The Sun.
London, England, 1864-04-27 00:00:00

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The South Yorkshire Railway and Rivet Don Com-
pany, Andover and Chilton Pond Road and IThornset
Road Bills were read a second time. The Hubberston
Dock, Rock Life Assurance, Westminster Palace Hotel,
Lymington Harbour and Docks, and Huntingdon and
God manchester Gas Bills were read a third time and passed.
VAGRANCY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

The Duke of ARGYLL moved the first reading of this
bill, the object of which was to render more stringent the
law as to vagrancy in Scotland, more particularly as regards
trespass. He did not intend to proceed further with the
bill until it had been printed and circulated in Scotland.
The motion was agreed to.
MORTGAGE DEBENTURE BILL.

This bill was read a second time, and referred to a select
committee.

JOINT STOCK (FOREIGN COUNTRIES) BILL.
The houee went into committee on this bill, and was re-
ported to the house,
WAREHOUSING OF BRITISH SPIRITS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
THE TUSCALOOSA.

Lord CHELMSFORD called the attention of the house
to the statements of the views of the Government as to the
mode of dealing with prizes brought by the belligerent
powers of America within the dominions of her Majesty, con-
tainedin the correspondence respecting the Tuscaloosa which
had been presented to the house. The noble and learned
lord, in opening the subject, referred to the proclamation
issued by her Majesty at the commencement of the civil war
in America, and then proceeded to detail the circumstances
connected with the capture of the Federal bark Conrad by the
Alabama, when she was armed by Captain Semmes, her
name changed to the Tuscaloosa, and made a tender to the
Confederate ship Alabama. She was sent to Simon's
Bay, for some trifling repairs, where a request
was made by the American Consul to her Majesty's repre-
sentative at that place to detain the ship on the part of the
original owners. He also contended that, as a Confederate
prize, she ought not, under the Queen's proclamation, to
have bean allowed to enter an English port. The Governor
of the Cape of Good Hope did not admit this claim, which
he (Lord Chelmsford) should have said was utterly absurd
and unfounded, if it had not been subsequently admitted by
her Majesty's Government. In reply to a despatch which
Governor Wodehouse wrote to the Duke of Newcastle on
this subject, his grace sent a reply which he (Lord Chelms-
ford) deemed very objectionable, and which he could not
help attributing to Federal pressure. During the time this
affair was going on, there was an active correspondence
taking place between the Foreign Secretary Mr. Adams in
regard to what was called the depredations of the Alabama.
The noble earl very properly rejected the claims for compen-
sation in respect of captures made by the Alabama. But in
a despatch written on the 29th October the noble earl said
that instructions would be sent to the British authorities at
the Cape of Good Hope, which he trusted would render un•
necessary any complaints such as those which had been
made by Mr Adams in respect of the reception of the Tus-
caloosa in an English port. Four days afterwards the in-
structions of which he complained were issued, and they
substantially adopted the extraordinary view taken by the
American consul at the Cape of Good Hope. It was there
said that if the Tuscaloosa was an uncondemned prize
brought into a British port contrary to her Majesty's pro-
clamation, the proper course would have been to prevent
the captors exercising any further jurisdiction over her, and
to take possession of her, in order that she might eventually
be returned to her original owners. In reply to that
despatch Governor Wodehouse wrote for further explana-
tions and directions as to the course he should pursue
if a similar case should arise. While affairs were in
that state the Tuscaloosa, after an absence of four months,
returned to St. Simon's Bay, Sit Baldwin Walker, the
admiral on the station, immediately declared his opinion
that the vessel should be seized, in accordance with the
opinion of the law officers of the Crown, a copy of which
he s aced that he had received, The Governor agreed with
Sir B. Walker, that the vessel should be seized for delivery
to her original owners. She was ordered to be delivered up
to the American consul, but fortunately he entertained
some scruples in receiving her. On his refusal the fittings
were removed from the Tuscaloosa, and were deposited in
the dockyard, the ship herself being detained until the con-
sul should be authorised to receive her. This was not done
without a vigorous protest from the Confederate comman-
der, who complained that he had been misled and entrapped
by the conduct of the Governor, in seizing his vessel after
allowing it to depart from Simon's Bay on a previous occa-
sion. By a despatch of March 4 the Governor was ordered
by her Majesty's Government to give up the vessel to the
Confederate officers. Now, the instructions of Nov, 4 pre-
viously were either right or wrong. If they were wrong,
the Government certainly owed the Confederate Govern-
ment an apology. If they were right, then the Govern-
ment had no power to give up the Tuscaloosa, because, on
her seizure, she had become the property of her original
owners. The Government, however, would not admit that
they were wrong, nor maintain they were right. They
therefore took a course which was a certain sign of weakness.
They made the Tuscaloosa a special case, and said that they
had decided upon the course to be taken in regard to her
without reference to any general principles. He maintained
that the instructions of the 4th November last, which had
not been recalled, were entirely illegal, and were not
warranted by international law. It was a proposition not to
be found in any writer on international law, that a neutral
who had prohibited belligerents from bringing their prizes
iota its ports, if that prohibitionwas disregarded, had aright
to seize the prize and restore it to her original owner. All
that the neutral power had a right to do was to order the
vessel to leave, or, if necessary, to compel her to do so. He
knew it would be said by her Majesty's Government that
the act of Capt. Semmes in bringing his prize into British
waters was a violation of neutrality which gave us the right
to seize the Tuscaloosa. But he utterly denied this pro-
position. He trusted that he should either hear his argu-
menta refuted, or learn that these illegal instructions had
been withdrawn.

Earl RUSSELL said that the question which arose out
of this war arose under very exceptional circumstances. It
was usual, in case of naval warfare, that each party had
their own ports, to which prizes were brought, and where
they were condemned. But it happened in this instance
that the Confederates, having no ports which were not
blockaded, burnt their prizes. It was natural, under
these circumstances, that the Confederate officers should
seek to evade her Majesty's orders that no prize should be
brought into British ports. The Tuscaloosa was brought
into the port of the Cape of Good Hope. It struck Sir B.
Walker that if the Confederate ships of war could send
in prizes with their cargo on board, and, by putting a gun
or two on board, call them Confederate vessels of war,
her Majesty's `r.proclamation of neutrality might be evaded,
For nothing could be easier than to dispose of such vessels
and their cargoes after they had been brought in as men-
of-war ; and in this way British ports would be converted
into markets for the disposal of Confederate prizes. Sir
B. Walker said that he apprehended that to entitle a vessel
to be considered a vessel of war she must be fitted for war ;
and that she could not be so considered when she had her
original cargo on board, and had nothing more than two or
three guns and a prize crew on board. That was the ease
on which her Majesty's Government had to decide. The
law officers of the Crown, on being consulted, agreed with
Sir B. Walker. They held that the character of a vessel
could not bo changed by the steps which had been taken in
the case of the Tuscaloosa, Their opinion was, that this
vessel, not being really a vessel of war, but being a prize,
should not have been admitted to Simon's Bay as a vessel
of war. The question then arose, whether she ought to
have been simply warned off, or ought to have been handed
over to the original owner. It was quite clear that there
were cases in which it was the duty of a neutral State to
restore prizes brought into its harbours by a belligerent,
even although such prizes were so brought in as vessels of
war. The Duke of Newcastle, in his despatch of the 4th
November, said that the Governor of the Cape of Good
hops should have inquired whether the Tuscaloosa was a
bona fide vessel of war, or was merely an uncondemned prize
'brought into a British port in violation of her Majesty's pro-
clamation of neutrality, In the latter case his grace, going
B,°4lewhat beyond the opinion of the law officers, told the
u"eraor that the Tuscaloosa should have been surren-
dered. lie (Earl Russell) was ready to admit that the
point
at international law was open to doubt, and that
before r!lar
general instructions were issued it was open
to considere
ation whether vessels in the position of the Tus-
caloosa should be warned off or given up to the original
owners. Butffi he held that it was quite an error to say—as
the la. vie ears of the Cape of Good Hope did—that all
quesons connected with the property of vessels captured
at seati could only be entertained and decided by the no" urts
of the captors. Those questions, on the contrary, he
maintained, were, if such vessels entered our ports,
within the competence
b
early conclu led 37 indigthe English courts, The noble
her Ms esty's Gob repelling the charge that
j
—ad truckled to the Federals'
condo,: of the noble lords
and commented severely, on the
on the Opposition side of the house
_Nv,e,
ee ld
awn ayyasgro.eradda.
to denounce the Feder:lls when thb;,-ccolln°
gres,,ive acts against us,
.Imt never 140,,%1t
do them justice
when they rude reparrtion._

Lord KIN GSDC;WN said that they ban
nothing then to
do with the question whether the I:uscaloosawets converted
into a man-o:-war. The only question that really arose was
whether a vessel captured at sea remained the property of
her original owners until she was condemned 1,
-3' a reAriz : gular
court. The Duke of Newcastle's despatch proceeded oa the hypothesis that this was the case, and that therefore
any cue into whose power she came might restore her. But
that was a total error. As batween belligerents, the change
of property in a prize was complete by the act of capture.
The necessity for obtaining the adjudication of a prize court
arose only with reference to vessels sailing under a neutral
flag, in order to ascertain the rights of the neutral. Let
them observe what had been done in this case. Her Majesty,
by proclamation, had forbidden the belligerent vessels to
enter English ports with their prizes. Under that proclama-
tion wo had a right to warn such vessels off, but how could
we obtain a right frieze them ? There was no principle on

which such a claim could be founded. It could not be said
that we were entitled to seize vessels in that position on the
ground that they had violated our neutrality. S h a claim
would have been untenable if it had been put f But the
ground on which the seizure of the Tuscaloosa was justified
—that it was proper to restore her to the ore ral owners—
was still more untenable. It could not c cncealed that
the policy we were pursuing, although o of neutrality,
told very unequally upon the Confederates and upon the
Federals; and when complaints were made that the Confe-
derates did not subject their prizes to adjudication, he had
only to repeat what he had already said, that no adjudica-
tion was required between belligerents, and that, according
to Lord Stowell, if a belligerent captain could not carry his
prize into a port, it was his duty to destroy it. It was a
clear violation of the law of nations to seize a vessel under
the circumstances of the Tuscaloosa, on the ground that she
had not been condemned by a prize court.
The LORD CHANCELLOR contended, on the autho-
rity of Lord Stowell, that, although a belligerent captor was
justified in destroying his prize in case of necessity, yet as a
rule he was bound by the law of nations to bring it into
port for adjudication, in order that it might be seen whether
it was enemy's property, and that mistakes might not be
committed by the captors in the eager put suit of gain. Lord
Mansfield had also laid down the same principle. In one
case Lord Stowell had expressly held that the sentence of
condemnation was at present deemed by the law of nations
to be necessary to transfer the property in a prize, for the
purpose of putting some limitation on the acts of the captors.
In the case of the Endymion the same learned judge decided
that an English captain was only justified in destroying a
prize on account of the peculiar nature of the service in
which he was engaged, which did not allow him to take her
into port for adjudication. There was no doubt that the
question of what should be dona with a vessel in the situa-
tion of the Tuscaloosa when she entered a British port was
well worthy of consideration. That consideration had been
given to it, and the result would be made known in the
shape of instructions, which would be issued to her Majes-
ty's officers and the governors of the different colonies.

After some observations from the Earl of HARDWICK;
Lord CHELMSFORD briefly replied, and the subject
then dropped,
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OP COMMONS.--Last Evening,

The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
PETITIONS.

The Sheriffs of the City of London appeared at the bar
and presented a petition from the Corporation of the City,
praying the house to adopt steps in reference to the utili-
sation of the sewage of the metropolis.

The Lord Mayor of Dublin, attired in his official robes,
also appeared at Le bar, and presented three petitions from
the Corporation of Dublin, praying that the inhabitants of
that city might be relieved from payment towards the sup-
port of the police, and that the sum contributed for that pur-
pose should be applied to the lighting and watering of
the streets, and other local objects ; also that Govern-
ment should introduce a bill for the amendment
of the Landed Estates Court Act ; and for the introduction
of a bill providing compensation for uneshausted improve-
ments in land in Ireland, and praying the house to take
into consideration the alarming condition of the agricultural
population in that country.