The Express.
London, England, 1864-04-29 00:00:00

THE TITECALOOBA.

On the motion for goiog into committse of apply,
Mr. PEACOCKS called Medi= to the cane of the Con-
federate meal Temaloan. and to the iestruetion to seine
her 000taioed in the despatch of the Colonial-office to the
Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, dated the 4th of
November'last. and which he held was • weak and illegal
oonoession to the memos, Ruddiness& of the Feasted govern-
meet. The hon. member argued on the authority of Sir W.
Scott and other authorities on questions of international
law. that the Tuscaloosa was sufficiently clothed with the
character of • venal of war to exempt her from seizure
under the sen's proclamation d neutrality, and that
the commander of the Alabama, who had captured her
and converted her into • Confederate Gruber, had ais
much right to oornmissioo her in that capacity as • com-
modore. He chordal the goverammt with cowardice in
evading their responsibility, mid eedinvonriag to shift it to
the ahouldess of Sir P. Waltham. ln the interests of
peace he invited the home to mist in obtaining • revoca-
tion of the instructions sent to the governor of the Cape,
became he believed that, so long as they remised num
Cilethey were at ono a source of danger and diegroot.
coLusion, he moved that the instructions contained in
the despatch of the Duke of Newcastle to Sir P. Wade.
home, dated the 4th of November, 1863, and which remain
still unrecoked, are at cerium with the prieripLes of
interlude:ea law.

The SOLICITOLGENEBAL, in opposing the motion,
admitted that the instructions mot to the Cape were not i.e
full and explicit as they might have been, but still that
they were not opposed to international law. He held that a
neutral power had the right to exhibit its neutrality by de-
taining a vessel with the view of restoring her to her
original owners, and that as the Tomakosa had clearly en-
tered Simoa's Bay in violation of the Queen's Proclamation,
the colonial authorities were juatified is detaining her. The
quaetion at issue was whether the Tuscaloosa was a mite of
war when she entered the Bay, or whether she bad lost that
character and assumed the new character of a Vilna of war.
There was, in his opinion, no doubt but that she was •
prize of war, and that her supposed conversion into • Con-
federate minim was • mere plan and pretence.
Mr. WHITESIDE argued that we bad shamefully vio-
lated our alleged neutrality, ma there could to no doubt
whatever but that the Tuscaloosa was lawfully **everted
into • Moder to the Alabama, that her commander had •
legal oommissioe, end that we had no right whatever to
detain her. If the Toseeloosa bad been a prise of the
Alabama, instead of her tender, she ought to have been
warned off, but under no circumstance, was her seizure to
betuatified-
. . . . .

POWELL supported the view taken by the
dalieitor-Gaers!, and argued that all the evidence went to
@bow that the Tawsloose was a prize of war, and not a
tender to the Alabama, as represented by the commander of
the latter yew].

Sir J. ELPHINSTONE held a contrary opinion, while
Mr. LEFEVRE contended that the Tuscalooms came into
Simoo's Bay as prize of war, and not as a vessel of war.
Mr. Nast. and Mr. Denman opposed the motion, which
was supported by Sir J. Hay, Mr. Montagu Smith, and Mr.
Bovill. The *somata, were neossearily of the detest and
least iatersetieg description.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL and be was prepared to
maintain that the despatch to Governor Wodebouee con-
tained no principle at variance with international law. At
the same time he was ready to admit that the acting At-
torney-General at the Cape had put an 'erosions interpre-
tation upon the meaning of the Duke of Newcastle. He
asked the hones not to affirm a resolution which would be
derogatory to the supremacy of the sovereign and the
honour asaditreity of the country.
. . .

Sir 11. CAIRNS' followed, contending that a mistake had
been made, and that the government, in returning the
Tuscaloosa to the Confederates without a word of apology
or any offer of reparation or indemnity, had acted as they
would not have dared to do towards a string power.
The house thee divided :
Ayers
Noes
Clusequently PEACOCIIea amendment WM rejected.
The abouuncemest of the numbers was received with loud
cheese from the ministerial beeches.

CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
The house west int!y!ommittee es this bill.

Clause 1 Was agreed b.
Os dims 2,

Mr. CEA RYFORD moved to add • proviso, tits object of
which wee to save the rights of the corporation of the City
of Loodon sod of ell other corporate bodies in the United
iiiogdoot with respect to the measuring of grain.
Mr. AYRTON opposed the proviso.
... - ..... -..

Mr. Alderman SIDNEY supported the previa°.
Sir J. SHELLEY believed that the proper course would
bo for the oorporatioo of London to bring in a bill matting
forth their rights, and objected to the Rorie° being in-
serted in this bill.

Mr. NORRIS said the proviso would be a great advan-
tage to those who dealt is cots in t►e City of Loudon.
Mr. LOCKE believed that the proviso would not protect
the right, of those who had paid the corporatkm for their
places, sod these were the own who ought to be taken
oar* of.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUBR rid it wee
understood that the change in the law would interfere with
the rights of the corporation, aid though the government
would not frame a claws to protect those rights it did not
object to others doing so. But from what he beard, be
thought they could not attempt to deal with the matter by
this bill.
Mr. HtiNT moved to report program, but it was eller-
wards withdrawn.

The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
motion would not be persisted in on the question Wore the
committee.

Sir W. JOLLIFFE said the quest:Mc of lioness geserally
ought to be more fully considered before Ow pared duo
bil
Mr. CRAWFORD withdrew the proviso, and the einem
was agreed to, ea were the other shame, and the hones
remnant

Thycehar ordan ware dimmed aid Ho bow ad-