§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in his place, I Wish to repeat a Question which I put to him on Tuesday last, and respecting which I would now ask the noble Earl to furnish me with more satisfactory information. In doing so I must ask your Lordships' indulgence while I make a few remarks in explanation of my reasons for putting it, which may, perhaps, induce him to reconsider the answer he then gave. The Question I then put to the noble Earl was, Whether he would lay on the table any Correspondence, not only with regard to the Alabama, but also as regards the complaints made by the United States of the injuries they had sustained, or apprehended, from other vessels which had left, or may leave, the ports of this kingdom? The noble Earl told me that as that Correspondence included the case of the steam rams seized in the Mersey, it would not be consistent with his duty to furnish it, inasmuch as that question was under judicial consideration. With all respect to the noble Earl, the question before the Courts is one in no degree to be affected by the production of this Correspondence. My Lords, I understand these rams were detained by order of the Government in the month of September last, that they were finally seized on the 27th of October; and that from that time to the present—or at any rate before the meeting of Parliament—no step was taken to bring the case before the Courts. But I am informed that on Saturday informations were filed—a step which I humbly conceive might have been taken in November or December at least; and even since those informations were filed, I am informed that Messrs. Laird have heard from the Treasury that it will be necessary now—four months after the seizure—to send a commission abroad for the purpose of taking evidence to be used in the proceedings. It is quite obvious, therefore, that if we are to have no information on this subject until the case has been brought to a conclusion, it is perfectly in the power of the Government to protract the proceedings, and we shall get no information at all. What I would urge upon the noble Earl 428 is, that the production of the Correspondence between the British Government and the Government of the United States, can have no effect on the case before the Courts; which is simply this,—Have the Messrs. Laird in building these vessels infringed the municipal law of England? I do not ask the noble Earl to produce any information bearing on the legal question which may prejudice his case when it appears before the Courts; but the question between him and the United States' Government is a totally different question. All that the United States have to do with it is this—have we fulfilled towards them as belligerents the duties of international law? Nothing can be more clear than this—that the utmost which any belligerent can claim under the international law is, that from a country with which it is at peace there shall not be sent armed vessels to commit hostilities against him. As far as I can learn, it is not asserted that armed vessels have been sent out from this country—armed for the purpose of committing hostilities against the United States. I quite admit to the noble Earl that the violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the non-execution of our municipal law in time of war, must be a very unfriendly act towards one of the belligerents. If the law is either repealed or not executed, for the purpose of giving advantage to one of the belligerents, it would be just as much an unfriendly act, just as much against the spirit of neutrality, as it would be to strengthen the existing law (which, by the way, has been proposed) for the purpose of making it more favourable to the other belligerents. Either of the two courses is in violation of the spirit of perfect neutrality, and liable to be considered as an unfriendly act. But how is it possible that the question whether we have or have not maintained the obligations of international law towards the United States can be affected by the question now pending in the Courts, whether Messrs. Laird have violated the enactments of our Foreign Enlistment Act—a municipal Act with which the United States have nothing to do? How can any complaint of the violation of international law be affected by this trial? I cannot admit, therefore, that the fact of the rams being before the Courts is a sufficient reason for the non-production of these papers. But, on the other hand, there are some strong grounds why we should have the papers before us at an early period, The noble Earl will 429 perhaps tell me that I cannot want this information, because I have the means of obtaining it at present:—that is to say, the whole of the papers which the noble Earl refuses to produce have been laid before the public—have been laid before Congress and sent over to this country. I have seen a very thick volume containing those papers, which is open to the world. However, I want to see not the American version of this Correspondence, but the English version. I want to see how far the charges made against Her Majesty's Government in connexion with this matter are substantiated, or whether they may not have been replied to by despatches of the noble Earl, showing that he has not sacrificed the honour of the country or violated international law. It was only by the merest accident the other evening, when commenting on Mr. Seward's despatch of the 11th of July, I obtained from the noble Earl the very gratifying information—information which I was very glad to receive—that the despatch in question had never formed any part of the Correspondence, and that it never was presented to the noble Earl. I think Mr. Adams took upon himself a grave responsibility—a very grave one it was—in not presenting it; and I think that in doing so he acted as a friend of peace and a friend of the good relations between the two countries. I think it required no small degree of moral courage to take the course he did, and that he did good service to both countries by withholding the despatch. But in the papers laid before Congress this despatch is included, as if it had been presented to the noble Earl, with no intimation, as I understand, that it had not been so presented. From the way in which it has been laid before Congress it would seem as if there was an intention to show the way in which the United States had menaced England, and the way in which England had received the threat. I do not know why Mr. Seward laid it before Congress unless to gain a favourable opinion from the party who are supposed to be in favour of strong measures against this country. I am, therefore, anxious that we should have the English version of this Correspondence in order that the noble Earl may be able to satisfy the country that, while showing his anxiety to preserve friendly relations between the two nations, he has at the same time failed to uphold the honour of England. And here I must observe that, in all the communications which 430 it was his duty to make to the noble Earl, Mr. Adams has acquitted himself with the strictest courtesy, and acted as well, under the circumstances, as it was possible to do. Now, my Lords, with respect to those steam rams, I venture to call attention to some communications which I have not seen in the Correspondence as officially published by the American Government, but which I have seen in papers as copied from that Correspondence. Before doing so I beg to correct a mistake into which I fell the other evening when I said that, in the subsequent correspondence, Mr. Adams referred to the despatch of the 11th of July, which the noble Earl says never was presented to him. The despatch which I alluded to was not Mr. Seward's despatch of the 11th of July, but one addressed by Mr. Adams himself on that date to the noble Earl. The similarity of the dates misled me. On the 1st of September the noble Earl, writing to Mr. Adams, says—
In the first place, Her Majesty's Government are advised that the information contained in the depositions is, in a great measure, mere hearsay evidence, and generally that it is not such as to show the intent or purpose necessary to make the building or fitting out of these vessels illegal under the Foreign Enlistment Act.He then goes on to say—Whatever suspicion may be entertained by the United States' Consul at Liverpool as to the ultimate destination of these vessels, the fact remains that Mr. Bravay, a French merchant residing at Paris, who is represented to be the person upon whose orders these ships have been built, has personally appeared, and has acted in that character at Liverpool. There is no legal evidence against Mr. Bravay's claim, nor anything to affect him with any illegal act or purpose; and the responsible agent of the Customs at Liverpool affirms his belief that these vessels have not been built for Confederates."—Correspondence, No. 4, p. 12.That was written on the 1st September. It so happens—I do not know how—that it did not reach Mr. Adams till the 5th; and on the 3rd of September, before he received this answer from the noble Earl, he wrote a letter to the noble Earl in which he states that he had received from the United States' Government a full approbation of the contents of one of his former communications; and then adds—At the same time I feel it my painful duty to make known to your Lordship that, in some respects, it has fallen short in expressing the earnestness with which I have been in the interval directed to describe the grave nature of the situation in which both countries must be placed in the event of an act of aggression committed against the Government and people of the United States by either of these formidable vessels."—p. 13.431 Your Lordships will remember that on the 1st of September the noble Earl stated the opinion of the Government that there was no cause of complaint; but I find that on the 4th he writes to Mr. Adams stating—I have to inform you that the matter is under the serious and anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government."—Correspondence, No. 4, p.17.On the same day, the 4th, Mr. Adams writes—I have the honour to transmit copies of several papers transmitted to me by Mr. Dudley, the Consul of the United States at Liverpool, relating to the preparation for immediate departure of the steam-vessel fitting out at that place for the purpose of carrying on war against the Government and people of the United States. Begging your Lordship's permission here to record, in the name of my Government, this last solemn protest against the commission of such an act of hostility against a friendly nation, I pray your Lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration with which I have the honour to be, my Lord, your most obedient servant."—p. 16.Your Lordships will observe that in that communication Mr. Adams begs the whole question as to the character of those vessels, and speaks of "the immediate departure" of a vessel which, for six weeks, it would be impossible to have ready. On the 5th, Mr. Adams again writes, and in his communication uses this language—I trust I need not express how profound is my regret at the conclusion to which Her Majesty's Government have arrived. I can regard it no otherwise than as practically opening to the insurgents free liberty in this kingdom to execute a policy described in one of their late publications in the following language.He then quotes from a Confederate paper, and in the latter part of his letter states—Under these circumstances I prefer to desist from communicating to your Lordship even such further portions of my existing instructions as are suited to the ease, lest I should contribute to aggravate difficulties already far too serious. I therefore content myself with informing your Lordship that I transmit, by the present steamer, a copy of your note for the consideration of my Government, and shall await the more specific directions that will be contained in the reply."—p. 17.Now, my Lords, that is a very plain indication of the view which would be taken by the United States' Government of the decision formally announced by Her Majesty's Government five days before. The noble Earl, in his letter of the 4th of September, announced that the matter was "under the serious and anxious consideration of the Government;" but in the meantime, having to go to Scotland, he loses no time in again communicating with 432 Mr. Adams. On the 8th of September he says—Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honour to inform him that instructions have been issued which will prevent the departure of the two iron-clad vessels from Liverpool."—p. 18.Now, I do not say that the decision at which Her Majesty's Government arrived was a decision come to in consequence of the letters of Mr. Adams; but I must express my opinion that the Correspondence, as laid before Congress and laid before the public, gives the significant step announced in the noble Earl's letter, the appearance of being the consequence of increased pressure. How is the announcement received? Listen for a moment to the jubilant letter of Mr. Adams in reference to the altered tone of Her Majesty's Government. Writing on the 9th of September, he says—I have the honour to acknowledge the reception of your Lordship's note of. yesterday, announcing the determination of Her Majesty's Government to prevent the departure of the war vessels now fitting out at Liverpool. I shall take great pleasure in transmitting a copy for the information of my Government."—p. 18.After referring to this letter of the noble Earl, in a despatch which he writes to Mr. Seward, on the 10th of September, Mr. Adams adds—But a still more significant manifestation of the altered tone of the Government is to be found in the speech made by Lord Russell at the opening of the new park at Dundee yesterday, a report of which is published in the newspapers of this morning. He seems to have rather gone out of his way to take up the subject, in order to announce the policy of the Government. You will not fail to observe the greatly increased firmness of his language, and more especially his intimation that new powers may be solicited from Parliament, if those now held should prove insufficient. This is, at last, the true tone. I confess that I have more hopes of our prospect of being able to preserve friendly relations than at any moment since my arrival in England. Unless some new and untoward event should occur to make other complications, I see no barrier of a serious character to our continuance in peace.This is laid before Congress, and I defy any one, even the least prejudiced, not to infer from it a great triumph to the diplomacy of the United States, and that the British Government had given to intimidation and menace that which they would not yield to a sense of justice. I should hope this is not the case; but I am anxious that there should be the most emphatic contradiction that can be given to it by the production of the whole Correspondence; and I should anticipate that the counterpart of that which has been kid before the United 433 States' Congress will be laid before the British Parliament. What mischief can be done by the publication of this Correspondence on the part of Her Majesty's Government, when it has already been published and printed in a book which I have not myself read, but which is open to any one? There is an American version, and we have no English answer to it to show the English people, and the American people also, the mode in which the Correspondence between the two countries has really been carried on, and the way in which our Ministers have vindicated the honour of England. I say that for the Government themselves, it is important that no time should be lost in laying before the world our version of the Correspondence. I ask it on two grounds; first, that its production can in no way affect the question before the courts of law; and, secondly, that we are entitled to an English version of the Correspondence, to neutralize, modify, or reply to that given to the American Congress. I prefer to appeal to the noble Earl rather than make a Motion on the subject; and again, I ask him what practical mischief can be done by the publication of those papers? The second Question I asked the noble Earl to answer was, Whether he would also lay before the House a correspondence relating to complaints and remonstrances made by Her Majesty's Government in various cases where acts of violence, or acts beyond international law and the rights of nations, have been committed by American cruisers upon our vessels; and also any judgments which have been given by Prize Courts of the United States which appear to be founded on principles inconsistent with the recognized principles of international law? The noble Earl said there would be a difficulty in giving a general summary of these transactions; but that if I would move for the papers relating to any particular case, he would consider whether he would or would not produce them. But it is not into any particular case that I want now to enter. I want to ascertain the general principles of international law which have been maintained by Her Majesty's Government; and those, on the other hand, which are contended for by the United States. These cannot be collected from the history of any single transaction. It is for the Government to volunteer a statement to Parliament as to the course they have followed upon these questions. At the same time, in the suppressed document —the despatch which was very judiciously 434 withheld by Mr. Adams—I find the principle laid down, that if the present law of this country should not be altered, and if it remained in conformity with the ruling of the Lord Chief Baron, there would be left for the United States "no alternative but to protect themselves and their commerce against armed cruisers proceeding from British ports, as against the naval officers of a public enemy." Now, I have not the slightest objection to that course; and, upon the assumption that the Georgia, the Florida, and the Alabama are meant here, I only wonder that long ago the Americans, with their large navy, have not taken the step here spoken of, and have not proceeded hostilely against vessels which have been defying all the force of the American navy, and inflicting upon American commerce great injury, for which we are held responsible. I shall join the noble Earl in entering a protest against the possibility of admitting any such claim whatever. But we must not confound with the cases of armed vessels the case of the ordinary blockade-runners, with regard to which strong measures have been taken by the vessels of the United States' navy. Your Lordships are not ignorant that in consequence of the extreme inefficiency of the American blockade there has arisen a very profitable trade in vessels which are employed in running the blockade. But these are unarmed vessels; they have not offered the slightest resistance. They are smugglers if you please, and are liable to be dealt with accordingly; but they are not to be subjected to any harsher measures than what may be legitimately taken against vessels engaged in unlawful traffic. Now, it has happened that one of these vessels, being pursued by an American cruiser, takes refuge close by one of the British islands, lies at anchor within a short distance of the land, and in that position is fired into by the cruiser, so near to the land that shots fired on this unarmed vessel actually pass over her and lodge on the adjoining territory. This, if true, is a gross infraction of international rights, and I want to know in what temper and tone Her Majesty's Government have dealt with a question of that kind, and in what manner their remonstrances have been met by the American Government. There is a very suspicious paragraph in the despatch of the American Government from which I have quoted, because it is distinctly stated that to this end—namely, the taking of effectual proceedings against these armed vessels, 435 and also to obtain indemnity for injuries that may have been inflicted by them—This Government is now preparing a naval force with the utmost vigour; and if the national navy which it is rapidly creating shall not be sufficient for the emergency, then the United States must bring into employment such private armed naval forces as the mercantile marine shall afford. British ports, domestic as well as colonial, are now open, under certain restrictions, to the visits of piratical vessels, and not only furnish them with coals, provisions, and repairs, but even receive their prisoners when the enemies of the United States come in to obtain such relief from voyages in which they have either burnt ships which they have captured, or have even manned and armed them as pirates, and sent them abroad as auxiliaries in the work of destruction. Can it be an occasion for either surprise or complaint that if this condition of things is to remain and receive the deliberate sanction of the British Government, the navy of the United States will receive instructions to pursue these enemies into the ports which thus, in violation of the law of nations and the obligations of neutrality, become harbours for the pirates?Fortunately, this despatch was not presented to the noble Earl, but it has been presented to Congress, and we find it there announced as the policy of the American Government to pursue vessels into British ports and there carry on actual hostilities, notwithstanding they are lying under the protection of the British flag, and in British waters. Now, I think it is quite expedient that there should be a thorough understanding upon this question. It is not one to be dealt with at the conclusion of a war, at a period when it may be convenient for the United States to take it up. The question ought not to be left in abeyance, and Parliament ought to be informed what course the Government have taken for the purpose of vindicating our rights and protesting against such doctrines. As an instance of the decisions of the American Prize Courts, I will refer for a moment to the case of the Springbok. That case was brought before these Courts, and Mr. Justice Betts laid down his reasons for confirming the seizure of the vessel—a vessel which had nothing contraband on board, and which was in a direct line for the port to which it was ostensibly bound, that port being 100 miles from the blockaded port to which she was supposed to have been proceeding. The doctrines which Judge Betts enunciated were so extravagant in many particulars that they attracted the attention of the French newspapers, which said, in effect—"This is not merely a dispute between the English and the American Governments; it is a decision which affects all maritime nations, and is contrary 436 to all international law." I do not know whether the case has gone before the Supreme Court of the United States. I presume, however, that an appeal has been entered, and, pending that appeal, it is, perhaps, quite right that no further steps should be taken. Sometime ago, however, I read the whole of the proceedings in this case, and if they be correctly recorded, it is quite obvious that neither upon the evidence nor upon the principles laid down by the Judge, was there the slightest ground for the seizure and condemnation of the vessel. That is an instance in which the American Courts have apparently, at all events, violated international law; and I want to know how the Government have dealt with this and other instances in which the American cruisers seem to have gone beyond their rights. We ought to have before us the Correspondence in all these cases in order to show, not by the examination of one particular case, but by the examination of the general course which has been taken by the Government, how far the honour and the interests of this country have been guarded and vindicated, as I hope they have. My Lords, I am aware that in bringing forward this subject I have trespassed on your indulgence, but I was anxious to give the noble Earl the opportunity of re-considering his negative answer as to the production of the Correspondence respecting the steam rams, and also that the noble Earl might state whether he would or would not lay on the table documents illustrative of the course pursued in the cases which I have brought under your notice.
§ EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, I think the best course I can pursue will be to refer as shortly as I can to the case of the ironclad vessels, and state why I do not produce these papers, taking also some notice of the Correspondence with Mr. Adams, to which the noble Earl has referred. Early in the summer it was a question productive of great anxiety at the Foreign Office to the Under Secretary of State and myself, that two ironclads should be building at Birkenhead, which, as was generally believed by persons who, though they may have been prejudiced, were well informed, would be used in the service of the so-called Confederate States against the ships of the United States employed in blockading the Southern ports. This subject, I say, naturally caused us great anxiety, and we endeavoured, as far as possible, to ascertain by inquiry the truth with respect to these vessels. Now, it is well known to 437 your Lordships, and so appears from the intercepted correspondence of the Confederate States which has been published, that it was part of the policy of those States to employ in this country agents who were to fit out and equip vessels of war for service against the United States. We naturally endeavoured to ascertain how far these instructions had been acted upon, and what had been done. But we were met at first, as we might have expected, by every kind of evasion. It was declared very positively that the French Consul at Liverpool had said that these vessels were building on French account, and that they were intended for no other purpose. When, however, I came to inquire about this, the Secretary of the French Embassy in this country and the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Paris entirely denied the truth of the assertion. Still, we had not evidence sufficient to show that it was intended that those vessels were to be engaged in the Confederate service; and therefore I wrote not only to Mr. Adams, but to others who applied to me, and stated that for the purpose of enforcing the Foreign Enlistment Act, under which it was proposed that these vessels should be detained, it was necessary to show that they were intended for war purposes, and intended to be used by a belligerent against a State in amity with Her Majesty. Mr. Adams, not acting, I think, entirely with the same discretion which induced him to decline to present to me the note of July 11, wrote rather complainingly and hastily the notes to which the noble Earl has referred. I replied to him on the 1st of September that we had not at that time evidence sufficient for the purpose of convicting the persons engaged in fitting out these vessels; but I added that we were still making inquiries, and that the utmost vigilance would be used in order to obtain evidence as to the real object for which these vessels were designed. Mr. Adams unfortunately did not notice that part of my letter. He complained that we had come to a final decision upon the case of these vessels. But in this he was completely mistaken. Inquiries went on, and then another story was put forward —that the vessels were intended for the Viceroy of Egypt, and were being fitted out in pursuance of a contract made by the French subject to whom I have before alluded with the Pasha of Egypt. It was then necessary to ascertain whether that story was true; and we found that it was as unsubstantial as the other statement. 438 Having done this, and no further evidence having been put forward, which convinced Her Majesty's Government of the real destination of those vessels, these vessels were ordered to be detained, and a few days later were ordered to be seized. Mr. Adams, naturally enough wishing to gain credit for himself with his own Government, attributed the seizure to the effect of his own notes; but, in point of fact, before the most vigorous of those notes to which the noble Earl has referred had been written, the decision of Her Majesty's Government had been come to. At the same time I took care, in a private note, to acquaint with the facts Mr. Stuart, then in charge of affairs at Washington.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYI am afraid the noble Earl must be under some misapprehension on that point. I do not refer to all the vigorous notes, but to the last note dated the 5th of September, and the noble Earl says the decision of the Government was taken before that; but upon the previous day, the 4th, the noble Earl wrote to Mr. Adams to say that the matter was still under the serious consideration of the Government; and it was not until the 8th that the decision was announced.
§ EARL RUSSELLIf not before the most vigorous notes were written, at least before we received them, the decision had been come to. I cannot say exactly the date of Mr. Layard's note, but it was written before Mr. Adams was informed of the decision. As to the general question, I must say I think Mr. Adams is not wrong in saying, that if a considerable number of vessels are sent from this country armed and equipped and furnished with crews, and that those vessels go as armed vessels to attack the blockading vessels of a country with which this country is at peace—if such expeditions are fitted out in the ports of Her Majesty's dominions, it is, in the first place, a great affront and insult to the authority of Her Majesty, and in defiance of Her Majesty's Proclamation of neutrality; and next, it is taking part in the war in favour of the Confederate States, and against the United States. We, therefore, were most anxious to ascertain what were the real facts concerning these vessels — whether they were intended for any other person than the so-called Confederate States. The noble Earl complains of delay —which, however, is proverbial in law— and that no decision has yet been come to. The noble Earl complained of Commissions having been sent abroad to obtain evidence; 439 but that was not an unusual course in proceedings at law, and in this case it was peculiarly necessary. When we consulted the Law Officers of the Crown about giving to Parliament the papers in this case, their observation was, "These papers can only be given in a partial form; the partial production of the papers would lead to public inquiry and discussion, and the Government must either suffer from having their case only partially stated, or they must suffer by having their case in a court of law forestalled by a discussion in Parliament;" and therefore it was their earnest request that Her Majesty's Government would not produce the papers. I feel myself bound by that opinion. I feel that I should be doing an injustice to the Law Officers of the Crown and to the case of the Government, if I were to prevent the due consideration by a court of justice by having their whole case previously debated in Parliament, with the assistance of papers which the Government had produced. Therefore, upon every consideration—upon the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and upon the best judgment I can form—I say it would be prejudicial to the course of justice if I were to produce these papers. With respect to the other cases, as to which the noble Earl has inquired—and I have informed him, as he has said, that if he would give me the name of any case about which he wished for information, I would be ready to give it—I must now say, not having very recently turned my attention to the case of the Springbok, although I did consider it some time ago, yet, without notice, I am not able to state at once the precise position of that case at present. But there are a great number of cases, and if the noble Earl will leave it to me I will look over the papers. There have been more than a hundred cases, I suppose, in which we have had complaints to make, and have received from the Government of the United States more or less satisfactory answers. I will endeavour to determine what information can be published. But there is a statement which I made last year, and which I beg to repeat now, which is this:—When it is declared that a case has been sent to a Prize Court, and when we know that there is an appeal from that Court to the Supreme Court, which is a tribunal of very high authority, and belonging to a friendly nation, I will not make it a matter of discussion; and I would appeal to your Lordships and to the other House of Parliament not to allow 440 yourselves to be placed in the position of a court of appeal against the Supreme Court of America, but that you will allow that Court to pronounce such decision as it may think proper. If that decision should be of an extraordinary character, or that we should have any cause of complaint against that Court, of course there would be further discussion; but at present it is not so. I will also say again in reference to all these often intricate and difficult cases in which the rights of neutrals are concerned, but in which are likewise concerned the rights of belligerents, we have had controversies and correspondence with the American Government; but with respect to all these questions I must request that your Lordships will allow me to consult the Law Officers of the Crown and to act according to their advice. When the Law Officers tell mo that an effective blockade has, in their opinion, been established at certain ports in the Southern States of America, I take that as a good legal opinion and abide by their authority. So, again, when they tell me that a judgment of a prize court of America is just and in conformity with the law of nations as it has been laid down in the courts of this country, or that there are reasonable doubts which would justify a Judge in deciding one way or the other, I do not think it would be right to go to the United States' Government with complaints about that case and ask for redress. But that the United States' Government have in every case done justice to our people and to the owners of our vessels, I am far from maintaining; but all those cases have been matters of discussion. The noble Earl spoke of blockade runners. Now, undoubtedly, the penalty of blockade running is no more than that which is imposed by the law of nations—that is, that vessels attempting to break a blockade, or carrying contraband of war, are liable to capture. But I am sorry to say we have had cases lately in which we had to complain of the unnecessary detention of persons belonging to the crews of such vessels. The American Government on their side say—and they are borne out to some extent by the correspondence which has been found—some of these vessels, bearing British colours, and apparently doing no more than breaking the blockade with goods, are, in effect, vessels belonging to the so-called Confederate Government, and are the property of that Government, although sent out from the blockaded ports 441 under British colours. If that case can be made out in respect of a particular vessel, of course that vessel becomes a belligerent vessel. But that, like many other matters, remains still under discussion, and full information has not yet been obtained. I can only repeat that I will endeavour to look over the papers, and shall be prepared to produce the correspondence with respect to any cases in which I think the noble Earl and the House likely to take an interest; and that if the noble Earl will name any particular case upon which he wishes information, I will either produce the papers, or state what I believe to be valid reasons for withholding them.