisers. Well, I turn to another point that has been opportunely raised by the hon. Gentleman—I mean as to the practicability of refusing hospitality to these ships. I re- 499 gard that as a very important question. I alluded to it twelve months ago in this House, and I still think that that is a step which the Government might take with advantage to our future relations with America. But when I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says in opposition to that view, I confess I am perplexed beyond measure by his argument. He made a very long and elaborate statement to show that we were not entitled to refuse hospitality to these ships. He admitted, indeed, that we had the right to do it, but he contended against the expediency of our exercising that right. Now, this is a question for the Government, and not for the Legislature; and therefore I wish to impress its importance on the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman wound up by saying he thought they had better wait until they saw whether the House of Commons was quite prepared to support them in any alteration of our law. I will only say it struck me when I heard that we clearly had not a Washington at the head of affairs, because that certainly was not the way in which Washington earned the tribute of our applause for the course that he took. The Government admit through their legal adviser that they have the power, if they choose to exercise it, to prevent these vessels from entering our harbours, but the hon. and learned Gentleman doubts the expediency of exercising it, and his reason is that he thinks we have not clear proof of guilt. This brings me to a striking piece of inconsistency on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He begins with administering a solemn exhortation, and something like a solemn reproof, to English shipbuilders, for infringing our neutrality laws and disregarding the Queen's proclamation by building these ships. Well, but if they are violating our neutrality and disregarding the Queen's proclamation, it must have been because they built these vessels for a belligerent to be employed against some Power with which we are at peace. The hon. and learned Gentleman assumes that these individuals are guilty of these acts. He knows they have been guilty of these acts; he knows that these three vessels in particular, and the Alabama more especially, have been built for the Confederate Government, and employed solely for that Government, and yet he doubts the expediency of stopping them from entering our ports. He speaks as 500 though we were asking that he should send out ships of war to destroy these vessels without trial. He says there must be legal proof; but it does not require legal proof to warrant you in telling a Government, "You have got these vessels clandestinely; you got them by the infringement of our neutrality code, or, at least, we suspect you, upon fair grounds, of doing so; and, unless you prove that they came legitimately into your hands we must refuse them the hospitality of our ports." Why, how do you act in private life? You hear charges and reports compromising the honour of your acquaintance or friend. You may have a moral conviction in your mind that that individual's honour is compromised, but you may not have legal proof of it, and still you may be quite justified in saying to him, "Until you clear up these charges, which on the face of them criminate you, I must refuse you the hospitality of my house." I hold that you have the right to say the same thing in regard to these cruisers. But what was the course of the Government in the case of the Alabama? They told Mr. Adams, the American Minister, that they should give orders to stop the Alabama, either at Queenstown or at Nassau. Therefore, the principle was recognized in the case of that vessel that you had a right to stop her when she reached your jurisdiction. I say, therefore, in the same way, prevent their entering your harbours until they give an account of themselves, to show how they became possessed of that vessel. This has a most important bearing, and one so apparent that it must be plain to the apprehensions of every hon. Gentleman who hears it. If the people of the United States are to be told that not only do individuals here fit out cruisers to destroy their commerce, but that our Government will allow these cruisers themselves to enter our harbours, and there to be equipped— civilly equipped I mean—and victualled, see in what a predicament you place yourselves towards that country, in case you are ever again engaged in war. Recollect her geographical position. She has one sea coast in the Atlantic and another in the Pacific, and her Pacific coast is within about a fortnight's steaming of your China trade. Let any man read the shipping list at Shanghai. It is almost like reading the Liverpool shipping list. Suppose, then, you were at war with any other Power, and you had laid down this doctrine for 501 other countries to imitate. Why, let the American Government be as true and as loyal to its principle of neutrality as it has been, can you doubt, if American nature is human nature, if American nature is English nature, that out of their numerous and almost inaccessible creeks and corners there will not be persons to send forth these fleet steamers to prey on your commerce? Why, many Americans will think it an act of absolute patriotism to do this. They will say, "We have lost our mercantile marine through your doing this, and by doing the same towards you we shall recover it again, and you will be placed in the same position as we were. You will have a high rate of insurance, you will be obliged to sell your ships; you had the profit before, now we shall have it, for the game is one that two can play at." Consider the disadvantage you will experience under those circumstances. We understood the importance of this at the commencement of the Crimean war. In April, 1854, when war was declared with Russia, the British and French Governments sent a joint note to the American Government, in which we asked them, as an act of friendly reciprocity towards us, to give orders that no privateers bearing the Russian flag should be allowed to be fitted out, or victualled, or equipped in American ports. Recollect that the words "equipped" and "victualled" were contained in the request which we addressed to the American Government. And this leads me to make a remark with reference to a most important point— I mean as to the distinction drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman between a Government ship of war carrying a commission and a privateer. That is a question of the utmost importance to us. We have been in a Pool's Paradise for the last seven years. We have believed that the Conference of Paris achieved a great work in the interest of civilization—that it abolished privateering. Now we find that that was nothing but a stupendous hoax. For what is the Florida? What is the Alabama? What is the Georgia? Why, they are not privateers at all. I remember that the hon. Member for Liverpool who sits opposite—I wish to distinguish him from his Colleague—I remember that he made a speech lately at Liverpool, in which he said that if the Americans had only joined in the declaration of Paris against privateering they would not have been placed in their present predicament; 502 and the hon. Gentleman led his hearers, the shipowners of that port, to believe that if we got into a war we could not be retaliated upon in the same way as the Americans were, because we were under that safeguard which had for ever abolished privateering. Well, let us take the case of the Florida as an example, and look at her history for a moment. She was off the coast of Ireland, and went across to Brest. On her way thither she burnt an. American merchant ship, and therefore went into Brest red-handed. At Brest she claimed to be allowed to civilly equip and victual. The Opinion Nationals immediately put forth a leading article, denouncing the Florida as being what the French call a corsaire, and what we term a privateer. Thereupon the commander of the Florida wrote a letter to the Paris newspapers, declaring that M. le Redacteur was under a great delusion in supposing that his ship was a privateer, and stating that she bore a regular commission of the Confederate Government, and that he and all his officers were regularly commissioned officers; that, in fact, the Florida was a regular ship of war. On the publication of that letter, Mr. Dayton, the American Minister at Paris, took the affair in hand, and in the despatches on our table between Mr. Seward and his representatives abroad we have the whole correspondence that took place between Mr. Dayton and the French Government. Mr. Dayton called the attention of M. Drouyn de Lhuys to the circular addressed to the American Government in 1854, at the breaking out of the Crimean war, and told him in effect, "You and England jointly requested us not to allow any privateer to equip or victual in our ports, but here is a vessel that is either a privateer or nothing; she makes no war on armed vessels; she goes about burning and destroying merchant ships, and she does not profess to do anything else, because she is neither armed nor manned in a way to act I as a regular ship of war." M. Drouyn de Lhuys and the English Government appear both to have come to the same conclusion that the Florida, as well as the Alabama and the Georgia, is a regular ship of war; but Mr. Dayton, in communicating with his own Government, fairly stigmatized the Declaration of Paris as "mere moonshine," and Mr. Seward in his reply endorsed his language, I mention this to show that it will not save us, in case we are engaged in war, from having 503 reprisals practised upon us that we have joined in the Declaration of Paris, and I am glad that upon this point the hon. Member for Liverpool has not succeeded in misleading his constituents, because they appear to take a very sound and farseeing view of the question. I am only sorry, indeed, that two years ago, our shipowners did not rise en masse, and compel the Government of this manufacturing and mercantile country to put our laws and regulations in harmony with the present state of our interests and relations; for I hold we are not here to stand up like lawyers and quote pedantically from the Reports of 1810 and 1812. We are living in a progressive age, and in a most progressive country, and let me tell the Government that we have now five times as much at stake as we had at the beginning of the century. Our exports and imports are fivefold what they were at the time when those authorities spoke whom the Attorney General has cited, and I maintain, that it is in the power of any country, but especially in the power of great countries, to lay down maxims and establish precedents which themselves become International Law. We have, unhappily, lost a precious opportunity of putting ourselves in a better position for the future, if ever we intend to go to war again. Nor is it merely in time of war that we shall feel the effects of the existing state of things. Do you suppose that foreign Governments do not observe what is going on, and do not fully appreciate our altered circumstances? I might apply that observation to other matters, and ask why we scatter our forces all over the world and then think we are as safe and powerful at home as if we had those forces under our wing. But, confining myself to the question of belligerent rights, I say that foreign Governments will take into account the danger we must incur in case of war, and will find in it a motive for our remaining at peace. Look at what happened last autumn. We held out what was supposed to be a threat, that, in conjunction with France, we should go to war with Russia on the subject of Poland. What did Russia do? She sent her fleet immediately to America, and, knowing the astute longheaded men who rule in St. Petersburg, does anybody doubt what the motive was? The Russian Government reasoned thus:—"If England and France are going to attack us again, we will take care not to have our fleets 504 blockaded in Cronstadt and Sebastopol as they were during the Crimean war, but to be in a position to carry on reprisals, and particularly we will carry on operations against the commerce of England, in the same way as the Confederates are carrying on war against the commerce of the United States." Therefore, they sent their fleet, and, what is still more important, they sent their crews to America, no doubt with the intention of putting those crews into the swiftest vessels that could be obtained both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific side, in order that they might be employed against our commerce. Take the case of Germany. Recently the German newspapers have often pointed to the vulnerability of England, in consequence of the state of the law as established by ourselves in the case of these cruisers. We have, in truth, set a most perilous example, the disadvantageous effects of which, I believe, will be felt in our Foreign Office in negotiations with Brazil or the weakest Power we could have transactions with. Such has been the result of building three or four swift sailing vessels! Are we to be told that England is so much superior to America in mechanics that she can build ships which America cannot? Read the Report laid on the table by Mr. Whitworth when, he went to America ten years ago to inquire into its mechanical resources. Nobody who knows the aptitude of the American people for mechanical discoveries will lay claim to any superiority on our part. Do you want an Alabama, a ship that was built neither for war nor for trade—a vessel that can run away from anything or catch anything? America can produce any number of such vessels. When I went first to America, nearly thirty years ago, they were running steamers on their rivers at the rate of eighteen miles an hour, a thing unheard of elsewhere. The Americans have never done much in the way of ocean steamers; their speciality is on their rivers and lakes, where we find the swiftest vessels in the world. But is it supposed that because we have more ships of war, therefore we are sure, in case of war, to find their cruisers? Perhaps nothing is more difficult, not to say impossible, than to find a ship on the ocean after she has once got out of sight. Nelson himself passed many months trying to find a fleet of 500 sail going from France to Egypt. You may find a vessel in a harbour, just as Nelson found the French fleet at the Nile; but even, if you should find an Ame- 505 rican cruiser in a harbour, by your own rules you must allow her to escape, because you say she must have a start of twenty-four hours. It appears to me, on the whole, that the only thing remaining that you can do to conciliate the American people under the cruel losses they have undergone at your hand is to say that henceforth you will deny hospitality to vessels that have been built in your ports, that have clandestinely left your ports, that have been manned and armed from your ports, because you are convinced that to allow such ships to come back here after committing havoc upon a friendly nation would be not only to fail in your duty towards others, but to pursue the course most likely to injure yourselves and endanger your own best interests in the future.
In 1858 vessels 33 tonnage 12,684 In 1859 vessels 49 tonnage 21,308 In 1860 vessels 41 tonnage 13,638 In 1861 vessels 126 tonnage 71,673 In 1862 vessels 135 tonnage 64,578 In 1863 vessels 348 tonnage 252,579
§ LORD ROBERT CECILThe present hour and the present state of the House, do not invite discussion, but the speech we have just heard contained a fallacy which I cannot allow to pass without notice. The hon. Member for Rochdale has drawn a powerful picture of the evils to which England will be exposed in any war in which she may be engaged hereafter. I do not think he has exaggerated those evils, for I am afraid that, in the event of war, we must reckon upon seeing our mercantile marine harassed on the ocean by swarms of hostile privateers. But the point which the hon. Member seems to have overlooked, is the impossibility of our avoiding the evils in store for us, by any action we could take now. If by sending the Alabama or the Georgia away we could insure ourselves against the risks which the hon. Member has so eloquently painted, I should at once admit that there was great cogency in his arguments; but I cannot conceive how anybody can imagine that, by refusing hospitality to a Confederate ship, we could add one iota to the safety of our mercantile marine in any future war. You say that you desire to set the Americans a good example. Do you mean seriously to tell me that when hostile passions are aroused, when men are driven by their feelings, or still more by what they consider an overwhelming interest, towards a particular line of conduct, they will care about imitating your example? Do you mean to say that the Americans who, whatever have been their merits or demerits, have never been very particular as to how they contend with other nations, who certainly were not very 506 particular in their dealings with us in Canada—do you mean to say that they will care two straws whether we did or did not, at some previous period, act in a manner which they deemed hostile to themselves? But I will remove the question from this American dispute. Look at what has happened between other nations. Are France and Russia any the less likely to unite now, because they hated each other bitterly in 1853 and 1854? Are England and Denmark who hated each other bitterly during the great war, on that account less sympathetic or friendly now? Nations in selecting their policy, are not affected by events which may have taken place live, ten, or fifteen years before. Gratitude or indignation may last in the breasts of individuals for so long a period, though even that is a rare phenomenon; but I am quite sure that you can find in the history of the world no instance in which those feelings have endured so long in the breasts of nations. To go from example to precedent. We have heard a great deal about precedent from both the hon. Member for Bradford and the hon. Member for Rochdale. They say that we ought to set up a precedent which shall change International Law. I confess that sounds to me very strange language. We heard from the Attorney General, stated with the greatest eloquence and clearness, what International Law is. You say to us, "Don't keep to that, don't keep International Law as it is, but by the process of breaking it, make it something else, and your reward for so breaking it shall be that other nations, instead of breaking it, will keep it, and keep it in the way which will be advantageous to you in future wars." I confess that that is a process which I do not think that other nations are very likely to go through. At all events, if they follow our example in nothing else, they will follow our example in the convenient plan of amending International Law by the process of breaking it. But there is something more to be said. You profess neutrality, and I presume that you intend that neutrality to be honest. I presume that even the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), strongly as he feels upon the subject, will not recommend us to depart from strict neutrality. But can there be a greater breach of neutrality than that you should break International Law on the one side and not on the other—that you should alter International Law by so breaking it, 507 and that entirely in favour of one belligerent? And what adds to the peculiar baseness of such a proceeding is, that you are asked to take this course, not because you believe that one side is right and the other wrong, but solely that it may give you an advantage in some future war. I confess that such a mode of dealing with International Law appears to me more dishonest and more immoral than anything I ever before heard proposed in this House. The hon. Member for Rochdale told us a great deal about the bitter feelings of the inhabitants of the Federal States at the losses they have endured. He counted up those losses, and asked us to believe, as we well could, that a race come of the same stock as ourselves would be operated upon more strongly by the bitterness of feeling occasioned by these losses than by any other motive. I thoroughly believe it. I dare say that for many years those nations will feel bitterness towards the nation through whose instrumentality they believe that they have been inflicted. But have there been losses only on one side? Has there been suffering only on one side? And has British aid been given only to one side? I have in my hand a paper which tells a different story, and to the tale which it tells I invite the attention of the House. In the course of the year 1862 there were exported to the Federal States rifles and muskets of the value of £546,000, besides 11,947,000, or in round numbers 12,000,000, percussion caps. What the Americans have done with all those caps I cannot imagine. I believe that, according to the most recent authority, they have killed 200,000 Confederates. That allows sixty shots for each man killed, which undoubtedly is not very good practice. [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: Yes, it is.] My noble Friend says that it is. I trust that in any war in which we may be engaged he will wield his weapon with more effect. I cannot pass over the fact which has been stated in this House, and is well known, that the mercantile house which has been mainly instrumental in conveying this enormous assistance to the Federals, and effecting this fearful injury upon the Confederates, is the house of Baring and Co. Now, I want you to consider the feelings with which the Confederates regard these enormous reinforcements, which have been conveyed by the English people through the hands of Messrs. Baring and Co., in violation of Her Majesty's proclamation of 508 neutrality. [Mr. COBDEN: Not in violation of the law.] The Attorney General is not here to inform us as to the law, and I will adhere to my statement until it is contradicted by some more competent authority. Whether contrary to law or not, it is an enormous assistance conveyed through the house of Messrs. Baring and Co. by the English people to the Federals. You have been considering the feelings of the Federals. Do you suppose the Confederates have no feelings? Do you suppose they do not feel for their rich country desolated, for the enormous injury which has been inflicted upon their industry, for their towns bombarded, for their population slaughtered, and for the fearful trials to which every class of their people have been exposed; and do you suppose that when they learn that all this havoc has been committed through the instrumentality of munitions of war conveyed by English merchants, the bitterness on one side will not be as great as that on the other? If our neutrality is honest, we must regard the bitterness on one side as much as that of the other. I am sure that, considering what in the future are likely to be the opportunities of greatness offered to the two divisions into which the American republic is fast dividing, that we shall have as much cause for regret if we permanently alienate from England the inhabitants of that vast country which lies to the south of the Potomac as we shall have if we alienate those who inhabit the smaller country which lies to the north of that river. We cannot give too much praise to the very learned and moderate speech of the Attorney General. It seemed to me to give an exhaustive and complete statement of the law, comprehensible by the least instructed intellect; and I hope that it will be accepted as an official reply to many fallacies upon this subject which have been current in this country. I will only express my regret that after that speech the hon. Member for Rochdale should have repeated the statement that it was proved that the Georgia came out in violation of our neutrality. Why, you have not even got a verdict. It will be time enough to talk about the law being broken when you have got any court of law to pronounce in your favour. The only court which pronounces in your favour is that which sits in your own brains. There is not a ghost of a justification for saying that the Georgia has broken our Foreign Enlistment Act. All the facts are 509 against you. It is probably well known to the hon. Member for Rochdale, that it is quite as much within the International Law to sell ships of war to another nation as it is to sell any munitions of war. There seems, therefore, to be no ground for the statement that the Georgia has invaded our ports in defiance of our neutrality, and we should ourselves be guilty of a clear breach of neutrality if we shaped our policy on an assumption which cannot be proved either in law or in fact.
§ MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the noble Lord, in admitting the novelty in war of such cases as the Georgia, and the Alabama, had conceded the very basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Huntingdon. It was to prevent such cases becoming a recognized usage of war for the future that he ventured to urge upon the House and the Government the importance of all that we now could do to remedy the evil effects of them, and to prevent their recurrence. He had listened with great regret to the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and especially to his statement that he was not prepared to recommend Her Majesty's Government to take either of the courses suggested by the hon. Member for Huntingdon. Probably, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had paid more attention to the history of America and less to their law cases, he would have come to a different conclusion. When in 1793 we remonstrated with the American Government against the fitting out of privateers in their ports, they did not say that they had no municipal law to meet the case, and were not bound by International Law, but at once passed an Act to meet our complaints. The Act of 1794 was for a time sufficient for its purpose. He could not find that it was evaded by a single privateer issuing from the ports of America to prey upon British commerce during the long course of the French war. Shortly after the close of that war, however, the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South America revolted from their parent countries. Great sympathy was felt in the United States for the independence of these colonies, and their lawyers were not long in discovering a flaw in the Foreign Enlistment Act, just as lawyers had done in ours, which was almost identical. In evasion of the law, privateers were despatched from American ports. The course adopted was much the same as that taken by those who, in our own day, fitted out the Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, The vessels 510 were chartered as traders, and received guns and ammunition under the disguise of cargoes of merchandise. When they got out to sea they hoisted their guns out of their holds, mounted them on deck, and displayed the flag of one of the South American Republics. The American Government, he was bound to say, did all they could to enforce the law against these cruisers. There were numerous cases in which they were seized and condemned, and there were also cases of prosecution for infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Those measures, however, were not sufficient to repress the evil. Spain and Portugal both remonstrated with the United States for allowing cruisers to be fitted out in their ports; and the complaints which were made bore a striking resemblance to some of those which the Federal Government had lately addressed to us. The Portuguese Government pointed out that the fault was entirely in the insufficient state of the existing law, and urged its amendment. Similar representations were made by the Spanish Minister; and even this country and France joined in the remonstrances. What was the reply of the United States? They did not say that they had a municipal law, and that no international obligation required them to go beyond it. On the contrary, the President immediately sent a message to Congress, in which, after pointing out the evasions of their law, he said—
It is of the highest importance to our national character, and indispensable to the morality of our citizens, that all violations of our neutrality should be prevented. No door should be left open for the evasion of our laws; no opportunity afforded to any who may be disposed to take advantage of it to compromise the interest and the honour of the nation. It is submitted, therefore, to the consideration of Congress, whether it may not be advisable to revise the laws with a view to this desirable result.He thought this message was most honourable to American statesmanship, and he should like to see Her Majesty's Government in the present juncture adopt the same policy as the Government of the United States in 1817. In accordance with the President's Message an Act of Congress was proposed, containing two clauses not in the original Act, and, he might observe, wanting to our statute, the one giving collectors of Customs authority to detain vessels under suspicion of being intended for hostilities till inquiry should be made, the other giving the State officers power to exact bonds from vessels sus- 511 pected, that they would not he used hostilely against an ally of the States. There was then, it should be remembered, quite as strong a sympathy in the United States for the South American colonies as prevailed among hon. Gentlemen opposite for the Southern States of North America; and, of course, there was strong opposition to the proposed Act during its progress through Congress. It was said that it had been brought forward under pressure from foreign Powers, and that traders had a right to sell ships if they chose. The Government replied that they had duties to perform, not to one nation, but to all; that they had listened to the representations of foreign Powers only because they deemed them reasonable, and that traders must take care that in their mercantile dealings they did not do anything which was incompatible with the higher interests of the country. He did not hesitate to say that such cases as had occurred in this country could not have taken place under the law of the United States; and he held that our honour and our interest required that we should adopt the clauses which had been added to the original American Act. In so doing, we should, he thought, prevent the repetition of such unfortunate cases for the future. As regards those cases which had already occurred, he thought the least we could do was to prohibit absolutely such vessels from entrance to our ports. We had precedent for such course in the conduct of the American Government, in 1793, who, not content with passing their Foreign Enlistment Act at our instance, had also dismissed from their ports those vessels which had previously been fitted out in them. But there was yet an earlier precedent, arising out of the American war of Independence. Gibbon, in his well known memoir in justification of the war with Prance in 1779, told us that when privateers were fitted out in French ports for the service of the American Government, the British Government strongly protested against it, and offered France the alternative of checking the practice or going to war. France chose peace, and undertook to dismiss all the privateers from her ports at once. Therefore, there were two precedents directly in point, showing what ought to be done in regard to these vessels. It was said that there had been no judicial investigation in connection with the Southern cruisers, but that was because they escaped from this country before any 512 trial could be instituted. He did not suppose that any one could doubt that these vessels were built in violation of our neutrality, and he hoped the Government would entertain the proposals suggested by the hon. Member for Huntingdon.
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, there could be no doubt either as to the bias of the hon. Member's sympathies or the source of his inspiration. Instead of availing himself of the authentic sources of information in this country he had evidently gone for facts to the American papers laid on the table of Congress, and for arguments to the debates in their chambers. The hon. Member for Rochdale had proved conclusively that the trade of the Northern States had been considerably diminished; but he had failed to show how we had been the cause of the destruction of their commerce. His speech was like a bridge without a keystone. His facts and premises were established, but his conclusion was illogical. The hon. Gentleman had entirely omitted to show how we were responsible for the injury which American commerce had sustained since the war began. "Yes, I did," he says; "you admitted the vessels of the Southern States into your ports, and these damaged the commerce of the Northern's. He (Lord Robert Montagu) had thought that the Southern States were not yet ripe for recognition. But the hon. Member had shown that they not only had held their ground against the North, but had actually destroyed their commerce; and that, too, in the face of a navy which had come victorious out of many a battle, and prided itself upon being the strongest in the world. Not only had the Southern States manufactured a navy, but they had beaten the Federal ships which had long ridden the sea in triumph, so that the latter were now fain to avoid the conflict. How were we to blame for that? Should we have done anything to prevent the South from sending their ships to sea, or have refused to them that hospitality which our neutrality bound us to concede equally to both sides? The hon. Member had also drawn a ease which he had said was analogous, of a friend who was suspected of an act derogatory to his honour, although nothing had actually been proved against him, and had said that in such a case we should refuse to have any more dealings with our friend until he had succeeded in clearing his character. So, he said, we 513 should act by the Southern States who were suspected of fitting out ships in this country. But the Attorney General had pointed out that as yet the Southern States were not recognized by us, and that, consequently, we had no legal channel for those communications which might otherwise have been addressed to them. The Federal Government had themselves prevented us from communicating with the South by blockading their ports, and had declined to permit a British man-of-war to proceed to one of the Southern ports for that purpose. The hon. Member said the Florida was a privateer, and had grounded his assertion upon the fact that she had not fought men-of-war, but preyed upon the trade of her enemy. This was a very mistaken definition of a privateer. A privateer was an armed merchant vessel, which, whenever opportunity offered, plundered enemy's property; but the Florida carried no cargo, and had actually proved her commission as a man-of-war. Neither did he think, as the hon. Member seemed to believe, that if England altered her law, Russia would refrain from sending privateers to sea to plunder English property in case of war with this country. For these reasons he could not concur with the otherwise eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale. He (Lord Robert Montagu) did not attribute the decline of trade, and the rise in freightage in America to any illegal action or violation of neutrality on our part; it was the inevitable result of a war which diverted the energy of the capital in other directions, and absorbed a great deal of the capital which would otherwise be employed in promoting commerce.
§ MR. ALDERMAN ROSEsaid, he believed the country would endorse the definition of the law of neutrality as laid down by the Attorney General, and carried out by the Administration. He denied that the opinions of the hon. Members for Rochdale and Bradford were shared by the people at large. The hon. Member for Rochdale had given the House a list of the losses which had occurred to the United States navy, but he had not alluded to the other losses of that country — its loss of liberty, of credit, of everything which a country should hold dear. The South had, no doubt, the blot of slavery to contend against; but had the North had nothing to do with that? He contended that all the 514 evils of the slave trade were owing to the mode in which the Federal States had formerly dealt with it. The whole system of Government in the Northern States was false, rotten, and corrupt, while the South was making for themselves a great name and a glorious history. He believed the day was not distant when the Confederacy would be an independent nation recognized by the nations of Europe.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ House at rising to adjourn till Thursday next.