§ EARL STANHOPEsaid, he desired to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in reference to a report in the newspapers that a second squadron of ships laden with stone hail been despatched by the Government of the United States to be sunk in the Maffitts Channel of the harbour of Charleston. It was added that a third squadron was in the course of equipment, and was intended for a similar purpose. Now he (Earl Stanhope) desired to know whether the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) had received any information from Washington respecting these rumours, and if so, what course he intended to pursue in regard to them? He had been in hopes that the former despatch of the noble Earl would have settled the question, for it seemed to him (Earl Stanhope) to have laid before the American Government, in so comprehensive a form, and with such unanswerable arguments, the considerations that ought to guide them in regard to such enterprise, that he had hoped it would settle the question. It seemed to him to be a most worthy sequel to the policy with respect to American affairs which all parties were agreed in thinking had done so much credit to the noble Earl and had so fully vindicated the honour of the country, and to the approbation which had already been bestowed on that policy he begged to add his humble meed of praise. It was difficult to see how the sinking of large ships laden with stone on banks of mud at the entrance of a harbour could end in anything else but the permanent destruction of that harbour; and it was on that ground, as far as he could understand, that the measure was originally put forward and afterwards defended. The permanent destruction of a harbour was not justified by the laws of war. War, undoubtedly, sanctioned many grievous acts, but it did not sanction any act of this kind. The permanent destruction of a harbour was not an act of war of man against man, or of nation against nation, but it was an act of war against the bounty of Providence, which had vouchsafed harbours for the advantage of commerce and for the civilizing influences of intercourse between one people and another. On this ground we were well entitled and 259 were bound to enter a protest against such acts. He wished to hear from the noble Earl whether these reports were well founded; and, if so, whether he had taken or designed to take any steps in the matter? He should also wish to know whether the noble Earl had received any communication from the Government of France on the subject, and whether the Government of France, to his official knowledge, had made any similar representations to the Government of the United States with respect to the destruction of the Port of Charleston?
§ Earl RUSSELLIn answer to the noble Earl, I have to state that I have received no official information beyond that contained in the despatches which have been laid upon the table of the House. This, however, is a matter so important—the sinking of vessels at the mouth of a harbour—that I cannot doubt the reports which have appeared in the newspapers. I am very happy, however, to hear the protest of the noble Earl against the permanent destruction of these harbours. When we consider that they are commercial harbours, and in time of peace and when there is severe weather harbours into which vessels can run, it must be considered a most barbarous act to destroy them. From the reply of the American Government, however, the noble Earl will have seen that these stone vessels are intended as an obstruction to the channel, and to aid the blockade, and are not intended for a permanent destruction of the harbour. In a recent conversation upon this matter with the American Minister at this Court, he told me that he believed it was not intended that there should be a permanent destruction of the harbour of Charleston, and that such a thing would be impossible, for the two rivers which run into the harbour are sure to make a channel, which it will be impossible to destroy. He added that it was only the intention of the American Government to make a temporary obstruction, and that when peace was restored the blockade would be removed. This is the only information which I have received from the American Government. As to the course which the French Government have pursued, I have only to say that I communicated to them as soon as her Majesty's Government had decided to remonstrate against this proceeding, and from M. Thouvenel we have received an assurance that the Government of the Emperor took the same view which we do in reference to this subject; but 260 whether any official representation has been made to the Federal Government I am unable to state.