HL Deb 18 May 1863 vol 170 cc1818-35
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

rose 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 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 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- 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 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 CLANRICARDE

presumed 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 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— 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- 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 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 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- 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 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- 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 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- 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 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 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 CRANWORTH

said, that the question to which the noble Earl had just referred had been raised in a celebrated case which was decided by Lord Stowell. 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 CLANRICARDE

said, 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.