Lords Sitting of 15 June 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* (No. 136).
Second Reading—Bleaching and Dyeing Works Act Amendment * (No. 43).
Committee—Prison Ministers (Nos. 109 & 137); Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act Continuance * (Nos. 112 & 138).
Report—Redemption of Bents (Ireland) [H.L.] (Nos. 134 & 139).
Third Reading—Duchy of Cornwall Management [H.L.] (No. 118), and passed.

ITALY—CASE OF MR. BISHOP.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYasked the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, Whether he had any objection to the production of the Despatch from Sir James Hudson, of the 28th of May, which his noble Friend had quoted as confirming the assurance on the part of the Piedmontese Cabinet that they would advise their Sovereign to pardon Mr. James Bishop on the first fitting occasion? He believed there would be no objection to the production of the despatch, and, as a matter of form, he would move that it be laid on the table. There was a very general impression that a recent anniversary festival would have been marked by the liberation of such political prisoners as had claims upon the Royal clemency; but that expectation had, as far as he could learn, been disappointed, and he should rejoice to hear that the Government of Victor Emmanuel had determined, at all events, to liberate Mr. Bishop, who by the last accounts was suffering from great prostration.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he was about to present, by command of Her Majesty, an extract from the despatch to which his noble Friend referred. It was true that the Italian Minister had stated it to be his intention to advise the Sovereign on the first favourable occasion to grant the release of Mr. Bishop; but the noble Marquess put his own interpretation on that phrase. What he (Earl Russell) thought the Italian Minister meant by the first favourable occasion was, when the country was generally pacified, and when there was no longer any irritation in consequence of the acts of brigandage committed in the Neapolitan provinces. What they felt was, that while the brigandage was going on, any favour shown to Mr. Bishop might be misinterpreted into a feeling of lenity to-

  873
  wards the party with which Mr. Bishop was unfortunately identified. Bat he saw by the newspapers that the ex-King of Naples was about to leave Rome; and he should imagine, that if that occurrence took place, it would tend very much to the suppression of the brigands and the tranquillity of the country. With regard to the imprisonment of Mr. Bishop, he had not impugned the justice of the decisions in the Italian courts, but he had represented to the Italian Government that in this country, when imprisonment was likely to be injurious to the health of a prisoner, and to be therefore equivalent to the punishment of death, it was the usual practice to commute or remit that imprisonment; and he recommended the same course should be taken in regard to Mr. Bishop, if there were circumstances to justify it. He had, however; been informed that General Marmora had sent some persons to visit Mr. Bishop, and they had reported that Mr. Bishop's health was not likely to suffer if he were not subjected to hard labour. That report had been forwarded to Turin, and the Italian Government had acted upon it.
  Earl RUSSELL then presented, by command "Extract of Despatch from Sir James Hudson respecting Mr. Bishop." (Parl. Paper [1654])

REVISION OF THE STATUTE LAW.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid: My Lords, it has never been my lot to complain of being misreported, nor should I trouble your Lordships on the present occasion were it not for my respect for the learned Judges of the Courts of Law and Equity, to whom some mis-statements as to the views expressed by me here on Friday might be supposed to be derogatory. It has been said that I stated it as a fit and proper course that all the judgments of the Courts of Law and Equity should be revised periodically at the end of the year by Parliament, and that the erroneous judgments should be set aside. I never said any such thing, nor anything like it. I was complaining of the little attention which had been paid to an Address to the Crown, carried in the other House by a right hon. and learned Friend of mine (Mr. Napier), for the establishment of a Department of Justice, and to which an answer had been returned by the Crown to the effect that it should be taken into immediate considera-
  874
  tion. I said that I hoped the time had come when effect would be given to that Address by the establishment of a Department of Justice, and I added that that Department would have many most important functions, but that it would not—it could not—have the function of revising any decision, however erroneous, of the Courts, since they could only be altered by the Judges themselves, by the appellate jurisdiction, or by an Act of Parliament.

BRITISH COMMERCE AND THE AMERICAN CRUISERS

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to move, pursuant to notice, for—
  "Copies of any Reports that may have been received from the Admiral commanding Her Majesty's Squadron on the North American and West Indian Station concerning the Protection from Seizure or Visitation afforded to British Merchantmen by the Ariadne and other of Her Majesty's Ships or Gunboats by Convoy or otherwise; and to ask what has been the Result of the Remonstrances made to the United States Government by Her Majesty's Minister at Washington against the Seizure of certain British Vessels."
  The noble Marquess said, his apology for troubling their Lordships on such a subject was the importance of preserving as clear a definition of the rights of neutrals and belligerents as the nature of the subject would admit of; and our pre-eminent position as a maritime power made it imperative upon us to see that international law on the seas was not violated. The present state of things in the waters of the Bahamas and the West Indies was most extraordinary. An efficient blockade was assumed to exist of a large extent of the American coast, and a considerable amount of British commerce was engaged in violating that blockade. Whether the trade with a nominally blockaded country was legitimate or not might be doubtful, but besides this trade there had sprung up a large and perfectly legitimate trade with. Mexico and our Colonies, which was intercepted by the Federal cruisers. We had submitted long to this; but the thing had now got to such a height, that although the Government refused to admit the accuracy of the statements he had made, our own officers on the station had thought it incumbent on them to interfere for the protection of the interests of our commerce, and for the vindication of the British flag, in a manner which, he ventured to say, was as contrary to international law, as laid down in the

  875
  text writers, as the outrages which had been inflicted on our commerce by some of the Federal cruisers. On the last occasion when be brought forward the subject, he was told that he had no right to assume that the American Prize Courts would not administer international law fairly and impartially. Be did not mean to say that those cases would not be properly tried in the United States. His complaint was, that the seizure of those ships was wrong ab initio, and he contended that we had a right to demand their restoration and an apology for the seizure. It had been said that we had no right to question the decision of foreign Courts in matters relating to the person and property of British subjects. He denied that doctrine. He held that a country was entitled to question the decisions of a foreign tribunal in respect of its ships and the persons of its subjects. In the latest edition of Mr. Wheaton's work, page 678, was this passage—
  "Grotius states that a judicial sentence plainly against right (in re minimé dubiâ.), to the prejudice of a foreigner, entitles his nation to obtain reparation by reprisals.… So also Byn-kershoek, in treating the same subject, puts an unjust judgment upon the same footing with naked violence in authorising reprisals on the part of the State whose subjects have been thus injured by the tribunals of another State."
  What were the facts with respect to the Adela, which ship had been tried and condemned in a Prize Court? When, on a former occasion, he mentioned what the decision in respect of this ship was, two noble and learned Lords, both eminent authorities on the subject (Lords Cranworth and Kingsdown), at once asked, was the judgment to which he referred that of the Supreme Court"?—thereby implying the decision was so absurd that no court of high standing could come to it. But he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) contended that no matter what the decision of the Prize Court might have been, we ought to demand the restoration of the ship. The circumstances under which the ship had been seized were stated in papers laid before Congress, copies of which, it was to be presumed, our Minister at Washington had forwarded to the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office. In these papers the first report of the captain who hap seized the Adela was stated to be that be saw the vessel attempting to cross the Channel on her way to Nassau. He was required to make a further report as to what the grounds of seizure were; and he then stated he had received official in-
  876
  formation from a flag officer that a vessel of her description had sailed from Europe, having on board articles contraband of war; and he did not examine her hold, but having a suspicion of her character, deemed it his duty to send her into port. Here, then, was a case of a vessel trading between Liverpool and Nassau, and seized because a United States captain had been informed that a vessel of her description was carrying articles contraband of war. The seizure of the Adela, under such circumstances, was an insult to our flag; and we had a right to demand redress for the act. The vessel was condemned, not for any violation of neutral right, but because the provincial Judge of the Prize Court at Key West knew that his judgment was subject to appeal. The case was not one in which we should wait for the result of an appeal to the Supreme Court, for he should be greatly astonished if any noble and learned Lord stood up and said there was even a primâ facie case to justify the seizure. Several other British ships had been seized under somewhat similar circumstances. The question was not that of a vessel running the blockade. If a ship was seized while doing this, she was subject to confiscation, no matter how harmless the character of her cargo. The case before their Lordships was that of a vessel seized while engaged in a legal trade; and it was the duty of the British Government to prevent the legitimate trade of the country from being so harassed, vexed, and interrupted. In the case of the Peterhoff, she was seized in the same illegal manner, and no proof being found against her, the cargo was discharged, with a view of having a search made for evidence before she was tried. The whole was in keeping with the conduct of the Federal Government with regard to our ships. It was time, therefore, for the Government to demand redress. What was being done by the United States could not be regarded in the light of an attempt to carry out a fair exercise of belligerent rights. The attempt was one to put down our legitimate trade to Nassau and Matamoras, because these places were depots from which the Confederate States received supplies,—Matamoras being in Mexico, and the State of Texas being separated from Mexico by only a narrow channel. Our trade was thus vexed and harassed; but at the same time New York ships carried on a thriving trade both with Nassau and Matamoras. Passes were granted at New York to these ships.

  877
  Whether this pass system was legal or not he did not know; but, as it was in force, there was the stronger ground for our insisting on a stop being put to this interference with our merchants and their commerce. He had suggested the other day that the Government should send reinforcements to the squadron under Admiral Milne on that station, for the purpose of protecting our commerce; and he was answered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that this would be war. He was not frightened by hard names, nor did he believe that such assistance would lead to war. But if it did, what object could justify war more completely than the defence of our trade and of those maritime rights which it was at once our duty and our safety to maintain? He contended, that if this protection meant war, we should have had war before now, because while the noble Earl (Earl Russell) was repudiating his doctrine in that House, the English Admiral and captains seemed to be pursuing to a great degree the course which he had recommended. He held in his hand some shipping reports from The Times, as to which it might be said that they were not to be relied on. But in answer to this he could only say, that if the noble Earl had better information, be ought to give it to the world, for this information influenced the rate of insurance and the whole course of our shipping trade. The first statement was contained in a letter from the Havannah—
  "The captain of the Dream arrived, reporting that his vessel was blockaded at Barracoon, about fifteen miles from Havannah. A British gunboat was sent to his assistance, upon the appearance of Which the Federal ship made a speedy retreat, leaving the Dream to prosecute her voyage."
  It was pretty evident from this that the Federal commander had orders to harass our commerce as much as he could without coming into collision with our vessels. Another of these reports was as follows:—
  "Admiral Wilkes, it appears, had given characteristic orders that a British steamer named the Ruby was to be seized, wherever found, and whether engaged in running the blockade or not. This information having reached the British Admiral, the Ariadne was forthwith despatched in search of the Ruby. She found that vessel coming out of Matanzas, on the coast of Cuba, and convoyed her into Havannah, whence the Ariadne sailed for Key West, and, having returned with the masters of two captured British vessels on board, they found Admiral Wilkes's ship lying within three cables' length of the Ruby. Of course, the Ariadne did not limit her services to convoying that vessel from Matanzas to Havannah. We Shall probably hear by the next mail that she saw
  878
  her clear of the attentions of Admiral Wilkes and his cruisers before she left her finally, and that the Ruby has escaped the fate with which she has been threatened."
  Now, he had not the least doubt that the captain of the Ariadne and the British Admiral did their duty; but what they did was entirely illegal, and in protecting the Ruby from visitation, that ship became ipso facto liable to confiscation. Lord Stowell, in the well known case of the Maria, in a judgment which was recognised as sound and indisputable law all over the world, laid it down that by the law of nations, as now understood, resistance of search on the part of a neutral vessel was followed by the legal consequence of confiscation; and, on the same ground, the convoy of this British vessel was a gross breach of maritime law and belligerent rights. Altogether, the state of things on the coast of America was one which ought not to continue. On a former occasion the noble Earl had quoted from the Convention of Russia in 1801; and he would now invite the attention of their Lordships to another portion of that Convention, which declared that vessels of a neutral Power shall not be taken except upon just cause, that they should be judged without delay, and that the procedure should always be uniform, prompt, and legal. The exact words were—
  "Que les vaisseaux de la Puissance neutre ne peuvent être arrêtés que sur de justes causes, ou faits évidents; qu'ils soient jugés sans retard, et que la procedure soit toujours uniforme, prompte, et légate."
  The Plenipotentiaries at Paris had gone out of their way to make a declaration on this subject with a view to establish what they said was most necessary—a uniform and legal principle; and they declared that "blockades in order to be binding must be really effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy." Yet now, on the very first occasion which had arisen since the Conference at Paris, the Government justified a state of things which was entirely at variance with every principle laid down by writers upon maritime rights and international law. The inefficiency of the blockade was the main cause of the complaint. It was no reproach to the Federal Government that the blockade, which was much more efficient at the beginning of the war, had ceased to be so now. The question was, whether this was a blockade which ought any longer to be recognised; and he thought it perfectly

  879
  clear that it was not. He bad in his possession shipping reports that he would not read in detail. One was from Bermuda, giving a list of ships which arrived there and which had run the blockade. Another was from Nassau, dated the 2nd of May, and it stated that since the 11th of March twenty-eight steamers had left that port for the blockaded ports, and of these only seven had been taken. One was supposed to have been lost, and some had gone aground, but seventeen were known to have arrived and landed their cargoes; and this from one single port. Another long list gave the names of vessels that had arrived at different ports from the Confederate coast, and very few had been taken. It was a farce to call this a blockade. It has been laid down that a blockade, to be binding, must be really effective—that it must be maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the enemy's coasts. He could refer their Lordships to the opinions of the American Government upon that point, as laid down by Mr. Monroe in 1816. At that period, the Spanish South American Colonies being in revolt, the Spanish Government issued a proclamation setting forth that a certain line of coast embraced within defined limits was in a state of blockade. Mr. Monroe, in reply, declared that the proclamation was eminently repugnant to the law of nations, for several reasons, and particularly because it declared a line of coast several hundreds of miles in length to be in a state of blockade. He would remind their Lordships that the United States Government were now professing to maintain a blockade upon a coast 2,500 miles in length., Mr. Monroe further objected that the proclamation ordered the seizure of neutral vessels at an unjustifiable distance from, the coast, and he remarked that no maxim of the law of nations was better established than that a blockade must be confined to particular ports, and that an adequate stationary force must be maintained at each port to support it. A few months later the Spanish Minister gave the same answer as the United States Government had given to our remonstrances—that the matter should be referred to Courts of Admiralty for information. A few months later, in October 1816, Mr. Irving, the United States Minister at Madrid, denied that information from Courts of Admiralty was necessary, and demanded without delay satisfaction for vessels seized under the proclamation. Two days later the Spanish Government gave way, and
  880
  the proclamation was withdrawn. He was not aware that the doctrine thus laid down had ever been repudiated by the United States Government, but certainly it was opposed to common sense to suppose that they could maintain a blockade for two years along a coast 2,500 miles in length, impeding our commerce, impoverishing our manufacturers, and stopping the legitimate trade of our ships, thus forcing them into a less legitimate trade, but still not one deserving the stigma which the noble Earl had cast upon it. How was the efficiency of the blockade to be tested except by merchant vessels? He had a letter from a Manchester merchant, whose name he would not mention publicly, but which he would communicate to any noble Lord who might be desirous of knowing it, in which the writer said, that being desirous of seeking for cotton where it could really be obtained, he, in conjunction with one or two others, at the end of last year sent put four steamers to the West Indies. Of the doings of these vessels he gave the following account:—
  "The first of these, a large screw steamer, left Nassau on the 16th of January, and ran the blockade at Charleston three times before the 14th of March, on which day she was sold to other parties. The second was a double-screw steamer. She left Nassau on the 26th of January, and on the 12th of May she had made six successful runs, and on the 18th of May she left for another. The third was a paddle steamer, which left on the 10th of February for her first run, and by the 24th of March she had made six successful runs through the Charleston blockade, averaging about one a week. The fourth was also a paddle steamer, which, after two successful runs through the Wilmingdon blockade, was caught soon after leaving on her third trip. Thus, in less than four months, seventeen successful runs have been made by these four steamers, and in addition to these I have got a screw steamer through the Charleston blockade with a cargo on board of 1,750 bales of cotton and 600 barrels of resin. These facts speak for themselves, and you may make what use of them you may think fit. P.S.—These steamers have run in English goods to the value of about £120,000 sterling, and have run out cotton, &c., to the value of about £200,000. They carried no contraband of war. Profits we shall not speak about."
  And yet the blockade was kept up notwithstanding such facts, and although every man of common sense in the United States was now convinced that it was impossible to compel the Southern States to re-enter the Union. When was it to come to an end? If Vicksburg were taken, peace would be no nearer. It was the duty of the British Government not to allow these infractions of maritime law to continue, which were, in fact, setting aside all law

  881
  and practice as hitherto maintained. He would like to know what had been the effect of any remonstrances that bad been made, and whether any ships had been delivered up, and he moved for Copies of any Reports that had been made by our Officers on the North American and West Indian stations.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my noble Friend has given us a lecture upon international law, somewhat desultory in its nature, and containing decisions which rest, I believe, upon no dicta of Lord Stowell or the American courts, nor upon any opinion of any writer upon international law, but are entirely conclusions formed in his own mind of what international law ought to be. Among these conclusions, contradictory as some of them are, I found that my noble Friend says, that the captain of an Amen can man-of-war having explained to his own Government the reasons and grounds for his taking possession of a British merchant ship, if these grounds were not satisfactory, the ship ought to be immediately released. I will not venture to pronounce that opinion, nor will I pronounce an opinion to the contrary; but this I must say, that although the captain at the time did not make that search which he ought to have made, yet when the ship is brought into a port, the search of that vessel may show ground for its capture, and a Prize Court may decide if that vessel was clearly going to an enemy's port, and was carrying contraband of war, and she may be condemned on that proof. My noble Friend says it cannot be condemned, but ought to be released; and I cannot presume to give an authoritative opinion on that question. Then my noble Friend maintains that a merchant ship cannot be seized by a belligerent unless actually breaking the blockade—that is, I suppose, actually attempting to enter the port that is blockaded. Now, I have understood from the various decisions I have read, that if a vessel is found on the high seas, and her cargo and papers prove that she is intended to break the blockade, or carry contraband of war to an enemy, that would be ground of capture on the seas, and that it is not necessary that the vessel should be taken actually attempting to break the blockade. That is another part of international law into which my noble Friend may wish to introduce reform, but I do not think his views are quite consistent with international law as it at present stands. My noble Friend says now, as on a former occa-
  882
  sion, it is quite clear that the object of the American Government has been to vex and interrupt our commerce; that they could have no other object but to embarrass our legitimate trade, and prevent British merchants from carrying on a perfectly legitimate trade. But in another part of his speech my noble Friend says—and I do not dispute his authority in this—that be has evidence that many vessels have successfully broken the blockade of the Confederate ports, that they have entered with valuable cargoes of merchandise, and supplied the Confederates with articles of which they were in want. If that he the case, is it not possible that the American Government and the American navy, without any wish to destroy our trade, may be suspicious of such aid being given to the Confederates, and that they may search very narrowly and very strictly the vessels they find, some of them no doubt intending to go to neutral ports, but, as they think, not intended for those ports, but for the ports of the Confederates? The two things do not go well together—one, that our commerce is of so perfectly innocent a nature that there can be no pretext for searching our ships, except a wish to vex and embarrass our commerce; and the other, that we are carrying on a most successful trade by running the blockade and introducing goods into the Confederate ports. For my part I am not disposed to attribute to the American Government that malignity against this country and that hostile intention which my noble Friend attributes to them; but I did think it necessary to inform Lord Lyons that there was an impression in this country that several British ships that had been seized did appear to be intended for neutral ports, and that they had been seized in a reckless manner, without sufficient ground. In regard to the particular vessels, the American Government answered that there are sufficient grounds, and that they will be proved before the Prize Courts. Therefore, with regard to the special vessels, I cannot give any information to Parliament, because the questions are still pending before the Prize Courts in America. But with regard to the general statement made and to the general allegations which Mr. Secretary Seward makes in return, I shall have no objection to give to my noble Friend the correspondence which has taken place on that subject. With regard to the other question, the decisions of the Prize Courts, I must say I lament that the Constitution

  883
  of the United States is such, that instead of being brought at once before the Court of Admiralty, where, generally, you have a very eminent Judge to preside, perfectly well acquainted with the law of nations, such cases go in the first instance before the district courts, then, I think, before a circuit court, and it is only after a considerable delay that they come before the Supreme Court of the United States. I say this because I believe we should all very much respect a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and it is to be lamented that there should be a considerable delay before the judgment of that tribunal can be obtained. I believe that the Judge, now at the head of the Supreme Court, though a man above eighty years of age, retains the whole vigour of his faculties; that his memory is furnished with a knowledge of all the cases applicable to the questions that come before him; and his decisions would be received with respect, not only in America, but in this country. Well, my noble Friend went on to discuss the law of blockade, and he laid down propositions which would certainly not be admitted by our Prize Courts. He lays it down, on the authority of Mr. Monroe, that the coast cannot be blockaded, and that you must blockade the particular port and not the coast. We at one time declared a blockade, I think, of the whole coast of France, from Brest to Dunkirk; and when we were at war with America, we proclaimed a blockade of not less than 2,000 miles of coast; and if we ourselves held legitimate a blockade of 2,000; miles of coast, we should still, I apprehend, if we were at war with the United States, hold that such a blockade was a legitimate one. I do not see how we can now say, although we consider the blockade of 2,000 miles of coast to be perfectly legitimate, a blockade of 2,500 or 3,000 miles is such a monster of illegality that we should find it impossible to recognise it. No doubt, Mr. Monroe's statement has been correctly given, and, I dare say, Mr. Washington Irving, at Madrid, may have induced the Spanish Government to yield; but if they did yield, it was on account of their weakness, and not on account of the justice of the American demand. But the very declaration to which my noble Friend refers—namely, the Declaration of Paris—refers not only to the blockade of ports but to the blockade of coasts. [The MARQUESS of CLANRICARDE: Hear, hear!] My noble Friend does not deny that that is the case. Then what
  884
  becomes of the Monroe doctrine of blockades? Because that doctrine is, that you cannot blockade a coast, but it must be a blockade of a particular port. With regard to this question, having soon after the beginning of the blockade collected together all the reports which came to me from the Admiralty, from captains and commanders of Her Majesty's navy, who had run along the coast and reckoned the number of the ships at each particular port, I asked the Law Officers of the Crown whether the blockade of the southern coast of America was such a blockade as they considered effective according to the Declaration of Paris; and having received their opinion that it was effective, I felt bound not to set up au opinion of my own, not to invent any new theory of blockade, but to be guided by the legitimate authorities, and take that declaration of the Law Officers of the Crown as that by which I should be guided. My noble Friend gave certain instances, as to which my noble Friend the noble Duke, at the head of the Admiralty will be able to give a more correct answer than I can pretend to do; but my noble Friend ended by saying that, in his opinion, this was not an effective blockade, and that we ought immediately to declare it to be a blockade that we could not recognise. I will not say that such a declaration and the acts following it would involve us in war; but it would undoubtedly involve consequences which your Lordships could not contemplate without sorrow and affliction. Yet, I will not use any argument against it. My Lords, persons who come from the same part of the United Kingdom as my noble Friend does, seem to think that the whole of the honour of a nation consists in resisting what they may deem not legal or legitimate, and that you must at once resent it. Now, I do not think that the whole honour of a nation does so consist. It was said by a great historical authority, by Mr. Hume in his account of the reign of James II., in regard to the condemnation of Lord Stafford and the restoration of his honours to his successors, that "the reparation of injustice is the second honour of a nation; but that the performance of justice is the first honour of a nation." My noble Friend says the Americans are endeavouring to destroy your maritime rights, and you ought to resent and obtain reparation; but I say you ought narrowly to examine the case; you ought to wait for anything that may be said on the other side, and I should not be

  885
  satisfied with any decision that was not based in justice.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he had not stated that a blockade might not be effective because it was extensive—he had only sought to show what high authorities in the United States had laid down as a general principle when they were in the position of neutrals, and such a blockade was enforced. The noble Earl had quoted a very fine sentiment, which their Lordships must all approve, about "the honour of repairing injustice," and he thought the noble Earl was about to conclude that the United States were about to indulge in that luxury; but it had not been shown that there was the shadow of legality in the capture of the ships to which he had referred, or that the United States Government were about to offer any reparation for the injury they had done.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, the noble Marquess has moved for certain Reports which have been received by the Admiralty from the officers of Her Majesty's squadron on the American station. I wish, therefore, to state the grounds on which I think it would be very inconvenient to lay those Reports upon the table. No doubt, during these protracted hostilities there have been several irregularities committed by the ships of this country as well as by those of the American navy; but for these irregularities apology and reparation were at once made, and a good understanding maintained between the two Governments. Now, I do not think it would be for the advantage of either country, or tend to strengthen the friendly relations between them, to give these Reports of incidents which are now bygone, and with respect to which a thoroughly good understanding was arrived at. As to the conduct of Admiral Wilkes and the other American officers on that station, I wish in justice to them to read a short extract from the last letter we have received from Admiral Milne. In that letter he states, that—
  "The officers under my command who have met Admiral Wilkes have invariably expressed their sense of the courtesy and attention which he has shown to them. Indeed, I may say that in the intercourse which has taken place between the captains of the American navy and our officers no ill feeling has been evinced on either side, but, on the contrary, a feeling of mutual civility, frankness, and cordiality."
  My Lords, it is, I think, highly creditable to the officers of both navies, that whenever they have met, they have endeavoured
  886
  during a time when, no doubt, there has been cause for suspicion and irritation, to act with frankness and cordiality towards each other, and to maintain those relations between the two countries which tend to the preservation of peace.
  Resolved in the Negative.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL—(No. 109.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Short Title of Act) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Application of Act).
  LORD BERNBRS LORD BERNBRS moved the insertion of a proviso restricting the power of the Secretary of State in certain cases with regard to Roman Catholic prisoners.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Additional Ministers in Prisons, and Regulations as to Admission of Minister).
  LORD LYVEDEN LORD LYVEDEN moved an Amendment making the appointment of additional Ministers in prisons obligatory instead of permissive. The noble Lord said he was induced to take that course in consequence of the opinion expressed by so many of their Lordships on the second reading—that the Bill ought to be made compulsory instead of permissive. In that opinion he entirely concurred, believing that unless the measure was made compulsory, it would be almost inoperative. They had been assured that it would be wholly inoperative in Scotland. He entirely objected to the appointment of additional ministers being left to the discretion of the Courts of Quarter Sessions. Courts of Quarter Sessions might be very competent to deal with questions of expenditure, but this was a matter which involved elements calculated to introduce discord into the meetings of those bodies; and if the appointment were left permissive, they would have raised at every Quarter Sessions a little Maynooth Question, upon which there would, of necessity, be much difference of opinion and probably strong feelings. As the clause stood, it left the appointment of a chaplain to the discretion of the magistrates, provided the number of Roman Catholic prisoners was sufficient to warrant such a step. The words were very vague, and did not specify any particular number. He thought the number should be fixed, and he would suggest that a

  887
  minister should be appointed where the prisoners belonging to any one persuasion other than the Church of England, exceeded twenty. He did not propose to insert Absolute words saying that a salary should be given, because-that might appear to be an interference with the privileges of; the other House, and might cause the loss of the Bill. If the alterations which he should propose infringed the privilege's of the other House, he would move the omission of this clause, and on the Report move the insertion of a clause simply declaring that ministers should be appointed. At present he moved to omit the words, "if the number of such prisoners should be so great as, in the opinion of the justices," &c., for the purpose of inserting the words, "if the number of such prisoners should exceed twenty."
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETthought it very objectionable to make it compulsory to appoint a chaplain when the prisoners amounted to a given number, because this Bill in its present shape would allow the visits of the Roman Catholic minister residing in the neighbourhood when the number of Roman Catholic prisoners was small, and the Amendment would take away the discretion of the justices when, even though the number was twenty, it might be very desirable to allow those visits to be continued. It would be going much further than the case warranted, and would defeat the object of the Bill by entirely altering its character. In Ireland the law was, that the grand jury were to appoint chaplains whenever required by the court; and the appointment did not depend upon the number of prisoners.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREdid not think that the argument for making the Bill compulsory had been answered. In Ireland, practically, the appointment of additional ministers was left to the direction of the court.
  LORD CLONCURRYsaid that this power of appointing Roman Catholic chaplains to gaols had not worked well in Ireland. He believed that the Roman Catholic clergy might have long since rooted out the crime which disgraced that country if they had so chosen, but they had not done so; on the contrary, malefactors fully believed that they could be absolved from the most fearful crime by their chaplain. In the case in which Sir Francis Hopkins was fired at with intent to murder, the intended victim did not die, but was able subsequently to identify his assailant.
  888
  When, after the malefactor's execution, the body was given to his friends, the Roman Catholic bishop and clergy headed a procession of not less than 50,000 people, the majority of whom believed that by this act the salvation of the criminal had been secured.
  LORD CAMOYSopposed the Amendment. He was sure, that if the Bill became law, the magistrates of his county (Oxford) would honestly and faithfully do their best, if there were any necessity, to carry it into execution; and he believed the same might be said of the magistrates of other counties. He had heard it said that in Scotland the Bill would be wholly inoperative, because the magistrates would refuse to appoint Roman Catholic chaplains. He did not believe it—on the contrary, he believed they would act like their. English brethren, and would conform to the provisions of the law. He thought it would be unwise to affix any number of prisoners, for the number would be constantly fluctuating. To-day there might be twenty-one, and to-morrow only nineteen. He wished to thank the Government for having brought in the Bill, and to thank also the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) for the independent manner in which he had supported it on the second reading, though his sense of the noble Earl's conduct would have been deeper had it not been for an expression used by him. The noble Earl spoke of the Roman Catholics as paying to other beings that worship which was due to God alone. That was an imputation of idolatry, and, as a member of the Roman Catholic Church, he could not pass it by unnoticed.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was afraid he had been rather unfortunate in the expressions he used the other evening, in stating the grounds on which he was thoroughly convinced of the superior claims of the Protestant religion over that of the Roman Catholic. He stated that he believed the Roman Catholics to entertain some very erroneous doctrines, and that they acted on principles entirely repugnant to the Scriptures. At the same time, he stated his opinion that both the Protestant and Roman Catholic religion, notwithstanding the differences between them, rested upon the same foundation, and that he could not but believe the teaching of the Roman Catholic priest, although it might be considered erroneous in some respects, would yet have a beneficial tendency towards persons of that religion. The next

  889
  morning after the debate he received a newspaper, which said he had been guilty of the grossest misconduct in presuming to say that the Roman Catholic religion rested on the same foundation as the Protestant, because the one rested on the Bible and the worship of God, and the other was the worship of a piece of bread. He begged their Lordships' pardon for quoting such offensive language. On the other hand, he received a letter from a Roman Catholic—a letter remonstrating with him for having stated that both religions rested on the same foundation; because the writer said the Roman Catholic religion rested on the Scripture and the Church, while the teaching of the Protestants was a work, not of God, but of the Devil; and that upon that teaching alone did the Protestant religion exist. These were the views on each side of his statement, which he thought was a reasonable statement, but in respect of which he had been charged on the one side with the grossest blasphemy, and upon the other with the most utter ignorance of what the Protestant and Roman Catholic religions were. In making the statement he had alluded to, it was, he assured the House, not his intention to attempt the conversion of a single Roman Catholic, or to say anything to hurt the feelings of either side. He had simply expressed his dissent from some of the Roman Catholic doctrines. He concurred with the noble Lord who had just sat down, that the Amendment was objectionable in laying down any precise limit in reference to the number of prisoners that would require the appointment of a Roman Catholic chaplain in any prison, on the simple ground that the number was continually varying. There was another objection to the Amendment, which had not occurred to some of his noble Friends. It had been stated that in Ireland the appointment of chaplains was in a great measure vested in the Roman Catholic bishops, for this reason that no priest could accept office unless with the sanction of his bishop; and if he were an imprudent man, he might impose on the magistrates the very man they objected to. That would be the case in England if the Bill were compulsory, and the Roman Catholic bishops might secure to themselves the right practically of appointing chaplains. That would not he the case if the Bill were permissive, because the magistrates would appoint and dismiss; and if the Roman Catholic bishop refused to sanction the appointment of any chap-
  890
  lain except those the magistrates objected to, the injury done to the Roman Catholics would be done, not by the magistrates, but by the Roman Catholic bishops, who would not only deprive their people of religious instruction in their own faith, but would place them in the hands of the Protestant chaplains. He was willing that Roman Catholic prisoners should receive religious instruction, but it was absolutely necessary to keep the appointment and control of the chaplains in the hands of the magistrates, and that could only be done, in his view, by making the Bill permissive instead of compulsory.
  After a few words from Lord POLWARTH and the Marquess of BATH, the Amendment was negatived without a division.
  Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Thursday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 137.)

CASE OF SERGEANT MAJOR LILLEY.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, although I have given notice of my intention to put a Question to the Secretary of State for War, relating to the cases of Lieutenant Colonel Crawley and Sergeant Major Lilley, I do not propose to introduce it by any preliminary observations. I have no official knowledge of the matter, and I must be careful to say nothing, nor to make any observations that might give rise to unfounded suspicions or unjust impressions, But, at the same time, I think your Lordships will admit, that whether right or wrong, so frightful a picture as that presented in the case I have alluded to has never yet been brought under the notice of the British public; and I must add, that as far as I can judge, what has taken place hitherto is most unsatisfactory, and such, I believe, is also the judgment of the public. It is a matter of the very highest importance—it is of the highest importance to the safety and the discipline of the army—it is of the highest importance to the honour of the country, both of itself and in respect of the estimation in which it is held among foreign nations. I do not recollect in my experience any matter which has more profoundly moved the public feelings of the country. It is most desirable that further information should be given, and the whole matter should be further searched into and the facts laid bare before the public. Therefore, I will simply, in the words of my notice, ask the Secre-

  891
  tary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to institute any further Inquiry into the Cases of Lieutenant Colonel Crawley and Sergeant Major Lilley?
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, before my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War replies to the Question that has been put by the noble Earl, I think your Lordships will permit me to interpose in order that I may make one or two observations, not with reference to the circumstances connected with the court martial upon the late Paymaster Smales, nor with reference to anything that may occur hereafter should it be deemed, as I believe it will be found, necessary to have a court martial upon Lieutenant Colonel Crawley. But so much has been said with respect to the position I fill, and as to the line I have taken with regard to this melancholy proceeding, that it is right that your Lordships and the country should know the exact relative position in which I, filling the high position I have the honour to occupy, stand with reference to the Commander-in-Chief in India—and, in short, how I stand with reference to the whole matter. It may not be known to your Lordships that the conduct of the discipline of the army in India rests entirely with the Commander-in-Chief in India, and that as far my supervision extends it is merely that I stand in the position of a referee—in the position of a last appeal. But so seldom is that power exercised that I believe there is no instance r—or, at least, but a very distant one—when there has been any interference on the part of the Commander-in-Chief in England with regard to any court martial held in India. To such an extent does this go, that whereas the Commander-in-Chief in England submits to Her Majesty the name of any officer who, having been tried by court martial, is sentenced to be cashiered, and the actual cashiering does not take place until the Queen's pleasure has been taken, in India the fiat of the Commander-in-Chief in that country is absolute, and no reference is made to the Queen's pleasure. As I have taken notice of these proceedings, the noble Earl may say, why take notice of them at all? I will explain. As I have said, there is, no doubt, a last appeal to the Commander-in-Chief at home. The course of proceeding is this. When a court martial takes place in India, the circumstance is reported to the Commander-in-Chief in England, in
  892
  order that he may know how to act in such proceedings. The report of the court martial itself is transmitted to the Judge Advocate General, who forwards it to the Commander-in-Chief here, who has an opportunity of looking into the proceedings. He then merely returns it as a record to the Judge Advocate General's office. When these proceedings came to my notice, I must confess that I felt, as the noble Earl appears to feel, that there was something very peculiar and most singular in these proceedings, and they struck me as being so remarkable that it was right that the course which had been adopted should be, to a great extent, reviewed by the Commander-in-Chief at home, and his official opinion obtained upon them. Having arrived at that conclusion, how was I, my Lords, to act? Was I to act by the immediate removal of the officer chiefly implicated? In reviewing this case, it certainly appeared to be evident that very unfortunate and melancholy circumstances had occurred as regards this sergeant major; but, at the same time, I must frankly say, that it is only very recently that the real facts of the case have come to my knowledge. At the time my Memorandum was drawn up I was not in possession of the whole facts of the case. I knew some of the facts, but much was left behind that I had no doubt would in time be elicited; and I therefore abstained from doing more than expressing a very decided and positive opinion upon the whole case as regards Lieutenant Colonel Crawley. At the same time, I reserved myself to this extent—that unless I was satisfied on certain points on which I had then considerable doubt, I should be compelled to remove that officer from the command of his regiment. Now, it has been said that the reason why no action was taken was that two eminent men were concerned in the transaction—Sir Hugh Rose and Sir William Mansfield. No doubt these two distinguished general officers were concerned; but the question arises, were they concerned in such a manner that I was called on to take action with regard to them? Now, I most conscientiously believe that these two distinguished officers had every desire to do their duty, but that they committed a very serious error of judgment. That was my conviction, and I believe that to be the real state of the case. I believe that will come out as the result of any further investigation that may take place. But even as to the question of the irregularity of the impri-

  893
  sonment, to which such importance has been given, the facts connected with that imprisonment were not known to me when my Memorandum was written. It is only very recently that they have come to my knowledge. Of course, it was impossible for me to decide in the case, when really and truly I did not know the circumstances. I could not suppose that there could be any personal feeling in this matter on the part of these distinguished officers—Sir Hugh Rose and Sir William Mansfield. Not their military reputation merely, but their high character in the various eminent positions they had filled, led me to the conviction that they had erred in judgment, and certainly not from a desire to do what was cruel, unjust, or wrong in point of law. Their high character, I admit, had weight with me, and I must say I cannot conceive that either I or any other official person could have been justified in coming to a rash conclusion in so delicate and important a question. As to the result, I hope to prove in both cases I have not acted so undecidedly as I see I am accused of having done. Because, what has occurred? Why, at a very recent period circumstances have come to my knowledge which render it not only desirable but necessary to bring to a court martial Lieutenant Colonel Crawley. I am not going into the case, which is pending a judicial trial. It is only, I repeat, within a very few days—ten days—that I have been in a position to advise that that trial should take place upon the merits of the case. A great deal of time has elapsed since this case was first brought before the court; and I may be asked why such delay has occurred. Now, it must be recollected, my Lords, that the whole of these occurrences took place in India. It takes nearly three months before an answer can be had to any question that may arise here. We have had hardly a single paper from India with reference to this subject that has not required on our part fresh questions to be sent and fresh replies to be received from India. This going back and forward of communications, with three months' interval between each question, has protracted this unfortunate business longer than I could have wished, or than your Lordships perhaps may have expected. And now a further delay must occur. Sir William Mansfield, under whom this regiment is serving, is stationed in Bombay; but, as the Queen's troops in India are under the command in chief of the General Officer in Bengal, the conse-
  894
  quence is that every question of this description must go from Bombay to Bengal before it can come back officially to me. I have been obliged to point out these facts to your Lordships in-order to show that whatever has been done has been done with a view not to screen any person, but with the strictest and most earnest desire to do justice to all—not only to do justice to the feelings of distress naturally occasioned by the painful circumstances that have occurred, but also to do justice to those who have been implicated, and to whom your Lordships must wish to give every possible opportunity of defending and justifying themselves, if it is possible for them to do so. That, my Lords, is the only statement I have to make. As to any pressure being put upon me, I of course spurn the idea. It does so happen that I have never discussed the matter with any single individual except in an official manner, and then only with those parties on whose judgment I was enabled to rely in coming to a sound, just, and safe conclusion.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that the speech of the illustrious Duke entirely relieved him from the necessity of saying more than a very few words on this subject, because, as their Lordships had been told, the intention of his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was to bring Lieu tenant Colonel Crawley to a court martial for the circumstances attending the death of Sergeant Major Lilley. As to the precise nature of the charges and the mode in which the trial would be conducted, these matters were now under the consideration of the authorities, and the case being handed over to a competent judicial tribunal, he should feel it his duty to refrain from expressing any opinion on the subject. He would only assure their Lordships that every step would be taken by the Government to insure that the inquiry should be conducted in the most open and fair manner, in order to secure the ends of justice as between all parties.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYhoped the inquiry would take place in England. It would be most unsatisfactory if it were transferred to India. In India the question had been almost prejudged by the allegation that Sergeant Major Lilley had died of apoplexy caused by habitual intoxication. He therefore repeated the hope, which was shared by a very large portion of the people of England, that the inquiry would take place here, and not in India.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwished to state, in justice to Lieutenant General Sir Hugh Rose, that he had that day seen a letter from that officer, stating that he should not have made the remarks he did, as to the death of Sergeant Major Lilley having been occasioned by intemperate habits, but for the written statement he received from Dr. Turnbull, the medical officer who attended him in prison, which mentioned the number of glasses of spirits which were drunk and which were certainly sufficient to lead to his death, from apoplexy. He thought it but fair to mention this. Whether it was true or not, Sir Hugh Rose had received that statement from the medical man who had attended Sergeant Major Lilley in prison, and that must; to a certain degree, vindicate Sir Hugh Rose in the remarks he had made.

REDEMPTION OF RENTS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 134.)—REPORT.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that having had a private communication with his noble Friend (the Earl of Belmore), who had given notice to move to omit Clause 10, he would move to omit certain words and insert others to make the sanction of the Judge of the Landed Estates Court necessary for the sale of any reservations.
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that he would accept the compromise offered by his noble Friend. At the same time, he still retained his objection to the clause—namely, that it gave power to sell something of which the future value could not be satisfactorily ascertained.
THE LORD CHANCELLORhoped that the Bill might be reprinted, in order that it might be properly considered. Here was an Amendment made, and then withdrawn, and another Amendment made, and it was impossible to know what might be the consequences with regard to the action of the Court.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREhad no objection to the Bill being reprinted.
Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and Bill, with the Amendments, to be printed. (No. 139.)

DUCHY OF CORNWALL MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]—(No. 135.)

  THIRD READING.
  The Consent of Her Majesty and the
  896
  Consent of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, in right of His Duchy of Corn-wall, signified; Bill read 3a (according to Order); an Amendment made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till to-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.