HL Deb 16 February 1864 vol 173 cc618-35
THE EARL OF CARNARVON

rose to move for "Returns of Claims made by British Subjects upon the United States' Government, sustained either in Person or Property since the Secession of the Southern States, specifying how and the grounds on which such Claims have been disposed of; and to ask for any farther Information as to Claims made by the United States' Government upon Her Majesty's Government for Damages alleged to be done to American Ships by the Alabama and other Confederate Cruisers." The noble Earl said:—My Lords, the notice which stands upon the paper in my name divides itself into two parts. In the first part I ask for a return of all the claims made on the American Government by British subjects for injuries sustained either in person or property since the commencement of the civil war, and for which the Federal Government is deemed responsible. I presume there can be no real objection to this part of the return. It is not open to the objection sometimes made, that it may prejudice negotiations in progress, because it is simply a summarized statement of the particular claims which have been made, and the grounds on which they have been accepted, rejected, or disposed of by the American Government. I can easily understand that it may not be quite practicable to make that return complete or precise; but I shall be satisfied if it is an approximate return, and puts the House and the country in general possession of the facts. I can easily believe that under the peculiar circumstances of the United States' Government many claims may have arisen to which many counter claims and objections may have been made, and which require the most grave and serious consideration; and I should be the last person to show any want of forbearance to the Government of a country situate as the Government of the United States is. Wherever we can safely assume a bonâ fide intention on the part of the Federal Government to do that which is right, we ought not to be very minute in marking that which has been done amiss. With regard, too, to those British subjects—and the case is by no means an unfrequent one—who have gone out to the United States within the last few years with the intention of acquiring the rights of American citizens, and consequently of divesting themselves, as far as lies in their power, of their nationality and allegiance to the Crown, and have only been prevented from carrying out that purpose by recent events—though they may not have wholly forfeited the protection which the British Crown extends to all its subjects everywhere, still they do not come into court with a very satisfactory case, and do not possess a very strong claim on the consideration of Parliament. But in the case of persons who are clearly British subjects, and who on mere suspicion have been arrested, put into prison, subjected to indignities and hardships—sometimes even imperilling their lives — Her Majesty's Government, I think, are bound to require the amplest compensation and redress at the hands of the Federal Government. Then, again, there is another class of British subjects who are in a position to make claims for redress. There are British subjects who are engaged in a legitimate trade, and who, while acting in conformity with international law, have nevertheless seen their ships condemned in American Prize Courts on principles which, if correctly reported, are of a very questionable nature. I have, indeed, always thought that we, who in former wars have jealously maintained certain principles of international jurisprudence, ought not to depart from those principles now that our position is reversed, and we have become neutrals instead of belligerents. But, at the same time, if the statements we have received of the judgments in the American Prize Courts be correct, there can be no doubt that neutral rights are almost brought to the verge of extinction. I will not now go into that question; but there are two cases on which I must say one word. The first is that of the Saxon, which must be familiar to all your Lordships, inasmuch as it has already appeared in every newspaper. If that case be correctly reported, it appears to me one of the most monstrous that has ever appeared before Parliament. That ship was an English ship, and was taking in a cargo at an island at no great distance from one of our settlements on the coast of Western Africa. It is said that the island (Angra Pequena) had been annexed by proclamation to the Cape Colony in 1861 by Sir George Grey, but that that proclamation had never been confirmed by the Colonial Office. I believe that, looking to the practice of the Colonial Office, it will be found that proclamations of this sort have not been ratified sometimes till one, two, and three years afterwards. But, however this may be, the ship was taking in her cargo, and on the point of sailing, when she was boarded by an armed boat's crew from a Federal war vessel the Vanderbilt. The captain was sent down, and the American lieutenant ordered the crew below. The mate of the Saxon was going down the ladder when the lieutenant pushed him on the shoulder, and as the unfortunate man turned round to see who it was that touched him, the American officer drew a revolver and shot him dead. If this statement be true, there certainly never was a more wanton, atrocious, or barbarous murder committed on the high seas. The captain of the Vanderbilt is said to have expressed his regret at the occurrence; but I hope that the Government will require something more than a mere expression of regret. The only compensation which can satisfy the honour of the country and the justice of the case is to bring the offender to speedy trial, and to execution if the case be proved against him. This transaction took place in the middle of September—five months ago. It is hardly a case which can require much communication ornegotiation; and I hope therefore that the noble Earl will be able to lay the correspondence on the table, or name an early day for its production. There is also another case to which I wish to call the attention of the House; and in doing so I will take the opportunity of asking the noble Earl a question with respect to it. I see it stated in the newspapers that a Confederate vessel, the Tuscaloosa, has been seized by order of the Government in Simon's Bay, near the Cape of Good Hope. That ship is referred to in the papers recently laid before Parliament, and she is stated to have been a Federal ship originally, captured by the Alabama, and converted into an armed tender to that vessel. She appeared at the Cape last year, when the United States' Consul demanded that she should be detained. The Governor, however, did not consider himself at liberty at that time to take that course. The facts were brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and this is what the noble Earl wrote on the subject— As regards the Tuscaloosa, although Her Majesty's Government would have approved the British authorities at the Cape if they had adopted towards that vessel a course different from that which was adopted, yet the question as to the manner in which a vessel under such circumstances should, according to the tenour of Her Majesty's orders, be dealt with, was not one altogether free from uncertainty. Nevertheless, instructions will be sent to the British authorities at the Cape for their guidance in the event of a similar case occurring hereafter, and Her Majesty's Government hope that under those instructions nothing will for the future happen to admit of a question being raised as to Her Majesty's orders having been strictly carried out."—Correspondence, No. 1 (1864), p. 43. It is, no doubt, under the instructions here mentioned, that the authorities of the Cape acted when they arrested the vessel, and I trust that the noble Earl will have no objection to lay them on the table.

I come now to the second part of my notice, which refers to claims put forward by the United States' Government upon the British Government for damages alleged to have been done to American ships by the Confederate cruiser, the Alabama. Your Lordships have doubtless seen the Correspondence relating to the Alabama, which was placed upon the table of the House a few days ago. It is not long, but it contains matter of serious importance. It comprises five different series of applications from Mr. Adams on the part of the United States' Government. The first application was made on the 19th of February last year, and was presented in consequence of the destruction of the Brilliant and the Manchester, and repayment was demanded for the value of the cargo and the ship, with interest thereon. On the 9th of March the noble Earl replies to Mr. Adams, and disclaims all connection with the Alabama, and all responsibility for the mischief she may have done. On the 29th of April another claim was made by Mr. Adams on account of the destruction of the Golden Rule, which was simply acknowledged by the noble Earl. Again, a third application was made on the 7th of July, and on the 13th of July the noble Earl returned an answer referring to his first dispatch, and again disclaiming all responsibility for the acts of Confederate cruisers. On the 24th of August there came another claim for the destruction of the ship Nora by the Alabama; and I should like to read to your Lordships the description there given of the Alabama. The owners of the ship, in their memorial to Mr. Seward, say— The vessel calling herself the Confederate States' man-of-war Alabama is an English vessel, and no other …The said steamer was allowed to leave port under the pretence of making a trial trip, and has never been in any port of the so-called Confederate States, so as to change her flag, or to be otherwise than a British vessel. ….Your memorialists would further represent that said steamer, after thus fraudulently leaving the ports of Great Britain against the Queen's proclamation of neutrality, repeatedly visited or came within the jurisdiction of certain British islands in the Atlantic Ocean, when and where it was well known and patent to the world that she had destroyed American vessels on the high seas; and instead of being seized and detained by the British Government, as they were in duty bound to do, was allowed every facility for obtaining supplies and advice and to resume her piratical cruise. … In view of these matters, and of others which may be made to appear, your memorialists do now and for ever enter their solemn protests against the British Government and people as willing parties, negligently culpable in the destruction of their property on the high seas, and thus in first violating the proclamation of the Queen by building and manning said steamer, and then allowing her to continue her depredations."—p. 17. These are the terms in which the Alabama is described, and in which the claims of the American marine are urged upon the British Government. A few days after the noble Earl repeats his disclaimer, and winds up with the hope—very properly expressed, I think—that no such claim may ever be brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government again. But the application to which I would call the especial attention of the House is that referred to in a letter from Mr. Adams, dated the 23rd of October. In this letter Mr. Adams renews the charges he had previously made with regard to the depredations of the Alabama, and then proceeds— Upon these principles of law and these assumptions of fact, resting upon the evidence in the case, I am instructed to say that my Government must continue to insist that Great Britain has made itself responsible for the damages which the peaceful, law-abiding citizens of the United States sustain by the depredations of the vessel called the Alabama."—p. 27. I would ask your Lordships to observe the similarity of that language with the language used in the despatch of the 11th of July, which has been so much spoken of. There is, however, this difference— that in the letter from which I have just quoted Mr. Adams proceeds to qualify his language in these terms— In repeating this conclusion, however, it is not to be understood that the United States in. cline to act dogmatically, or in a spirit of litigation. They desire to maintain amity as well as peace. They fully comprehend how unavoidably reciprocal grievances must spring up from the divergence in the policy of the two countries in regard to the present insurrection. They cannot but appreciate the difficulties under which Her Majesty's Government is labouring from the pressure of interests and combinations of British subjects, apparently bent upon compromising by their unlawful acts the neutrality which Her Majesty has proclaimed and desires to preserve, even to the extent of involving the two nations in the horrors of a maritime war. For these reasons I am instructed to say that they frankly confess themselves unwilling to regard the present hour as the most favourable to a calm and candid examination by either party of the facts or the principles involved in cases like the one now in question. Though indulging a firm conviction of the correctness of their position in regard to this and other claims, they declare themselves disposed at all times, hereafter as well as now, to consider in the fullest manner all the evidence and the arguments which Her Majesty's Government may incline to proffer in refutation of it! and in case of an impossibility to arrive at any common conclusion I am directed to say there is no fair and equitable form of conventional arbitrament or reference to which they will not be willing to submit."—p. 27. On the 26th of October, three days afterwards, the noble Earl, in answering that despatch of Mr. Adams, uses these words— You add, further on, that the United States frankly confess themselves unwilling to regard the present hour as the most favourable to a calm and candid examination by either party of the facts or the principles involved in cases like the one now in question."—p. 42. Up to that despatch I entirely assent to nearly every word used by the noble Earl in this Correspondence. I had felt persuaded that it contained not merely the drift, but the plain view, of the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. It appeared to me that from the first the noble Earl had declined all responsibility connected with the building of the Alabama, and with the depredations which she was alleged to have committed. Nothing can be plainer and more complete in every way than the noble Earl's language; but after all this the noble Earl ends by accepting the proposal for an arbitrament.

EARL RUSSELL

No.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

At a future period?

EARL RUSSELL

No.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

The noble Earl says "No;" but, on reading the despatch from which I have just quoted, can any one come to any other conclusion than that the noble Earl did accede to the proposal for arbitration at a future period? Mr. Adams asks for arbitration, and the noble Earl says— With this declaration, Her Majesty's Government may well be content to await the time when a calm and candid examination of the facts and principles involved in the case of the Alabama may, in the opinion of the Government of the United States, usefully be undertaken. I very much regret, whatever may be the intentions of the Government, that the noble Earl ever used such language as that. Arbitration applies to a question in which there is some doubt; but if there is a perfectly clear right—a perfectly unquestionable one—then men do not arbitrate, If, indeed, Her Majesty's Govern- ment feel any doubt as to the propriety of the position which they had taken throughout the previous correspondence, let them say so. It is never too late to go back if one has committed an error. And here I must observe that the noble Earl did on one occasion use an ominous expression—namely, that the case of the Oreto and the Alabama was a scandal and a reproach to English law. If the noble Earl is decided and clear in his opinion he had better say so. If he believes that those claims are founded neither on reason nor on justice, then he should hold out no shadow of hope that they can by any possibility be admitted. But it is unwise to endeavour to tide over a present difficulty by creating a much greater one for a future time. I would urge upon Her Majesty's Government, as far as my feeble voice can do so, to bring this matter to a conclusion. I entirely agree in the opinion expressed by the noble Earl in his earlier despatches, that there is no ground for those claims; but it would be even better to admit and satisfy them, at whatever expense, than to allow the matter to run on unsettled and indefinite, and at length to be compelled to undergo the humiliation of retracting the words you have said. My Lords, I cannot see that there is any practical advantage in leaving a question of this sort unsettled. There are two classes of politicians, as this House must know, in America, who look at this matter from different points. One class—composed of, I believe, honest men, but men holding, very mistaken views—are convinced that the Alabama sailed from these shores through the fault and negligence of Her Majesty's Government, and hold us accountable for the damage which she has done to the American marine. The American estimate of the amount of that damage is a very heavy one. I do not at all make myself responsible for its accuracy—but according to that estimate, 148 American ships were destroyed or bonded from the time of the sailing of the Alabama to the 30th of June, 1863. The tonnage of those ships is stated to be 61,292 tons, which, at n valuation of £10 per ton, amounts in money to a loss of £612,920. To this is added a sum of £20 per ton, making a total of £1,100,000 as the value of the cargoes, and a sum of £700,000 for Chinese cargoes, which bring up the entire loss to £2,412,920. I do not know whether this is a correct estimate; but there can be no doubt that great injury has been inflicted on American commerce. This is shown by the heavy rates for insurance now prevailing, and by the considerable sale of American ships, which has recently taken place, to other nations. Well, my Lords, this class of politicians to whom I have already alluded, are smarting under a strong sense of personal injury, and they urge their claims against our Government in no measured language. And I must say that the Government of America, from whatever motive, have so lent themselves to their views that hereafter, when this sum has rolled up into a very much larger one, it will be absolutely impossible for that Government to restrain the machinery which they themselves have put in motion. I therefore think it is most important that Her Majesty's Government should bring this matter to a settlement one way or the other. But there is a second class of American politicians, and they make no secret of their object —they have openly and avowedly said that they will wait until the embarrassment of England shall be America's opportunity, when they will be ready to resort to hostilities in order to wipe off some fancied national humiliation. This should impress upon the noble Earl the importance of at once settling this question. And, my Lords, in our political intercourse with America, if there be any conclusion which we ought to have drawn from past history, it is this—that it is the policy of English statesmanship to limit these debateable questions, and not allow them, either from accident or design, to be kept open. You might number up a score of those questions, which, by being kept open, have affected very considerably the good relations between the two countries, caused great irritation both here and in America, and at times threatened very disastrous consequences. Such were the questions of Maine boundary line, of the Oregon line, and of the fishery controversies. Not many years ago, a dispute arose with regard to the boundary line at Vancouver's Island. The island of San Juan was taken possession of by a hot-headed American officer, and it was only owing to the exercise of great tact and forbearance that hostilities were averted. Now, it should be the object of good statesmanship to put an end as soon as possible to all these questions of debate and litigation But in these despatches—whether intentionally or no I do not know—the noble Earl holds out, in order to tide over the present difficulty, some vague and shadowy hopes of means by which differences may be reconciled. But I warn him to beware, lest be thus deliberately create, in order to relieve himself from present embarrassment, a difficulty which may be ten times as formidable and ten times as dangerous as a fishery or a frontier dispute, inasmuch as it will be backed by stronger material interests, founded on personal considerations, and in all probability supported by an unreasoning mob. The noble Earl then moved an Address for Return of Claims made by British Subjects upon the United States Government, sustained either in Person or Property since the Secession of the Southern States, specifying how and the Grounds on which such Claims have been disposed of.

EARL RUSSELL

My Lords, the noble Earl seems to suppose that I shall have no difficulty in granting the first part of his Motion, relating to the returns of claims mutually made by the United States Government and the British Government in respect of injuries sustained since the secession of the Southern States. Now, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, there will be very little difficulty in giving any information that is asked for as to representations which have taken place on the part of the Government; but when I consider the public utility to be served by this Motion, I cannot encourage the noble Earl to press it. The fact is, that these despatches upon cases arising from time to time, and almost from day to day, become formidable in point of extent. I saw in the Foreign Office to-day a volume—not, indeed, a very thick one, but one of several folio volumes, many of them exceedingly thick—which are said to contain about half of the returns which the noble Earl moves for. Now, I ask, what would be the advantage of producing, what would be the advantage of printing, for this House, such a voluminous return of cases that have arisen between this country and the United States? I am quite sure that my noble Friend would hardly think of pressing a Motion of such a character. And if there is no advantage in it, there may be some disadvantage; because, if hereafter there were to be any Commission on these claims, the American Government would probably take the evidence which had been laid before Parliament as complete with respect to them. They would say, "There is your case. It has been laid before the Foreign Office; it has been presented to Parliament and printed, and it is impossible to go beyond it." If, therefore, these cases were printed, and a Commission on claims were hereafter appointed, persons who had claims, and who were prepared to produce further evidence in support of them, might be precluded from the full benefit of that evidence. I cannot, therefore, think that there would he any advantage in producing this voluminous mass of papers. The noble Earl seemed to think that our commerce was nearly extinct. [The Earl of CARNARVON dissented.] I took down the noble Earl's words, and he certainly said that our commerce on the southern coast of America had been brought almost to the verge of extinction. Now, to what do these words apply? It is known that this trade of blockade-running has been a most profitable trade, that great fortunes have been made by many persons in carrying it on, and that Nassau and some other places have swarmed with vessels which had never previously been seen in those ports. That a great number of vessels have been stopped by the American cruisers I readily admit. The noble Earl says, that the Judges of the Prize Courts in the United States have given decisions some of which are not based upon principles of international law. Now, I say here what I have frequently had occasion to say before, that we are bound in the first instance to accept these decisions; and I think the complaints which have been made very often arise, and naturally arise, from ignorance of the principles of international law as laid down by Lord Stowell and other great jurists in this country. It has been many times complained of, that a vessel bound from this country to Nassau should be captured on her voyage while upon the high seas, and should be sent for adjudication before an American Prize Court. Evidently the persons who make that complaint think it quite sufficient if the nominal destination was Nassau, and do not take into consideration the circumstance, that if Nassau was not the ultimate destination, but it was merely meant that the vessel should touch at Nassau, and then, without transhipment, carry her cargo into the blockaded port, that vessel, according to the principles laid down by Lord Stowell, would be liable to capture. But it is natural that this should be forgotten when for so many years these belligerent rights have been in abeyance; and the result is, that many of the persons who have employed their capital in this manner are severe sufferers. With regard to the Saxon, we were advised that that vessel was taken not in British, but in foreign waters. The noble Earl says that the Law Officers of the Crown must have been completely wrong, because it was quite sufficient if the Governor of the Cape had declared the island of Angra Pequena to be a British possession. Now, I do not think that we should be guided by such a declaration in an analogous case. Suppose that on the coast of Africa a slaver was taken by one of our cruisers near an island, it would not be sufficient to prevent the capture by the statement that the Governor of the neighbouring French or Portuguese settlement had declared that island to belong to France or Portugal. We should say at once, "Have the French and Portuguese Governments confirmed that declaration?" and if they had not we should hesitate to acknowledge that the island belonged to either country. The argument which we should use ourselves, we ought to accept from another nation; and acting, therefore, on the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, I did not assert that this vessel had been wrongfully captured. What was affirmed by the American captors was that the Saxon had received from the Alabama and the Tuscaloosa part of the spoil which they had taken from American vessels. The noble Earl refers to what appears to us, if the information we have received be accurate, to be the wanton and barbarous murder of the mate of the Saxon. All that we could ask in such a case was that the person accused of that crime should be tried, and should be brought as soon as possible before a tribunal in which the charge could be fairly examined into. That, accordingly, is the demand which we made. The noble Earl says it was no satisfaction that the captain of the Vanderbilt expressed his regret. But I do not know what more he could do. He did not order that the mate of the Saxon should be killed. He had no concern in the murder, but when he heard of the occurrence he expressed his regret. He could not immediately order a trial and have the man convicted and executed.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

Did the captain order the man under arrest?

EARL RUSSELL

That is a point upon which we have no information. But certainly I do not think it an injury that the captain expressed his regret at the occurrence. I believe it is stated in the newspapers that the man was afterwards put under arrest; but that is only a newspaper report. With regard to the Tuscaloosa, that vessel was captured by, and was a prize to, the Alabama. The Law Officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that she should have been detained, and orders were sent out in conformity with that opinion. She has now been detained, and it will be for the noble Earl to show that the Law Officers were wrong in that opinion, and that upon grounds of public law known to himself Her Majesty's Government should have taken another course. I now come to the noble Earl's statement with regard to the Alabama, and I cannot say how much I feel indebted to him for enabling me to clear up a misconception which, as it has affected his mind, may also have affected others in the same way. My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have always maintained that they were in no way responsible for the hostilities against the merchant ships of the United States committed by the Alabama. We have maintained that position from the beginning; we shall maintain it to the end. The noble Earl seems to suppose, that in a letter of mine of the 26th of October, I admitted that these questions would afterwards be referred to a Commission. My Lords, I admitted nothing of the kind. I stated then, as I have always stated, that Her Majesty's Government was not responsible for the acts of the Alabama. The United States' Minister may have in view some kind of commission or arbitration; but Her Majesty's Government have never consented, and never would consent, to a commission or arbitration. According to all the principles of international law, Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for the doings of the vessel referred to. There has been a question of a Commission, but we have always thought that a Commission would be of no use, because the United States' Government would be sure to propose that the case of the Alabama should be referred to the Commission, and it is quite impossible that we could consent to that. Therefore, we have never proposed what under ordinary circumstances would be a proper course—we have never proposed a Commission to consider the respective claims of the subjects of each country, and which the United States' Government intimated they were ready to agree to, because we knew that it would be proposed to include the case of the Alabama, which we were determined not to consent to. I say, therefore, the Government may well await the time when a calm consideration of the principles involved in the case of the Alabama can be given. Every one is aware that for a long time there has been great excitement in America upon the subject of the Alabama; that she has been called "a British pirate," and the American nation has been roused to anger against this country for the doings of that vessel. I say, that when the United States' Government say they do not wish to press that question further now, it is fair to believe that a time may come when the United States' Government, considering all the precedents laid down by their own Judges, as well as by British Judges, will be satisfied that they have no claim against this country on account of the Alabama. My expression was not intended to convey the notion that the British Government would change their minds, but that the United States' Government would change theirs when the excitement of the moment had passed away. Therefore, I go on to say — The British Government must decline to be responsible for the acts of parties who fit out a seeming merchant ship, send her to a port or to waters far from the jurisdiction of British Courts, and there commission, equip, and man her as a vessel of war. And I further say, that if An admitted principle was thus made elastic to meet a particular case, the trade of shipbuilding in this country would be seriously embarrassed. The noble Earl, in a manner unaccountable to me—for it never, from the time I wrote that letter until now, occurred to me that such a meaning could be applied to it, and that it could be understood as admitting a future examination of this case—the noble Earl says it is desirable that these cases should not be kept open, but that they should be settled at once. I quite agree with him that they ought to be settled at once, if there is any amicable way in which they can be settled. The American Government says, "We have a clear and undoubted case for reparation on account of the Alabama."We say," We have a clear and undoubted case for refusing reparation in the case of the Alabama." Who is to be the arbitrator unless we resort to that method of arbitration which the noble Earl thinks I agree to? In no way can this question be settled unless the United States should push us to the verge of war for the purpose of getting this question settled. The United States' Government say, "We have a good case, but we are ready to keep it in abeyance, and to continue on terms of amity and friendly relations with Great Britain if Great Britain will consent to do so." Am I to say, "We will not agree to anything of the sort. Why do you not make war upon us? Why not push your claims to the utmost extremity?" That is the case of the noble Earl. He says it is desirable to have these questions settled, and not to have them hanging over us. It is desirable indeed; but how is it to be done while the position of the two countries are so entirely opposed? I have had the good fortune, in some cases, to bring to an amicable termination matters which had long been causes of dispute between this country and the United States. For many years there was a dispute pending upon the question of the Mosquito Shore and of the Bay Islands. The President of the United States said at the time, "If this be the only question of difference,"—as I believe it was until the secession occurred—" If this be the only question of difference we have with the Government of Great Britain, let us endeavour to settle it." I, for my part, was quite ready to make concessions of what might be considered fair claims on the part of the British Government in order to settle the dispute, and happily I was enabled to make a treaty which put an end to that dispute. There was another question which arose since the Ashburton Treaty, and which went on for some years, respecting the Hudson's Bay Company; and that dispute it was agreed to refer to arbitration, and a convention has been made for that purpose. So I am by no means indisposed to settle these questions, which, as the noble Earl truly says, ought not to be kept open if they can be settled. There is also the question of the Island of San Juan, adjoining Vancouver's Island; and in that question also I proposed an arbitration, which proposal has been for some time under the consideration of the United States' Government. That Government thought the Senate could not agree to arbitration but I trust there will he an agreement upon that question also. I think it would be much better that the question relating to the Island of San Juan should be decided by an arbitrator than that it should remain a cause of dispute between the two countries. Referring again to the Alabama, the noble Earl seems to be much shocked because I said that that case was a scandal, and in some sense a reproach upon British law. I say that here, as I said it in that despatch. I do consider; that having passed a law to prevent the enlistment of Her Majesty's subjects in the service of a foreign Power, to prevent the fitting out or equipping, within Her Majesty's dominions, of vessels for warlike purposes without Her Majesty's sanction,—I say that, having passed such a law in the year 1819, it is a scandal and a reproach that one of the belligerents in this American contest has been enabled, at the order of the Confederate Government, to fit out a vessel at Liverpool in such a way that she was capable of being made a vessel of war; that after going to another port in Her Majesty's dominions, to ship a portion of her crew, she proceeded to a port in neutral territory, and there completed her crew and equipment as a vessel of war, so that she has since been able to capture and destroy innocent merchant vessels belonging to the other belligerent. Having been thus equipped by an evasion of the law, I say it is a scandal to our law that we should not be able to prevent such belligerent operations. I venture to say so much because at the Foreign Office I feel this to be very inconvenient. If you choose to say, as you might have said in former times, "Let vessels be fitted out and sold; let a vessel go to Charleston and there be sold to any agent of the Confederate Government," I could understand such a state of things. But if we have a law to prevent the fitting out of warlike vessels without the licence of Her Majesty, I do say this case of the Alabama is a scandal and a reproach, A very learned judge has said that we might drive, not a coach and six, but a whole fleet of ships through that Act of Parliament. If that be a correct description of our law, then I say we ought to have the law made more clear and intelligible. This law was said to be passed to secure the peace and welfare of this nation, and I trust it may be found in the end sufficient for that purpose. I say, however, that while the law remains in its present state its purpose is obviously defeated and its enactments made of no effect by British subjects who defy the Queen's proclamation of neutrality. To these observations I will only add, that if the noble Earl wishes for any other Paper relating to the Alabama—I believe there is only one—I should be willing to give it; but as to the folio volume of papers to which I have before referred, I hope the noble Earl will not press for their production.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

said, he had already explained that he did not wish for the Correspondence in extenso, but would be satisfied with short summaries of each case, containing such details as names, dates, and amounts of claim. There would surely be no difficulty in producing such information. With regard to the interpretation he had put on the language of the noble Earl, he thought their Lordships would agree that he had been not unnaturally misled, and was justified in asking further explanation. He accepted, however, the explanation the noble Earl had given him, and he rejoiced to receive it. He hoped there would be no objection on the part of the noble Earl to produce the papers in the case of the Saxon. That transaction had occurred between five and six months ago, and the negotiations in that case must be nearly complete. It was most important that Parliament should know precisely the position in which it stood in reference to such matters; and when the noble Earl challenged him to prove his case, although he was quite ready to take up his challenge, he could not do so unless the noble Earl supplied him with the materials. He should only further press for a copy of the instructions which were sent out to the colonial authorities at the Cape of Good Hope, and on which they had acted in the case of the Tuscaloosa. He hoped there would be no objection to give a copy of these instructions.

EARL RUSSELL

said, he should have no objection to the Motion of the noble Earl on the understanding that names, dates, and other details of that kind only were to be given. With regard to the papers connected with the case of the Saxon, he was quite ready to produce them if the noble Earl would move for them.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON

then moved, for the Correspondence or Extracts relative to the capture of the Saxon; and for Copy of Instructions to the Colonial Authorities relative to the detention of the Tuscaloosa.

EARL RUSSELL

said, it would be necessary to communicate with the Colonial Office in regard to the instructions to the authorities at the Cape.

Address for— Return of Claims made by British Subjects upon the United States Government, sustained either in Person or Property since the Secession of the Southern States, specifying how and the Grounds on which such Claims have been disposed of. Also, Correspondence or Extracts from Correspondence relative to the Capture of the Saxon by the United States Ship Vanderbilt. And also, Copy of Instructions to the Colonial Authorities relative to the Detention of the Tuscaloosa.

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.