The Earl of CARNARVONsaid, he was sorry to renew a subject which he had twice brought under the notice of their Lordships. He hoped it would now be for the last time. He had on a preceding evening directed the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the forcible detention of three British subjects at Fort Warren, in the United States of America; and as he did not wish to overstate the case in any way, he wished to take that opportunity of correcting, as far as he could, the information he had furnished upon that subject. He had since seen a person who professed to be a relative of one of those three persons, who had told him that that gentleman had 418 passed under some process of naturalization under the authority of the American Government; and that would of course disentitle him to the protection of the Government of this country. He accepted that statement for what it was worth, and he now mentioned it because he was extremely anxious that he should not he supposed to exaggerate. Having made that explanation, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) had to bring another case of a somewhat similar description under the notice of his noble Friend. The papers relating to the case, for which he had moved had been printed, and were now in their Lordships' hands. He would, not trouble them with details. It was sufficient to remind their Lordships that Mr. Shaver, a Canadian gentleman travelling in the States, was arrested and taken to prison. An oath of allegiance, which he construed into an oath of abjuration, was tendered, and refused. Communications passed between him and Lord Lyons, and there was a correspondence between Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward. In spite of remonstrances, Mr. Shaver was detained in prison. A second oath, nearly as objectionable as the first, was tendered, and declined, and ultimately upon the 6th of January, after he had been detained three months in prison without any charge having been made, Mr. Shaver was released, on his consenting to enter into a very extraordinary engagement—an engagement which no Government had a right to exact, and to which no British subject ought, perhaps, to have subscribed—an engagement to the effect that he would neither travel in the Southern States of America nor hold any communication with the people of those States without the consent of the American Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not mean to attach any blame to Mr. Shaver in that matter, because he was in a very difficult position; neither did he blame Lord Lyons, for he also was in a very difficult position, and, no doubt, gave the best advice in his power. But the question naturally arose, what claim Mr. Shaver might have for compensation after he had been imprisoned for three months to the injury of his health, to the great disadvantage of his private business, and even, it might be said, at the peril of his life. It seemed to him that that was clearly a case which called for compensation and an expression of regret on the part of a friendly Government; and he was anxious to know whether any 419 claim to that effect had been put forward by his noble Friend on behalf of Mr. Shaver, or whether he was prepared to make one. He should have thought that his noble Friend would have been one of the very first men to vindicate the rights of a British subject under such circumstances. But after having heard the statement made the other evening by his noble Friend, and after having looked through the correspondence which had been presented to the Members of the House that day, he could not help feeling some anxiety upon the subject. He found in that correspondence no demand for compensation made by his noble Friend; nay, more, he did not find that there was one single scrap of the pen on the part of his noble Friend in reference to that matter. It seemed to him that this was a question of sufficient importance to attract the notice of his noble Friend, and he felt some surprise that there was not the slightest intimation in these papers of his noble Friend's having pursued that course, or of his having even expressed any approval of the steps which had been taken by Lord Lyons. That was not the way Lord Malmesbury acted in the case of the Cagliari on behalf of the English engineers who had been detained in prison at Naples. Lord Malmesbury had in that case carefully inquired into the state of the prisoners, and had insisted on their being at once either liberated or brought to trial; and he finally obtained adequate compensation from the Neapolitan Government for the British subjects who had received ill-treatment at their hands; and the noble Earl's course was applauded even by the Members of the present Government who were then in Opposition. Again, that was not the course which was pursued by the present Government in the case of those British subjects who had been kept imprisoned, or who had been murdered during the late war in China. There they obtained compensation both for the survivors and for the relatives of those who had died. Neither was it the course adopted by the noble Yiscount the present First IiOrd of the Treasury in the case of Don Pacifico, who was not even a British subject, but who claimed the protection of the British Government. The noble Earl had said the other evening that the present case had changed its character since the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in the United States, and that if British subjects were treated in the same way as 420 American citizens they could not complain. But that was precisely the plea which was put forward by the Mexican Government when they were asked to offer reparation for the injustice which had been done to a number of British subjects. They said their country was in so disturbed a state that the ordinary laws had been suspended, and they declined to afford to foreigners compensation for the injuries they had sustained under such circumstances. But the Governments of England, of France, and of Spain, would not allow the force of the plea in answer to their demands, and combined for the purpose of obtaining from Mexico the required reparation. Such an argument would be scouted at once if it were used by a European Government, and he saw no reason why any distinction should be drawn between the United States and European Governments. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) should further observe that he believed there never had been any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in the United States. The Act had not been suspended; but the writs issued for the purpose of enforcing it had been disregarded by the simple fiat of the American President. Under those circumstances he would ask his noble Friend whether any correspondence had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, with a view to obtain compensation for Mr. Shaver for the imprisonment to which he had been subjected; and, if so, whether his noble Friend would lay that correspondence before the House; while if there had been no correspondence upon that subject, he hoped his noble Friend would inform them whether he meant to ask for such compensation?
§ EARL RUSSELLI will first reply to the question of the noble Earl with regard to the claim for compensation. Mr. Shaver has not made any claim for compensation for the imprisonment he has suffered; consequently, not having received any claim from him, I have not forwarded any to the United. States Government. But the noble Earl so proceeded to argue this question, that it is necessary that I should give some explanation as to this and other cases. The noble Earl seems to have forgotten that which appears to me to be the gist of the case, which is this—whether, the writ of Habeas Corpus being suspended in the United States, and suspended by an authority which the United States them- 421 selves think sufficient, there was any sufficient ground for the arrest and detention of Mr. Shaver? In a letter of the 13th of December it is stated that Mr. Shaver made himself, or suffered himself to be made, a medium of communication between the Confederates in arms against the United States Government in the South and their agents in Canada and Europe. That letter also states that Mr. Shaver convoyed arms (revolvers) into the so-called Confederate States.
The Earl of CARNARVONThere is no admission of the sort on Mr. Shaver's part. It rests simply on Mr. Seward's assertion, without a tittle of evidence.
§ Earl RUSSELL—If the noble Earl would allow me to go on, I was about to say this was the assertion of the United States Government. In a letter of the 17th of December Mr. Shaver declares that all these charges are unfounded; but there has been no investigation either on one side or the other. I think that before I ask for compensation for Mr. Shaver I ought to have satisfactory evidence from him that these charges are unfounded, because if it were true that Mr. Shaver had made himself an organ of communication, had given encouragement to the Conlederates in arms—if he had conveyed arms to them—he would then have acted in direct contradiction to Her Majesty's Proclamation, which proclaimed a strict neutrality between the United States and the so-called Confederate States; and the British Government would have no right to ask for compensation. Mr. Shaver has not made any statement of that kind, he has never shown that he was not so engaged, and the case remains on the assertion of the American Government. On a former occasion I referred to what I wish my noble Friend had referred to—the letter of Lord Palmerston in 1848 or 1849 with respect to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. Two American citizens were at that time arrested in Ire land, and when the American Minister asked for the reasons of that arrest Lord Palmerston, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replied that they were engaged in secret societies in America whieh were intended to foment and encourage revolt and disturbance in Ireland. My noble Friend did not give any positive proof of that assertion, but he simply made the statement, on the part of the Govern ment of Great Britain. I do not remem ber that any compensation was asked for 422 on that occasion, and I am inclined to believe that the statement made by Lord Palmerston, on the authority of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was perfectly correct, and that there were grounds for the detention of those two American citizens. My noble Friend says that there has been no regular suspension of the Act of Habeas Corpus in the United States. In that respect, again, there is a misapprehension, which is natural enough in this country, and which arises from ignorance of the institutions of the United States. The writ of Habeas Corpusin this country depends upon an Act of Parliament, and therefore, whenever you require to suspend it, it is necessary to bring in an Act of Parliament for the purpose. But the Habeas Corpus in America is not a special Act, and therefore it does not require an Act of Congress to suspend it in case of insurrection. The question is, by what authority the writ of Habeas Corpus can be legally suspended in case of an insurrection? Now, the only point the American Constitution has left vague and unsettled is the authority by which it may be suspended. But it has been assumed, and all parties in America appear to have consented to the assumption, that this authority should reside in the President and the Secretary of State acting under his orders. I do not see that we can contend that this is not a lawful authority, or that being so it is not to be acted on, though it may have been acted on to the injury of British subjects as well as of American citizens. The noble Earl speaks of compensation in these cases of imprisonment, and thinks that such arrests should not be allowed to pass without strong remonstrances on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It appears to me that one must be ignorant of the state of affairs in America to resort to this argument. The United States Government have not merely to deal with a groat revolt, but there exists in that country a great civil war; and there are many persons in the Northern States who sympathize with the South, as there may be persons in the Southern States who sympathize with the North. Both to the Government of the United States and that of the Confederate States there is that condition of danger in which they may have recourse to extraordinary measures. If the noble Earl will refer to the history of this country during the Revolutionary War, he will find that the writ of Habeas Corpus was frequently 423 suspended. In Ireland there have been periods when it was suspended almost year after year. Now, can we say that in every one of the cases in which persons were then taken up on suspicion there existed that legal proof on which they could have been convicted? "We can say no such thing. If it was necessary to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus in this country, in the circumstances of the French War, I certainly do not wonder that in the present stale of things in America the Government should resort to extraordinary measures, though may sometimes work injustice. I confess I think it a lamentable situation for that, country, both for the Government of the Northern States, and for those who are in arms against it. It is a great calamity for that country that such a civil war should have taken place. I am therefore disposed to view with some forbearance acts which in other Governments and under other circumstances would call for remonstrance. The noble Earl asks whether I have written to Lord Lyons any other despatch than that laid on the table. I have not written to Lord Lyons in reference to the case of Mr. Shaver, as I believe that our Minister is taking all the steps in the matter that are consistent with his duty. It may be that Mr. Shaver is entirely innocent of the charges brought against him, or it may be proved that he was taken when acting against the Government. In the former case he may demand compensation, and I should instruct Lord Lyons to ask for his release. But as the case at present stands I certainly cannot give any instructions to such effect. I cannot tell whether he was or was not the medium of communication between persons in the North and others in arms for the Confederate States, and till I have some proof on that subject I cannot interfere.