Lords Sitting of 18 May 1863

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Duke of Grafton, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance* (No 104); Sale of Mill Sites &c. (Ireland)* (No 105.)
Committee—Duchy of Cornwall Management* (No 90); Marriages, &c. (Ireland)* (No 93.)
Report—Duchy of Cornwall Management* (No 106), and re committed.

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.—THIRD READING.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: My Lords, I feel it my duty to ask your Lordships to defer the third reading of this Bill for six months. Although in delegating to Select Committees, the duty of taking evidence and reporting upon what are called private Bills, which are very often Bills of the greatest public importance, your Lordships are wont, as a general rule, to attach such weight to their decisions as practically to invest them with legislative power, I do not think that those decisions ought to be regarded as so conclusive, that when strong and sufficient reason is shown, they should not be reviewed. No five Members of your Lordships' House, however selected and however respectable, can be properly regarded as forming an infallible tribunal. Even the Judges of the land, fitted as they are by education, by learning, and by tried abilities for the judicial office, have, as your Lordships are well aware, their judgments often called into question, appealed from, and reversed. Is

1805
it, then, unreasonable to suppose that a Select Committee may form an erroneous judgment? Is it nut rather to be apprehended, that though acting with the best intentions, they may sometimes come to conclusions injurious to the public, from having before them only those who have their own interests to serve, and by whom reference is only made to the interests of the public so far as they may be subservient to their own? Is it not, in fact, manifest that such is often the case, when we consider how many ill-devised railway schemes, sanctioned by the Legislature on the sole recommendation of Select Committees, have involved individuals and public companies in ruinous expenses of no public advantage, and of times preventing the undertaking of works that would be of service? It certainly appears to me that you cannot, with due regard to the interests that may be involved, exclude, where reasonable grounds are shown for it, examination and review of the Report of a Committee upon a private Bill; and if this may be said in the case of an ordinary Railway Bill, how much more, when, as in the present case, the question arises with regard to a metropolitan railway, affecting the interests of the second capital of the empire, displacing thousands of its inhabitants, and disfiguring its most beautiful thoroughfares, and all for an object which, as I shall presently show, the Bill will not accomplish? Having attended very much to the proceedings of the Select Committee, and been present during the last day of the inquiry, I can truly say, that when I left the room after hearing the important evidence given, regarding an alternative line of railway, suggested as preferable to that before the Committee, and the speeches of counsel on the whole case, it was with the firm conviction that the Bill would not be allowed to proceed; great, therefore, was my astonishment when I afterwards heard that it had been favourably reported on. My surprise was, I believe, shared by every one acquainted with the cases, and it was I think, a significant circumstance, that when I rose to give notice of my opposition to the third reading of the Bill, notice was at the same time given by a noble Lord, not now in his place, of a Motion to have the evidence printed. I regret, that when last Friday that Motion came on, it was opposed by two such high authorities in this House as the noble President of the Council and the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.
1806
The ground of their opposition, I must say, appeared to me very unconstitutional. It was, that the decision of the Select Committee should be implicitly and without examination accepted. Such advice, after what had been urged against the Bill, was an ignoring of the duty of the House to act on the best information within its reach; it was calculated to shake public confidence in the soundness of your decisions, and it must have the effect of depriving your Lordships, should you give a third reading to the Bill, of the power of doing so with that knowledge of its having any claim to acceptance which alone could command respect for such a vote in the face of the objections that have been urged against it. My noble Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee objected to the printing of the evidence on the ground of its being unnecessary, inasmuch as the whole proceedings of the Committee had been regularly reported in the Irish newspapers. I should have expected from my noble Friend the manifestation of greater readiness to have the proceedings of his Committee examined into, for he must be aware that your Lordships have no file of any Irish newspaper to refer to. But he is very correct in saying that the Irish journals had made full reports. The inference is that the public took a very deep interest in the inquiry, and it is very much from the perusal of those reports that so much consternation and indignant feeling has been awakened that such a Bill should have passed through a Committee of this House. Should it eventually become law, my noble Friend's name will be immortalized by it, for it is known in Ireland under the title of the Llanover Disfigurement Bill. I hope my noble Friend is not ambitious thus to connect his name with a great public work, but that be will rather consent to have the Bill, and any other scheme for carrying out those public objects which in the course of his inquiry he has ascertained to be desirable, referred to a Commission sitting in Dublin. It is not very long since your Lordships put a stop to the progress of several Metropolitan Railway Bills for London, and appointed a Committee of eighteen noble Lords, selected as the most capable of forming a correct judgment, to inquire and report in what, manner provision could best be made for "securing a comprehensive plan of metropolitan railway communication, with the greatest advantage to the public, and least inconvenience to the local arrangements of the metropolis." Yet

1807
even to these no power was given beyond that of inquiry and report. Why not do the same by the Irish metropolis? Is it reasonable or just, while you deal thus tenderly with the interests of London, which undoubtedly are important to the community at large, that you should ignore those of Dublin, not less important; and with regard to its architectural beauty much more highly prized by the whole Irish nation? I do not charge the noble Lords that composed the Select Committee with acting intentionally wrong. I believe, on the contrary, that they were animated by the desire of doing what was right, but they have committed a great error in reporting such a Bill to the House. I will trouble your Lordships with but a very brief statement of facts upon which I would move its rejection. The Bill as it was originally brought forward, and passed the Standing Orders, though unsupported by any portion of the Irish public, and especially disapproved of by the Corporation and citizens of Dublin, was founded on a principle the importance of which was established before the Committee, of uniting, by means of a metropolitan railway, with a central station, all the railways, five in number, having their termini in Dublin, whereby a through communication would be provided for passengers landing at Kingstown to every part of Ireland; but the Bill, as reported to your Lordships, provides only for the junction of two railways—namely, the Kingstown and Great Southern and Western, thereby limiting the advantages of a through communication to persons travelling to the districts opened by the latter railway, and cutting off from the benefit of such accommodation, and from any chance of ever obtaining it if this Bill should pass, the whole of Ireland North of Dublin and two-thirds of the West. The cause of this curtailment of the original undertaking was that the Board of Trade interposed in the interest of the Liffey navigation against the river being crossed in the manner proposed in the Bill. The Board very reasonably supposed, looking at the preamble of the Bill, that the crossing of the Liffey was an essential condition of the passing of the Bill, for their Report thus concludes—
"So far, therefore, as the interests of navigation are concerned, there would appear to be objections to the scheme. Whether there are advantages such as to outweigh these objections will be a question for the Committee. If, however, the Committee should decide upon allowing the bill to pass, it appears to my Lords that clauses
1808
should be inserted for securing the following objects, viz.:—
"1. The bridge across the Liffey to be constructed upon such plans and with an opening span of such dimensions as the Board of Trade shall approve of.
"2. The Board of Trade to be empowered to order a local survey of any works affecting tidal waters, and to remove any such works if abandoned.
"The clauses for these purposes which my Lords would recommend to be inserted, will have been furnished by the Board of Trade to the agents of the promoters before the Bill is considered in Committee. (Signed)
"JAMES BOOTH."
The Committee appear not to have concurred in the views of the Board of Trade, for they decided upon passing the Bill without any such clauses as the Board recommended, and without its providing for what, by its preamble and title, it purported to effect—namely, the uniting of the different railways radiating from Dublin. Had the original scheme been adhered to, there is no doubt it would, though at the sacrifice of the architectural beauties of the city of Dublin, and otherwise in a manner open to much objection, have accomplished some important objects. It would have united by railway the north and south divisions of the town; it would have opened to the whole of the city, as well as the country, the extensive and growing trade of the port of Dublin, and it would have provided through communication from England with all parts of Ireland. As the Bill now is, the so-called Metropolitan Railway will be confined to the south side of the river, while the whole of the trade of Dublin, except in coals, is on the north side; and for the single purpose of effecting a junction between two railways, the most beautiful parts and most striking features of a metropolis of which Irishmen are justly proud will be irremediably disfigured, and thousands of the population displaced. This, my Lords, is the more to be regretted, as a scheme was suggested that would have accomplished all the objects to be looked for from a metropolitan railway by the construction of a line in great part subterranean, and that without injuring the appearance of the town, without any material interference with property and the habitations of the citizens, and presenting a most eligible site, in proximity to the General Post Office, for a metropolitan station. After such a scheme had been suggested and a survey submitted, in support of which the most eminent engineers were examined, I

1809
cannot acquit the Committee of having come to a very hasty and unfortunate conclusion in reporting for your adoption the very crude, imperfect, and mischievous measure projected in the Bill. Many objections of detail might be urged against the Bill, but I will not trespass upon your attention by noticing them. I must, however, advert to one circumstance in the proceedings of the Committee which appeared to me particularly unfortunate. It is, that when only one side had been heard, and even before the engineer of the proposed railway had been cross-examined, the Committee, through their Chairman, declared that they had made up their minds that the Metropolitan Railway Station should be on the south side of the Liffey. This, my Lords, was a prejudging of the whole question; and although the decision was, I am sure, announced with the best intention, it placed the opponents of the Bill in the difficult and hopeless position of having to contend against what looked like a foregone conclusion. Let me, in conclusion, entreat your Lordships to pause before you give your sanction to this Bill. It is due to the interests and feelings of the Irish people that great caution should be used in sanctioning a work of the kind proposed; and I believe that the interests as well of the promoters of it as of the public will best be served by its being postponed. I therefore beg to move that the third reading be deferred for six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months").
LORD LLANOVER:—My Lords, as Chairman of the Select Committee to whom the Bill was referred, I beg to assure your Lordships that we gave not only to the Bill referred to us, but to the other schemes put forward, the fullest and most careful consideration. It is now said that your Lordships ought to refer the whole matter to a Royal Commission. I confess that for my part I think that the experience we have had with respect to Royal Commissions in Ireland does not give me much encouragement to adopt that course. In the year 1860 a most important question was agitated in Dublin—namely, the supply of water to that city. Representations were made to the then Chief Secretary, Mr. Cardwell, to the effect that the issue of a Royal Commission would produce harmony on that disputed question. Accordingly, a Royal Commission
1810
was appointed; but what was the result? The Commissioner, the most eminent man in his profession, sent in his report, and a Bill to carry out the recommendations was prepared, but that Bill was vigorously contested. For more than a month it remained under the consideration of the House of Commons, but even then the opposition did not end, for it was hotly opposed before a Committee of your Lordships' House, and I can bear witness to that fact, as I was selected by your Lordships to be the Chairman of that Committee. It is said that we excluded evidence which was tendered in opposition to the Bill we are now discussing. This statement is so far correct that we excluded that on behalf of the Midland Railway Company, of which the noble Earl is an active director. I thought the Committee were right in deciding that this railway company had no locus standi. But wishing to be fully assured upon this point, and supposing that the question might be raised again in your Lordships' House, or elsewhere, we determined, before excluding the Midland Railway, to have the opinion thereon of the greatest authority in your Lordships' House, and I consulted with the Chairman of Committees; I am glad to say we were supported by that noble Lord. It has been objected also that the Bill was curtailed. That is quite true; the Bill was curtailed in consequence of the decision of the Admiralty and of the Board of Trade; and when my noble Friend says we did not concur with their opinions, he is in error: we did concur with them; we did not go into the whole Bill as originally drawn, but into the Bill as submitted to us, the branch across the Liffey having been withdrawn before our Committee sat; but any one of your Lordships might suppose from the observations of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clanearty) that he approved of the Bill in its original state. Not at all; the Midland Company, of which the noble Earl is a director, objected to it, though the noble Earl now says, that if the Bill passed in its original shape, it would have been all that was to be desired. The noble Earl objected to it in its entirety. Let us see the nature of the opposition offered to it. I will read to the House an extract from a speech made by Mr. Ennis at a meeting of the Midland Railway Company, on the 19th of March. Mr. Ennis said—
"It was because that line left the Midland Railway out of the running that he was opposed to it. Was it to be supposed, that if the line gave the

1811
Midland line the accommodation which it proposed to give to other lines, his company would be mad enough to oppose it?"
I may say we regard this scheme as a trunk line to connect the several lines running into Dublin, which made provision in the 39th and 40th clauses under which the Midland Company would have power to join this line and use the central station of the company, any differences between the two companies to be settled by the Board of Trade. It has been said, my Lords, that there was great opposition to this Bill from the citizens of Dublin; but we had from that city a petition in its favour, signed by 2,000 persons. One of the Members for the City came forward and said he was strongly against it, but admitted that his brother was as strongly in its favour. In fact, in reference to this as to all great works, there were opponents as well as supporters. But the real question is, will not this scheme be a great gain to Ireland and the United Kingdom, to have a through communication direct from England to Cork and Galway? We also took evidence with regard to the manner in which other lines might be made. Any noble Lord who has sat on railway Committees must know that engineers are in the same category as mad doctors on a lunacy question; one will say the patient is stark mad, and the other he is of sound mind. So with regard to engineers; one pronounces a scheme to be bad, the other declares it good. But in all the schemes of which I have had experience as Chairman of a Committee of either House, I never heard such evidence as the opponents of this Bill produced. In opposition to this scheme, which went right through the city, with good gradients, it was seriously proposed to put forward one which would run under the Liffey, with a gradient of one in fifty or one in sixty, then run horizontally, ascend the other side into open day, of a gradient again of one in forty, and take a circuit round the city; and in order to get those gradients, the engineer, with the example of the Thames Tunnel before us, said that we should run under the Liffey with two feet of soil between the navigable river and the crown of the arch, and eighteen inches, or two bricks of thickness, for the arch itself. I do not think any of your Lordships would venture into such a tunnel. From the evidence submitted to us we came to the conclusion to recommend your Lordships to pass this Bill, and I am sure your Lordships will see, from the clauses to which I
1812
have referred, that not only will the railway companies which are directly connected with it have access to it. But all other companies will have the power of joining and making use of the line, which will form the connecting link between Kingstown and the great ports on the southern and northern coast of Ireland.
THE EARL OF BANDONsupported the Bill, which would, he believed, be productive of great national advantages. If this line were made, in four hours and a half the Government could send troops from Kingstown to Queenstown.
THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, that as a general rule it was better that the House should not reverse the decision of a Select Committee on a private Bill, because it was only fair, that when the House appointed five noble Lords to undertake the onerous duty of examining into a measure, that their decision should be supported. But this was altogether an exceptional case. Here was a scheme for traversing Dublin from end to end, crossing thirty-five streets, and stopping nine more altogether—and amongst the streets so to be crossed were two of the most important in Dublin—Westmoreland Street and D'Olier Street—and that by means of bridges only about fourteen feet from the level of the roadway. These streets were to be spanned by railway bridges, and at the end of Westmoreland Street, which he might call the Regent Street of Dublin, was situated the Bank of Ireland, which was considered the finest building in Dublin, perhaps in the United Kingdom; and if the bridge across this street were to be made, the view would be obstructed to any person standing on Carlisle Bridge. Now, as to the traffic; as his noble Friend had stated, the House had, as he (the Earl of Belmore) thought very properly, refused to go to the expense of having the evidence printed; but he had very carefully gone over it, as it was fully reported in the Dublin papers, as well as the speeches of the counsel and the remarks of the noble Chairman. The promoters proposed to have a central station close to Westmoreland Street. This was to be a high level station, to be reached by sixty steps, and, as he understood the evidence, would be a very inconvenient one, nearly as had as the present one at Westland Row. The promoters proved that there was at present a great amount of traffic passing through the streets of Dublin from the various railway termini, to be shipped at the quays. They

1813
admitted that the place at which by far the largest amount of shipments took place was from the North Wall, and he could not understand how the promoters could pretend to say that their scheme was to relieve the streets. The place of shipment was on the north side of the Liffey, and their station was to be on the south side, and above the navigation; so that all the cattle and all traffic they would bring from the South of Ireland would have to pass along Westmoreland Street, one of the most important, and Carlisle Bridge, one of the leading thoroughfares of Dublin, and so to the quays at the North Wall. But the greatest blot in this scheme was that it left the communication with the North of Ireland unprovided for. As the Bill was originally introduced, there was proposed to be a branch from the Central Station to what is called the Amiens Street Station, the terminus of the Northern lines; but this, in consequence of the opposition of the Admiralty and the Ballast Board, was withdrawn. There were three ways by which this communication might be effected—one, by the scheme already alluded to by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Llanover), and which was proposed to be accomplished by means of a tunnel under the Liffey; but this was one which he might say was quite out of the question, for it was proposed to go from the terminus on one side by a gradient of one in forty to a point seventy-two feet below the quays of a navigable river, and then to rise with the same gradient on the other side, which, in his opinion, would be a very dangerous scheme to sanction. Another plan that had been suggested was to form a communication with the Broadstone terminus of the Midland Railway, by means of a junction with what was called the Liffey branch. This was all very well, but the Midland Railway Company worked a system of railways which were competing for the traffic of certain districts with railways in the north of Ireland, which were in Dublin by means of the Drogheda terminus, and it was not natural that the Midland Railway Company should be willing to allow the Northern lines to have access to the central station by means of the powers secured to them (the Midland) of forming a junction with it. The only remaining plan for uniting the stations was by means of a high level line and a bridge across Sackville Street—a street which was considered to be one of the finest in Europe. A great deal of the traffic of Dublin was connected with trade, and the point of ship-
1814
ment for that was in Dublin. The passenger traffic went from Kingstown, but the goods and cattle traffic from the port of Dublin. There was one other point to which he wished to draw attention, one which had before been adverted to in that House. As the Bill was introduced originally, no less than 5,619 persons would, according to the Report of Mr. Reade, the Inspector of Lodging Houses under the Corporation of Dublin, he deprived of their homes; and as the Bill now stood, 2,846 persons, mostly of the labouring class, would be turned out of their houses; or, taking the population of Dublin at 200,000 persons, rather better than 1¼ per cent of that of the whole city. It was quite true that at the instance of the Committee a clause had been inserted to provide for a daily cheap train for the benefit of the labouring class, but unfortunately it did not appear where the train was to run from. And now, as to the remarks which had fallen from his noble Friend behind him with reference to the conduct of the Committee: he felt bound to say that in what was decided on by the Committee, and what fell from the noble Lord (Lord Llanover) there was nothing to be objected to. It was quite clear that the parties who were excluded from being heard had not locus standi. He begged their Lordships' pardon for having troubled them with these remarks, but he felt it to be his duty as an Irish Representative Peer, considering the national interests which were involved, to ask their Lordships to interfere to prevent an irreparable injury to the metropolis of that kingdom.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he wished to take this opportunity to point out to the noble Earl the President of the Council the fallacy of the argument used by him the other night, when he said that Dublin was not to be compared with London; in the same spirit he would say that the trade of Ireland was not to be regarded with the trade of England, and did not require such extraordinary lines as that proposed under this Bill. It was unjust to the citizens of Dublin to treat the measure as a mere ordinary railway Bill, more especially as the railway companies had not been allowed to appear before the Committee. But the Irish Government had taken no steps in the matter, though they had an impartial tribunal in the Board of Trade to advise them. He hoped that Dublin would be allowed to reap the benefit of the experience which Parliament had derived with respect to metropolitan railway schemes.
LORD STRATHEDENdeprecated hasty legislation on this subject, and thought the inhabitants of Dublin should be allowed the penefit of the doubt before their Lordships passed the measure.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, the objections to the Bill were now too late; they ought to have been urged on the Motion for the second reading, or before the Bill was referred to a Select Committee. The Committee heard evidence on the question of the disfigurement to the city, and had reported in favour of the Bill; and it was the safest course to abide by the decisions of that Committee. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be better to take the usual course and allow the Bill to proceed; and then the opponents of the Bill would have an opportunity of raising the same points in the other House, and there urge that the measure might be referred to a Select Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, more time should be given for the consideration of a Bill which interfered with so many streets and made such extensive changes.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I confess that I never gave a more reluctant vote than that which I must give on the present question. On the one hand, I am of opinion that a much better plan might have been introduced. It is quite true that the objections which I have heard to the Bill I have heard from its opponents; but these objections carry with them considerable weight, and show to me that the Bill, in its present shape, is imperfect, and in many respects objectionable. According to the promoters, the line will cost £150,000 a mile; according to the opponents, it cannot be made for less than £250,000. Now, my Lords, if there was an actual necessity in the City of Dublin, as there is in the City of London, for through communication and a central station, I do not think the course taken the most advantageous one, for it will destroy valuable property, and this, too, by connecting the Dublin and Kingstown and the Great Southern and Western lines. Then I find that the majority of the inhabitants are opposed to the disfigurement of the city. There are great objections to the Bill. But, on the other hand, I am told that those very objections were weighed by the Select Committee, who were unanimous in their adoption of the Resolution at which they arrived. Your Lordships declined to allow the evidence to be printed; and as the Committee had the entire of
1816
that evidence before them on coming to the conclusion, and your Lordships have refused to have that evidence, it would be contrary to the ordinary practice of the House, and contrary to reason and justice, to set aside the verdict of the Committee. In deference to that practice, rather than in approval or support of the Bill, I shall be compelled reluctantly to vote for the third reading, if the noble Earl presses his Motion to a division.
EARL GRANVILLEhad come to the same conclusion as the noble Earl. In voting for the third reading he did so without reference to the merits of the scheme, and simply because he believed that such a question could best be considered by a Select Committee. He would recommend the noble Earl not to go to a division, were it not that the last time he gave that advice he found himself in the minority.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTYsaid, he did not think the House should pass a measure so crude, so superficial, and so mischievous, and he should certainly take the opinion of the House.
On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 65; Not-Contents 11: Majority 54.
Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONTENTS.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Strathallan, V.

Sydney, V.

Somerset, D.

Bangor, Bp.

Durham, Bp.

Ailesbury, M.

Oxford, Bp.

Bristol, M.

St. Davids, Bp.

Salisbury, M.

Abercromby, L.

Airlie, E.

Aveland, L.

Bandon, E.

Belper, L. [Teller.]

Camperdown, E.

Berners, L.

Cathcart, E.

Blantyre, L.

Chichester, E.

Bolton, L.

De Grey, E.

Calthorpe, L.

Derby, E.

Carew, L.

Devon, E.

Chelmsford, L.

Granville, E.

Churchill, L.

Grey, E.

Churston, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Cranworth, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Dartrey, L. (L, Cremorne.)

Pomfret, E.

Russell, E.

Ebury, L.

Saint Germans, E.

Egerton, L.

Stanhope, E.

Foley, L.

Tankerville, E.

Heytesbury, L.

Verulam, E.

Llanover, L. [Teller.]

Lyveden, L.

De Vesci, V.

Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

Hardinge, V.

Hawarden, V.

Northwick, L.

1817

Polwarth, L

Saltoun, L.

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Strathspey, L. (E. Seafield.)

Portman, L.

Raglan, L.

Taunton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Walsingham, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Wodehouse, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Castlemaine, L.

Westmeath, M.

Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

Belmore, E. [Teller.]

Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

Clancarty, V. (E. Clancarty. [Teller.]

Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

Stratheden, L.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Wharncliffe, L.

METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STRATHEDENrose to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Appointment of a Commission to inquire into the Subject of Metropolitan Railways. He would remind their Lordships that the subject of the projected encroachments of the railway companies on the streets and squares of the metropolis had already occupied much of their attention, and that during the de-hates that had occurred there had been a great union of opinion among practical authorities, that a Commission of Inquiry, similar to that of 1846, ought to be appointed before any considerable progress should be made in the railway works affecting the metropolis; but, as matters now stood, their Lordships had no security whatever that such a Commission would be appointed. The Government had, indeed, expressed an opinion that possibly the Select Committee to which the Metropolitan Railway Bills had been referred might recommend a Commission; but inasmuch as it formed no part of the Instructions to that Committee to give an opinion whether or not a Commission should be appointed, there was no reason to anticipate any recommendation from it on the subject, either favourable or unfavourable. The question, therefore, which he had to put to the Government was, Whether they intended to appointed a Commission of Inquiry, similar to that of 1846, on their own opinion of the merits of the case, or only in the event of the Select Committee recommending the appointing of a Commission? Should the reply be that the Government would, upon their own opinion of the merits of the case, appoint a Com-
  1818
  mission, that answer would be satisfactory. If, on the other hand, the Government should answer that they would wait until the Select Committee had reported, that answer though less satisfactory, would not be useless, as it would show a large portion of their Lordships, who desired a Commission of Inquiry that some further Parliamentary proceedings were essential.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not hold out any hope to his noble Friend that Her Majesty's Government would appoint a Commission on the subject of Metropolitan Railways until they had had time to examine the Report of the Select Committee now sitting. As Chairman of the Committee, he could inform their Lordships that they had taken all the evidence they required; but all noble Lords who were present would agree with him in thinking that he was not at all in a position to tell them what the Report of the Committee would be.

UNITED STATES—PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRIZE COURTS.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to move for Copies of any Reports from our Consular or Diplomatic Agents in North America of the Decisions or Proceedings of the Prize Courts of the United States. In making this Motion, he was as sensible as any man could be of the gravity of the subject and of the difficult and delicate nature of some of the propositions which must be adverted to in the few observations which he should think it his duty to make. But it was exactly because the subject was so important—because it was one which might have the gravest consequences, both now and for all future time—because it might affect not only the commerce, but the peace and best interests of this country, that he believed that some Parliamentary notice ought to be taken of it. From what he had seen in the public papers, arid in the papers which had been presented to Parliament, he thought that it was absolutely necessary that the question should be brought forward, and that Government should take more action in the matter than they had hitherto done if it were to have a peaceable solution. What was the state of the case? It was this:—A large and important portion of our commerce was at present paralysed by the action of a Government which professed to be at peace and

  1819
  amity with us. No legitimate justification had been advanced on the part of that Government of the acts which had been done, and which had been complained of as inconsistent with the recognised law of nations. The result was that nearly the whole of our trade with the Gulf of Mexico and in the West Indian seas was arrested or put in jeopardy. Of this fact there could be no doubt; for at this moment it was impossible to effect, upon vessels trading to the West Indies, insurances on terms which would allow the merchant and shipowner any remuneration for his adventure. He had a letter from a gentleman, one of whose ships had been seized, and he asked—
  "What am I to do? Here was a ship trading in a legitimate way, her papers were perfectly regular, her conduct unimpeached and unimpeachable, and yet she has been seized and carried off, my cargo has been taken ashore and damaged, about £40,000 of my capital is locked up, and I lose my market. I make an appeal to the Government, and I am told that the matter has been referred to Lord Lyons to make a representation on the subject."
  If this were a solitary instance, he should not mention it, but treat it as a case of oversight and as a wrong which must have redress. If there were any hope that these things would pass away, and that the tone of the Government of the United States would be characterized by respect for the recognised law of nations, he should wish our own Government not to be hasty or rash, nor to stand out for the utmost rights which we were privileged to enforce, but rather to make every allowance for the present embarrassments of the United States Government. But these things had gone on for a considerable time; and from the documents which had been laid before Congress, and which had also been laid before their Lordships' House, it was plain that the Government of the United States had advanced pretensions and had asserted them in a manner that was totally unheard of, and that the mercantile community and the people of this country would not stand. If such things were allowed to go on, it must come to war. It was by noticing them now, and acting in a firm but temperate manner, that we should avoid war. He had no fault to find with the language which the Government had held in the papers which had been laid before the House, and which most clearly exposed the wrong-doing of the United States Government and their officers. The noble
  1820
  Earl at the head of the Foreign Office, in the clearest way, and from their own American authorities, had convicted them of their wrong-doing, and they had no answer but that it suited their position to exclude our ships and commerce from a legitimate trade. They did not attempt to justify their course by law, and yet they did not hold out the slightest hope that that course would be abandoned. He would give two or three illustrations of what he meant. The first case to which he would refer was that of the Labuan, which occurred as long ago as the April of last year. He did not know the particulars of that case further than this—that Mr. Seward acknowledged that the ship was illegally seized, and even went the length of giving orders that no British ship should be seized under similar circumstances. But did he order the release of the ship? Not at all; he ordered that she should be sent to a Prize Court, and told the noble Earl, who in his turn told the merchants of this country, that this remedy of a Prize Court was to cure all evils, and with the decisions of that court they were to be content. Upon those grounds, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) thought he had a locus standi in asking what were the rules and decisions followed in those Courts in America. The next case was that of the ship Adela, which sailed from Liverpool for Bermuda last February. No fault could be found with her papers. She went to Bermuda, and thence cleared for Nassau with a legitimate cargo—though any cargo would have been legal, for she was sailing from one British port to another—but she was seized near Porto Rico. The next case was that of the Springbock, which sailed from London for Nassau in February. She was seized about 200 miles from Nassau, and about 400 from the American coast. The fourth case was that of the Dolphin, which sailed from Liverpool to St. Thomas, and from thence for Nassau, and was seized off Porto Rico on the 25th of March. The fifth case was that of the Peterhoff, which sailed from Liverpool for St. Thomas and thence for Nassau. She was boarded when going into St. Thomas; her papers were found to be perfectly regular, but she was afterwards seized when coming out, by orders of Admiral Wilkes, within sight of port. He had named those ships, because the cases, however different in degree, were similar in character, and there had not been a shadow of irregu-

  1821
  larity imputed to the vessels—their papers were admitted to be in regular order, and it was not alleged that they had deviated from their course. He therefore asserted, that they had been taken, not because, contrary to the rules of international law, they were attempting to run the blockade, or to run contraband of war to an enemy's port, but under a design of the Government of the United States and their officers, to stop the legitimate trade of this country, not only between England and foreign ports, such as Matamoras, but actually also between our own ports. It the Government of this country submitted to these things now, or allowed such acts to be done with simply a verbal remonstrance, they were submitting, not only to an indignity to the British flag and an injury to British trade, but they were creating precedents of the most grievous nature. None of the conditions which Lord Stowell laid down in the case of the Betsy, as justifying capture, could be pleaded in the case of the Labuan, which had never made any attempt to run the blockade. Mr. Adams, in adverting to the ground on which the Labuan was seized, stated, that "she was, involved in the suspicion not unfairly attaching to all British vessels sailing under British colours in the neighbourhood in which she was seized." This neighbourhood, be it remembered, was that, of the Havannah. The same claim was set up in Mr. Seward's despatch, in which it was laid down that the Federal cruisers had a right to seize every ship found in these seas trading to Matamoras and the West Indies; and if they sent her into a Prize Court, no complaint of such seizure could be made. In the case of the Adela the intervention of Her Majesty's Government was invoked, and the matter was brought under the notice of the United States Government. There was a dispute whether she was seized within two miles or ten of the coast (although that he considered unimportant in reference to the present argument). The captain of the Federal cruiser was, thereupon, ordered to send in a second and supplementary report. The captain and crew of the Adela declared that she was captured in British waters, not two miles from shore; but this was in dispute. The captain of the Federal cruiser, in his second report, said, that "from the speed she was making she was evidently endeavouring to escape us;" as if a British vessel were not allowed to prosecute her voyage at her own rate of
  1822
  speed. The captain then described the course his ship took to cut off the Adela, when she should put about, so as to "cross the channel going en route to Nassau!" Here was a ship seized when going from one British port to another, on the showing of the Federal captain himself. Where was this to stop? They might just as well have seized a vessel going into Portsmouth. It was said, that sending to Prize Courts was to be the justification of all these proceedings; but the Adela was taken before the Prize Court, and what was the decision?
  LORD KINGSDOWN: What Court was it?
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: Key West.
  LORD KINGSDOWN: Is it a provincial court or a supreme Court?
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEpresumed it was a provincial Court. He had often heard it said that certain Judges should not give reasons for their decisions, but in this case they had the reason for the decision. The Judge said, he condemned, on the ground that whatever way he decided an appeal would be had. This as the precisely contrary rule to that which prevailed for sixty years in our courts. The justification required in a condemnation for breach of blockade was clearly laid down by Lord Kingsdown in the case of the Ostee. Lord Kingsdown said—
  "In order to justify a condemnation for breach of blockade, three things must be proved,—first, the existence of an actual blockade; secondly, the knowledge of the party; thirdly, some act of violation, either by going in or coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade."
  Before he reverted to the decision of Lord Stowell in the case of the Betsy, he would remark that Lord Stowell's judgments had sometimes been considered somewhat harsh towards neutrals, and Lord Stowell himself complained of the difficulty he experienced in finding exact precedents to guide him, and that he was therefore compelled to arrive at a decision from the application of sound and just principles to the cases before him. Since this time, however, the whole civilized world, including America, had come to the conclusion that the maritime code and international law ought to be modified in favour of neutrals. He might observe, with reference to a point that had been much spoken of lately—the right of captors to open mails found on board vessels they had seized, with a view to obtain evidence to justify their

  1823
  capture—he found in Lawrence's edition of Story of 1846, the learned editor deduced—very justly and properly, it seemed to him—from Judge Story's judgment, that it was absurd to claim a right to open mails so seized for the purpose of impeaching the character of the ship by which they were conveyed. In America, as in Europe, the tendency had been in Prize Courts to decide with greater liberality towards captured vessels than was the practice in Lord Stowell's time. That learned Lord, in the judgment to which he had referred, in the case of the Betsy, said—
  "The law which we are to lay down cannot be confined to the British navy. The rule must be applied to captors of all nations. No country can be permitted to form an exceptional rule in its own favour. Whatever is held in England to justify an officer of the British navy will be held by the tribunals of every country, both on this and on the other side of the Atlantic, to justify or excuse the captors of their own nation. By the usage of all countries captors have a great interest in increasing the number of prizes. The temptation to send in ships for adjudication is sufficiently strong. Is it too much to say, that where no ground of suspicion can be shown, and all that the captor can allege is that he did wrong under a mistake, he should make good in temperate damages the injury which he has occasioned? Ought a captor to be permitted to say to the captured, 'True, nothing suspicious appeared in your case at the time of seizure, but, upon further inquiry, something might have been discovered. I had a right to take my chance. You have nothing to complain of. I subjected you to no unnecesary inconvenience. Go about your business, and be thankful for your escape.' We cannot think that this would be a satisfactory answer to a British neutral ship seized by a foreign belligerent."
  That was the case of a ship seized only twenty miles from a blockaded port, and the noble and learned Lord felt himself bound to condemn the captors in damages, as well as to restore the vessel. Another high authority, Dr. Lushington, as late as 1856, in the case of the Olive and Fanny, captured by us during the Russian war, said—
  "It is true, as has been urged by Her Majesty's Advocate, that circumstances have been somewhat changed, that captors now run greater danger of being condemned in costs and damages than they did formerly; but although that may be a sufficient reason for the Judicial Committee to depart from the authority of the Haabet, I do not think it competent for me to adopt such a course."
  The decree was that the prayer of the captors for admission of their evidence be rejected and ship restored, &c., but the Judge added—
  "My decree is founded on the conviction that no doubt arises upon the primary evidence—
  1824
  namely, the depositions and the ship's papers. This ship was, according to the evidence, taken twenty miles from the coast of Finland. If that vas a cause of detention, and justifies the introduction of captor's evidence, any vessel navigating that gulf may be detained on similar presumption.
  He wanted to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to overturn the law as laid down by the best late and highest authorities both of Europe and America, to vary the practice that had obtained for so long a period, simply to suit the exigencies of the United States Government at this particular moment? He repeated that there did not appear to be a shadow of law or equity to sustain the acts which had been committed by the American Government, and they almost avowed that there was no such authority. There was a virtual, if not a declared determination to put a stop to British trade in those waters. He might refer to another matter, in which an attempt had been made to set aside all the obligations of international law, of direct treaties, and of usage, under the pretence of a municipal law. The New York customs officers refused to give clearance to vessels trading to the Bahamas or West India Islands. Complaints were made to Lord Lyons, who communicated with Mr. Seward, who, in reply, forwarded the report of the Collector of Customs, in which that functionary said—
  "In the exercise of the discretion devolving upon me as an officer of the Government of a sovereign people, I have prohibited the shipment of coals, of dry goods, of shoes, of quinine and other drugs, of tinware, of munitions of war, and sundry other articles to Nassau and the West Indies, and other foreign ports, when I had reason to suspect they were intended by individual enterprise, or the special contracts of British subjects, to directly contribute to the welfare of the enemies of the United States."
  Thus, if the collector thought that goods carried by a British ship might possibly contribute, directly or indirectly, to the welfare of the Southern people, he, in defiance of all law and of all treaties, took upon himself to prohibit the exportation of all such goods. It was said, that if those vessels were not themselves intended to run the blockade, yet their cargoes were destined to ports which were entrepôts for the supply of blockade runners. Matamoras had become a place of great importance in the western world, and the trade of Nassau had enormously increased. But could it be endured that the United States should say, because the Con-

  1825
  federates or others might run the blockade, the liberty of the seas and our commerce with a port of our own should cease? Such a pretension could not be allowed. No doubt it might be said, that according to the case decided in 1856, by Dr. Lushington, the parties injured would get costs to a large amount from the United States. Why, no man could seriously believe that any costs would be given. What had been the nature of their proceedings? He had shown what had been done with ships, with respect to which their conduct had been utterly unlawful; but how had they dealt with the owners of ships they had seized? A very curious case had appeared in The Times of this very morning. It was as follows:—
  "In the case of the Peterhoff, on Saturday, a motion made on behalf of the owners of the vessel to admit the testimony of Captain Jarman was opposed by the district attorney and the counsel for the captors. Upon this motion the Court took the papers, and reserved its decision. An order to allow Mr. Redgate, one of the owners of the cargo, to testify in his own behalf, was then applied for. Mr. Redgate's counsel stated that his client was born a British subject; that he was an enemy of the Confederate Government; that his portion of the cargo had been legitimately consigned to his partner at Matamoras; and that he desired to be and remain a citizen of the United States, provided he could thereby receive the restitution of his property and damages for unlawful capture and detention; but if he were to be treated as an alien enemy, he demanded that he be regarded as a British subject, and as such he should claim protection from the British Government."
  Probably their Lordships would agree with him that Mr. Redgate would not be a very valuable accession to either country, for he offered himself to any one from which he might get back his property. But "the Court decided, that as Mr. Redgate was resident in a rebellious State, he was to be considered an alien enemy," although he was an Englishman. The whole transaction was illegal, and was sustained by the United States, not upon law, but entirely on expediency. It was laid down in instructions to the Collector at New York that British ships should not take British goods—not merely munitions of war, but any, even dry goods, into the Bahama waters and the waters of the West Indies, because they were liable to be taken to the Confederate States; and now it was decided by these Prize Courts, that because they happened to be resident in Confederate States when the rebellion broke out, British subjects were to be deprived of their undoubted rights. Was that to be allowed? Was he not justified in calling
  1826
  on their Lordships to look at the proceedings of these Prize Courts with great jealousy? These transactions commenced a year ago; they had continued up to the present day, and were British merchants to be terrified into giving up their trade, or were they still to cherish that confidence in the protection of their Government to which they were entitled? If such proceedings were not checked, they would render it impossible to avoid war. He was told by his noble Friend the other day, when he recommended a squadron to be sent to the Gulf of Mexico, that that would be war. But did the present state of things amount to peace?—our ships seized, our commerce stopped, and our flag insulted on the high seas! If war was to be avoided, the sooner such proceedings were checked the better. In July last a deputation from Liverpool waited on his noble Friend, and complained to him of their commerce being interfered with, and his noble Friend then stated that this country could not allow our commerce to be harassed in an illegal manner; but he added that Her Majesty's Government had no reason to doubt the adherence to legal requirements by the United States Government. He should be glad to hear from his noble Friend a similar assurance now. If Prize Courts were the sole resource of British merchants for justice, they ought to have full information respecting them. He begged to move for the Papers of which he had given notice,
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my noble Friend the noble Marquess has made a speech bringing very grave charges against the American Government and the American prize courts. He has brought, in effect, a charge that the American Government and the American courts appointed for the purpose of judging these questions of capture and prize have set aside the whole international law of the world—that they have given orders quite inconsistent with that international law; and he more than once stated that they had publicly stated their determination to interrupt British commerce. That commerce might be as lawful as they pleased, it might be as fair commerce as could be carried on upon the seas, but the American Government had decided that they would interrupt and put an end to it in the Transatlanic Seas. Certainly, in one of the sentences in which he made these charges, my noble Friend put in the word "almost," and that, like the word "if," is a great peacemaker; so that after all, even according to my noble Friend, the American Government have

  1827
  almost decided, but they have not yet quite decided, to put an end to British commerce. But when my noble Friend came to give proofs of his assertion, I thought he very much failed in so doing. Where are his authorities for these charges? There were, I think, three proofs on which he relied. One was in regard to the case of the Labuan. That ship was taken in the neutral waters of Mexico, and therefore Lord Lyons asked that both the usual and ordinary course of sending it before a Prize Court should not be pursued, but that it should be set free. But it was stated afterwards to us that the American Government did not claim a right to seize ships in neutral waters, but that there were great doubts thrown upon the facts; it was asserted that the particular position in which the Labuan was found was not in Mexican waters, but in the waters of the United States, off Texas; and that therefore the question must go before a prize court. Another proof of my noble Friend related to an assertion of Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams, speaking in this country, and not concerned with the particular details of capture, it appeared, said on one occasion that it was no wonder certain merchant ships had been taken, because they were in the position in which many ships had been found intent on breaking the blockade, and on carrying contraband goods to the enemies of the United States. Well, of course Mr. Adams did not mean that that was a sufficient ground of capture; and his own Government, on a representation which had been made to Mr. Seward, have said that they would direct that no merchant ship should be stopped in neutral waters, and also that it should be no sufficient ground for capture that information had been given that a ship was about to break the blockade or was carrying contraband to the enemy, but that there must be a regular search, and there must be, as the result of that search, a legal cause of capture, before the vessel could be taken and sent before a Prize Court. So far from denying the principles of the law of nations, Mr. Secretary Seward fully and completely acknowledged them. The only doubt I had was whether the officers of the United States navy were in every case instructed according to the declarations of the Secretary of State, and to the instructions he had given, by order of the President, to the Secretary of the Navy; and for that reason, having had some doubts on the subject in the case of the Labuan, I desired the Admiralty to instruct Admiral Milne to send a ship or ships of war to Mex-
  1828
  ican waters, that British merchantmen in those neutral waters might be protected from unjustifiable seizure. Well, it does not appear that there have been since that time in the waters of Mexico any seizures of which any great complaint can be made. There certainly was a report which the Admiralty sent the other day to the Foreign Office from one of the captains of our men-of-war who had been at Matamoras, and which said that that port was crowded with merchant vessels engaged in carrying on a commerce which now exists between this country and various countries of Europe, and the Mexican side of the Rio del Norte. The next proof that my noble Friend gives, is the assertion of a United States captain with respect to the ships which he should take. But I submit that the assertion of a captain as to what he should do—that any idle boast or loose words of such a person about what he feels authorized or intends to do—do not bind the United States Government or the United States prize courts to his doctrine; and I must hold that it would be a most unjustifiable inference if my noble Friend, having nothing to prove his case but the assertion of some naval captain, should say that the United States Government and the United States tribunals, being bound to do justice according to the law of nations, have entirely thrown aside the law of nations, and are prepared, against law and against justice, to interrupt British ships carrying on a legitimate trade in those waters.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: I quoted, not what the captain said he would do, but his official report of what he had done.
  EARL RUSSELL: Well, that was his report of what he had done and his justification of it. Then my noble Friend went into various cases, into which I certainly do not mean to follow him. But he referred to certain decisions which he said had been made. The case of the Adela has been brought under the notice of the Foreign Office with respect to the judgment stated to have been given—a judgment which, if true, would be a very improper one. But, on consulting the Law Officers of the Crown, and receiving their report as to the legal effect of the matters submitted to them, I desired Mr. Hammond to write a letter to the owners of the Peterhoff, in which there was this passage—
  "As regards the allusion which has been made to the case of the Adela, before Her Majesty's Government can form any opinion as to the judgment stated to have been given in that case, they

  1829
  must have before them a correct report of that judgment, it being impossible to rely upon' the general representation of its effect contained in a newspaper paragraph, founded on printed letters, especially as none of the other judgments of the United States Prize Courts, which have been reported to Her Majesty's Government during the present war, evince any disregard of the established principles of international law."
  I desired Mr. Hammond to write that letter, because such was the substance of the report of the Law Officers of the Crown. I have been careful to refer every case of complaint that might come to us, whether through Lord Lyons or from the owners of vessels, to the Law Officers of the Crown; and they, after attentively watching all these decisions, say there has been no rational ground of complaint as to the judgments of the American Prize Courts. My noble Friend, reviewing the proceedings connected with the trial of the case of the Peterhoff, declares on his own authority that the decision, pronouncing a certain person to be an alien enemy of the United States, is a wrong decision, and he wishes the Government of this country to proceed upon his judicial determination that that decision of the United States Court is erroneous. Well, it may have been erroneous, but I confess myself totally unable to judge whether it was right or wrong. But this I say, that a great country like the United States, having tribunals constituted under its own laws for the determination of these questions of prize, those tribunals are not at once to be held to be of no value, and to have decided against the law of nations. On the contrary, our presumption must be, that as their knowledge of international law is very great, so their impartiality and their desire to do justice must be for the present unquestioned. We may be told, and it has been very often repeated, that a Judge, sitting in a national Court, and bound to decide according to the law of nations, decides for all other nations interested in these questions of international law—that he does not decide solely for the benefit of England or of any one other country. Lord Stowell, in the great Swedish case, said—
  "I am saying in a British Court what I would have said if I had been a Judge in a Swedish Court, and have felt myelf compelled to decide according to the law of nations, and the authority of great jurists and established precedents."
  Are we to suppose, that the Judges of the United States Courts, who are always quoted with respect and often with admiration by the great text writers on international law, whether in Europe or Ame-
  1830
  rica—are we at once to conclude, because a navy captain has given a very faulty account of his captures, and because in one or two cases wrong has evidently been done, that the Courts of the United States have sunk into such a state of degradation that they will not do justice to the subjects of another country? My noble Friend says that many of these vessels have been taken on very slight suspicion, and that this shows a foregone conclusion to interrupt British traders proceeding from this country to our Colonies or to Matamoras on lawful voyages. With respect to that matter, I must ask this House to attend a little to circumstances which have evidently escaped my noble Friend. Those circumstances are these:—It has been a most profitable business to send swift vessels to break or run the blockade of the Southern ports, and carry their cargoes into those ports. There is no municipal law in this or any country to punish such an act as an offence. The acting Consul at Charleston, I understand, states, that every cargo which runs the blockade and enters Charleston is worth a million dollars of profit upon the transaction. Now, it being well known that these large profits may be made, it is well known that this trade has attracted a great deal of attention in this country from those who have a keen eye to such gains, and that vessels have been sent to Nassau, which have afterwards been engaged in breaking the blockade at Charleston, Wilmington, and other places, and carry contraband of war into some of the ports of the Southern States. Well, is it wonderful—is it a matter of which we can complain—that the cruisers of the United States look with suspicion upon vessels that are bound to Nassau, or are going from Nassau—that they should very frequently stop them to ascertain from their papers whether they are not intending to break the blockade, or carry contraband of war to the Southern ports? Well, there are two positions in which some of these vessels are placed. They are sent out with a view to an attempt to break the blockade, and directions are given in the captain's papers that he is to attempt to break it, and insurances are effected against the risks of capture or destruction that may attend the attempt. There is one position, in which they very often make a most fortunate voyage and lucrative trade; and they exult exceedingly on the immense gains they make. But there is another position in which the owners of such a vessel sometimes find themselves—namely, that their

  1831
  vessel is captured, when the owner immediately comes to the Foreign Office with fill the air of injured innocence, declares that nothing was further from his thoughts than the breaking of the blockade, and asks that the strongest representations may be made to the American Government on his behalf, and that reparation may be demanded. There are some instances in which, I have no doubt, the American cruisers have acted upon slight suspicion, and had no claim to seize the vessel; but that they should look with jealousy upon such cases as I have mentioned is by no means wonderful. We must be somewhat slow and cautious in believing all the reports which are made to the Foreign Office by the owners of ships. Above all, I certainly am not prepared to declare, nor is there any ground for declaring, that the Courts of the United States do not faithfully administer the law, that they will not allow evidence making against the captors, or that they are likely to give decisions founded, not upon law, but upon their own passions and national partialities. Another case, into which I need not enter, is that of certain cargoes going from New York, and alleged to be contraband of war. The American Government say they will not allow American ships to leave New York with certain goods, bound for certain ports; and that because they will not allow their own vessels, therefore they will prevent British ships. We have argued, on the other hand, that the municipal law is not sufficient in the case of British vessels; and I think our argument is conclusive. My noble Friend having introduced this subject very generally, I may state, in justice to Mr. Adams, that he thinks that what he did lately with respect to vessels going to the Mexican coast has not been accurately represented by me in the statement I addressed to your Lordships some time ago. He says it would appear from my statement as if he had proposed to interfere with British vessels, giving an advantage to one British ship over another, supplying a sort of certificate of character to some merchants as against others. Now, Mr. Adams assures me he never intended to give any such advantage to one British vessel over another, but he thinks he had a perfect right to give certificates to American citizens with a view to a trade with Mexico. I do not know, of course, whether any person supposed from my statement that British vessels were to be interfered with by Mr. Adams. Upon that point his own letter was not quite clear; but I con-
  1832
  fess my own opinion is, that the letter of licence given by Mr. Adams was one which ought never to have been given. I may mention that the French Government were somewhat surprised at seeing an enterprise against the French in Mexico spoken of rather in terms of praise by the American Minister in this country; but they were satisfied the American Government did not know anything of the matter, and therefore did not think it necessary to take those measures which, in other circumstances, they might have adopted. With respect, then, to the complaint of the noble Marquess, although in some cases we have reason to think the American cruisers were wrong, yet, on the whole, the indictment of my noble Friend is not borne out, and there is certainly nothing to justify his charges against the American Government, as represented by the President and the Secretary of State, or against the American Courts of Prize. We must wait and see what is the whole proceeding in the case of the Peterhoff and other vessels before we can judge fairly whether those Courts have acted rightly or wrongly. Meanwhile, I do not think it would be right, in compliance with the request of the noble Marquess, to lay before Parliament such loose reports as we have from newspapers of the proceedings of the American Prize Courts. If we are to give anything to Parliament at all—and, for my own part, I confess I think it extremely doubtful whether we should publish the proceedings of foreign courts—we should at all events take care that the reports are full and authentic. When we get authentic reports, there may, perhaps, be no objection to their production, should your Lordships desire to see them; but, in the mean time, we have no papers to lay on the table. A few words more, and I have done. Let it be remembered that there is immense excitement in America about the proceedings of the Alabama and Oreto, and another vessel, which the Americans pay have been fitted out and armed with the connivance of the British Government, and which are preying upon American commerce. I do not think that charge can be justified. The Foreign Enlistment Act is liable to be evaded by a ship being built here as a merchant ship and then taken elsewhere to be armed; but still there is a strong opinion in America that the British Government intends to prey upon American commerce, and take part in the war; while here, on the

  1833
  other hand, there is just as strong, and, I believe, quite as justifiable an opinion that the American cruisers are preying upon British commerce. I cannot help thinking that the two nations are somewhat in the case of the two respectable persons who last winter, when great alarm prevailed about garotting, met and attacked each other in the belief that each was a garotter. Your Lordships will recollect reading in the newspapers how one of them, calling upon a friend later in the same evening, complained of having been attacked by garotters, and how his friend condoled with him, saying that his own son was in bed upstairs suffering from a similar assault. Then, you will remember, it turned out that the two had mutually taken each other for garotters, and hail punished each other rather severely. So it is, I think, with America and this country. They are a little excited in the same way; but I am convinced the American Government do not really intend to disturb our commerce; while I am certain that neither the British Government nor the British nation have any wish to interfere in the contest now going on in America. I hope that, as in the case of the sham garotters, they will eventually be reconciled to each other; and that, seeing they are old and respectable friends, the little passing excitement under which they now labour will speedily end in the restoration of their ancient amity.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has satisfactorily answered the remarks of the noble Marquess. I quite concur in his opinion that we ought not rashly to assume that the Courts of the United States will give decisions contrary to law and justice, and I also quite agree with him as to the temper in which both parties ought to look upon this question, and that we should make every allowance for the provocation which the Americans must feel from the large extent to which a contraband trade has been carried on with Confederate ports. I do not wish to enter into a discussion of the general question, but there are two points upon which I should be glad to have a word of explanation. In the first place, did I understand the noble Earl to say that there are captains who had instructions from their owners to break the blockade, and that the very papers showed those instructions on the face of them. I can hardly imagine that such is the case. Apart from the utter folly and absurdity of placing on
  1834
  the ship's papers such a statement, which must result in her detention and inevitable condemnation, I think it is so glaring a case in itself that my noble Friend must have been misinformed. I admit that a strong feeling has been excited in America inconsequence of the extent to which contraband trade is carried on, and I have no doubt that a large amount of the trade to Matamoras is intended to be made the subject of illegal traffic between that port and the Confederate States. It may be suspected that a large portion of a cargo proceeding to Nassau and Matamoras is intended for the Confederate States. But does the noble Earl say that on account of that suspicion an American cruiser would be justified in doing more than ascertaining what was the immediate destination of the vessel? If a vessel were proceeding bonâ fide from this country to Nassau, whatever might be the nature of her cargo no American cruiser has a right to interfere with her; and, no matter what may be the ultimate intentions of her owners, even though it were meant that she should herself subsequently proceed from Nassau to the Confederate States, and endeavour to break the blockade, that would afford no justification for her seizure by an American cruiser previously to her entering the harbour of Nassau. I hope the noble Earl has not conceded to the American Government anything like an acknowledgment that under these circumstances they are justified in interfering with a vessel sailing from one neutral port to another, whatever grounds of doubt there may be as to her future course. I am sure that it will be a satisfaction to your Lordships, and to the country, if the noble Earl is able to clear away any misconception on the subject.
  EARL RUSSELL: It is quite true that in one case at least an American captain found among the papers—not the regular, but the private papers—of a captured ship an order to break the blockade. In regard to the other and more serious matter referred to, the noble Earl certainly misunderstood me when he supposed I meant to say that a vessel going to Nassau, intending afterwards to make another voyage, might be captured on her way thither. What I alluded to was a case of simulated destination—that is, a vessel pretending that she is going to Nassau when she is in reality bound for another port.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the question to which the noble Earl had just referred had been raised in a celebrated case which was decided by Lord Stowell.

  1835
  In the course of our war with the first French Empire a ship proceeded from Lisbon, which was a neutral port, with a cargo apparently destined for China. She, however, carried a number of French officers, and she was seized in the Eastern seas on the ground that she was proceeding with them—they being, of course, contraband of war—not to China, but to some French or Dutch island. Lord Stowell, in deciding upon the case, stated that if she were going to China, he had nothing to do with her but inasmuch as he had come to the conclusion that the alleged destination was but a pretence, and that she was really on her way to a French or Dutch port, he declared the seizure to be justifiable and legal. There could be no doubt that that was the law of the case, and that a neutral vessel carrying contraband of war could not be legally stopped on her way to a neutral port, whatever might be her subsequent destination.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, if any inconvenience would be occasioned by the production of the papers he had asked for, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.