The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-14 00:00:00

THE OYSTER FISHERIES.

Mr DU CANE asked the PresTdentof—the Board of
Trade whether the commission appointed last year to inquire
into tha present state of the oyster fisheries of this country
had made any report, and whether it Was the intention of
this Government to ask the Government of France to agree
to an international commission with a view to alter and
amend the fishery convention tetween France and this
country,
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the commission had not yet
made their report, but he hoped it would be presented at
the close of the session. With regard to the second clues-
tioa a communication had passed between the English and
the French Governments on the subject, but it was consi-
dered advisable not to come to any decision until the re•
port had beenpresented.
THE CONFERENCE,
Mr. R. LONG asked the First Lord of the Treasury,
whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs will continue to
preside at the Conference, notwithstanding the exactions
and oppressions alleged to have been perpetrated in Jutland
by the orders of Marshal Wrangel ; and, whether her Ma-
jesty's Government have protested and will protest against
the commission of such outrages on non-combatants during
the sittings of the Conference.

Sir G. GREY said that what had occurred in Jutland
was an additional reason for stopping the war, and, with a
view to that object, the noble lord at the head of Foreign
Athirs could not retire from his position. One of the ob-
k,ets proposed by the Conference was to make the Prussian
troops pay for what they required instead of making levies
on neutral ground.
EX-GOVERNORS OF COLONIES.

Mr. B, COCHRANE asked the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, what decision the Government had come to
respecting the granting peniions to ex-Governors of Colo-
Liles ? . _ _

Mr. CARDWELL said the Government had not come to
any decision on the subject.
ALLEGED GRIEVANCES OF EXCISE
OFFICE.U,S.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER asked the Treasury, when an
answer would be given to the petition of the gaugers of her
Majesty's Customs, London, praying for redre3s of Brie-

vances ?

Mr. PEEL said ths, conclusion which had been arrived
at on this subject would shortly ba communicated to tilt;
house.

PURIFICATION OF THE THAMES.
Mr. CLIFFOI.O) agked tho Secretary of Sato for the
,2r his attention had been called

ae a-partment, wh

Mr. LOWE entered into a personal explanation in refe-
rence to what had taken place in the house last night, when
a document was produced which he had no oppor-
tunity of consulting. He said that there were two
descriptions of reports to the committee, one of
which was intended for publication, and the other merely
special, and intended entirely for a department, and his
observations on a previous occasion had reference solely to
the former. With regard to Mr. Murrill he had been dis-
missed for misconduct, and he deprecated the practice of
hon. members taking up the statements of discarded
officials.

After a few words from Col. FRENCH and Lord R, CECIL,
the subject dropped.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE,
Sir G. GREY, in the absence of Lore Palmerston, moved
that the house at its rising should adjourn till Thursday
next, which was agreed to.

ALLEGED INFRACTION OF NEUTRALITY.
Mr. T. BARING called the attention of the house to the
fact that an armed steamer was now in the port of Liverpool
which, having been originally manned and equipped from
British ports, has preyed upon the commerce of a friendly na-
tion, and has never been in any port of the belligerent under
whose flag she sails ; and asked the First Lord of the Trea-
sury whether he thought the admissions of such vessels to
_ _

British harbours consistent with our international obliga-
tions, our professions of neutrality, and the preservation of
British interests. In bringing this question before the
house it was not his intention to enter into the merits of the
war on the other side of the Atlantic, nor did he wish to
cast censure upon anybody, nor to find fault with her Ma-
jesty's Government. Ho would simply give a brief his-
tory of the case, and he believed, when he stated the whole
of the fac.cs connected with the career of that vessel, some
astonishment would be expressed at the course which had
been pursued. The hon. member then read the following
statement

" The Japan, otherwise the Virginia, commonly known
as the Georgia,was built <it Dumbarton, on the Clyde. She
was equipped by a Liverpool firm. Her crew was shipped
by the same Liverpool firm for Shanghai, and sent round to
Greenock by steamer. She was entered on the 31st March,
1863, as for Point de Galle and Hong Kong, with a crew of
48 men. She cleared on the tat of April. She left her
anchorage on the morning of the 2d of April, ostensibly to
try her engines, but did not return. She had no armament
on leaving Greenock, but a few days after her departure a
small steamer, called the Allar, freighted with guns, shot,
shell, &c., and having on board a partner of her Liverpool
firm, who had equipped her and shipped her crew, left New-
haven, and met the Georgia off the coast of France, near
Ushant. The cargo of the Allar was successfully trans-
ferred to the Georgia on the Bth or 9th of April ; her crew
consisted of British subjects. The Altar put into Plymouth
on the Bth of April bringing the Liverpool merchant who

had directed the proceedings throughout. and bringing

.„
also 15 seamen who had refused to proceed in the Georgia
on learning her real character. The rest of the crew re-
mained. At the time of her departure the Georgia was re-
gistered as the property of a Liverpool merchant, a partner
of the firm which shipped the crew. She remained the pro-
perty of this person until the 23d of June, when the regis-
ter was cancelled, he not notifying the collector of her sale
to foreign owners. During this period—viz., from the Ist
April to the 23d June—the Georgia being still registered
in the name of a Liverpool merchant, an thus his pro-
perty, was carrying on war against the United States, with
whom we were in alliance. It was whilst still a British
vessel that she captured and burned the Dictator, and cap-
tured and released under bond the Griswood, the same
vessel which had brought corn to the Lancashire sufferers.
The crew of the Georgia was paid through the same Liver-
pool firm. A copy of the advance note aged was to be found
in the diplomatic correspondence. The same firm continued
to act in this capacity throughout the cruises of the Georr
After cruising in the Atlantic and burning and Loartr,u a
number of vessels, the Georgia made for Cerboure.
where
she arrived on the 28th of October. There was
at time
much discontent amongst the crew. Many e
*meted, leave
of absence was given to others, and their 'rages were paid
all along by the same Liverpool firm. in order to get the
Georgia to sea again the Liverpool
enlisted in
pool some 20 seamen, and sent
.em to Brest. The Georgia
left Cherbourg on a second cr but having no success
she returned to that
her crew have been poi'l
rt, "And thence to Liverpool, where
4 off without any concealment, and
pa
the vessel is now laid up., .0
They had there tt..e case of a vessel clandestinely leaving
the port wher
"A she was constructed, taking on board Eng-
lishmen a% her crew, waging war against the United
States, and burning and committing depredations without
having ever entered any port of the power of which she
..ssumed to be one of the vessels, registered for a long time
as the property of an English merchant, and now returned
to Liverpool. He was sure the Government had done all
in its power to prevent the repetition of outrage, but the im-
potency of the law must be his excuse for bringing the sub-

ject before the house. There were many of these vessels
afloat, with the object of inflicting injury upon the allies of
this country. They were vessels which in some cases would
have been airested if time had been given; in all, if their
purpose had been known. The question was, could they be
said to fulfil their obligations of neutrality towards bellige-
rents by the adoption of a course simply because it was in
harmony with cur municipal law? In his view, it was the
common sense of international law that a neutral should do
unto a belligerent as she would wish to be done by. (Hear,
hear.) It was in order to avert war that the Foreign En-
listment Act was pa&ed, and it was in'order;to prevent the
subjects of this country and of America from jeopardising
the peace and amity of the world that he demanded the in •
terference of that house. When vessels entered upon such a
course of devastation, was it not time to ask whether the law
afforded the means of protecting the interests of our allies
as well as our own ? The question was one on which there
ought to be no doubt as to the course to be adopted by the
Government. In his opinion the Government ought to avail
themselves of every means in their power to shut our ports
against such vessels. They had no claim upon the hospi-
tality of the country, and, in respect both of international
obligations and our own interests, they ought to be excluded
from our ports. What he was anxious to make clear was,
that under the present law they could not carry their neu-
tral obligations fully into effect. What would be the conse-
quence of such precedents to this country in the event of her
being involved in war ? If we were to go to war to-morrow
with Germany there was nothing to prevent the German
Diet having at its command a fleet of small vessels to prey
upon our commerce, without having a port at its disposal.
Saxony, without a sea shore, might possess a fleet. In such
a case either we must submit to the destruction cf our ships,
or they must be transferred to others. He could not imagine
that those who were not now in office, but who soon might
be, would refuse to Insure the country against such dangers
to its commerce. They could not daily with the question;
for it was of immense importance; and no ono ought to be
deterred from carrying into effect any measure that might
be requisite for the prevention of so great a danger. DWl-
dt u
oa 1 sympathies towards either of the belligerents ought
n
prevent
their adopting measures to avert a calamity
v iot
which every shipowner saw looming in his view. They
might do now that which would save them from retribution
hereafter; but if they missed that opportunity, that which
might have sufficed in time of peace would not be accepted in
time of war. He was anxious to ask Government whether,
in what had occurred at Liverpool they did not see that our
interests
and obligations had been infringed, and that our
and welfare in the future had been seriously compromised.
(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said in many things
which fell from his hon. friend he entirely agreed. (Hear,
hear.) No ono who had observed the conduct which the
Government had desired to pursue with regard to this most
important subject during the last two years could doubt
that, whether successfully or otherwise, they had endea-
voured to the best of their power to vindicate the laws of
the country, and at the same time to fulfil the obligations of
a sincere and impartial neutrality. He was aware that such
a prof,,,,ion would not command the a.7gent of those mho
bwi unipthy with the objects of neutrality. Neverthe-

less, he had such confidence in the justice and good feeling
of the people of England, that he believed they would per-
ceive the course which had been pursued by the Government
was best calculated to preserve the honour of the country,
and to retain it in the path of an impartial neutrality. He
would first address himself to the last and most important
topic in the speech of his hon. friend. Need he say the Go-
vernment were quite sensible of the gravity of the public
interests involved? When merchants and other persons
held themselves at liberty in this country by all kinds of
tricks and evasions to treat with contempt her Majesty's
proclamatioh of neutrality—(cheers)—to make themselves
parties to a war in which her Majesty had professed her-
self neutral, and to shelter themselves under the opportuni-
ties of English law—they did acts which in their immediate
effect placed in peril the relations of this and another great
country, and which in their ultimate consequences might
recoil with disastrous effects upon the trade and commerce
of their own country. (Cheers.) The Government had
some reason to hope that, in the circumstances of such a war
as this, English merchants occupying eminent positions
would not spell out the law under the advice of lawyers,
and say, " This he cannot find ; it is not in the bond,"
and then, by every means which human ingenuity could
devise, hasten to plunge the country into peril, and to lay
the foundation of future mischief and dangers. He hoped
the time would come, or had already come, when the voice
of the commercial community of England would be raised
on this subject, and that those who would not hold them-
selves bound by her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality
should not expect to receive the moral support of the people
(Cheers.) He would now endeavour to show that the con-
duct which her Majesty's Government had pursued had
been at least of that character which the country had a right
to expect from them. There were only three vessels upon
which the allegations of their having been fitted out in this
country in violation of the law were well founded, and
certainly with the effect of placing this country in the situa-
tion of ministering in a most important and formidable way
to the belligerent wants of one of the two Powers. (Hear,
hear.) Her Majesty's Government believed the law was
intended to strike, and did strike, at acts of that description.
With regard to those three ships, the one which first left
the shores of this country was a vessel called the Florida.
She left before the Government obtained any information
upon which they could possibly act. She was afterwards
arrested, as he believed, at Nassau, and there tried and ac-
quitted, although it was found there was sufficient evidence
to justify her arrest. So far the Government were not to
blame. He would not detail the steps with regard to the
Alabama. It was well known that orders for the arrest of
that ship had been given, but in the meantime she escaped,
As to the Gorgia, no information was given to the Govern-
ment upon which they could act until she was actually
gone. So excellent was the design in respect to her, that,
her crew were enlisted for a voyage to Shanghai, in China,
and it was only on the coast of France that she received her
armaments and re-enlisted her crew. The Government
had therefore no opportunity of resisting those proceedings.
There were some people who thought these transactions
were lawful ; and he was sure the house would agree
with him in regretting that if these proceedings were
lawful, they were not openly avowed and placed
above-board. (Hear, hear.) After that, the Government
took action with regard to the Alexandria and other
vessels, of which he would say nothing, because they were
now the subject of a judicial trial, In Scotland, in the
case of a ship called the Pampero, the Government could
not seize her under the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the
result had been a verdict by consent for the Crown. Very
great liberality had been shown in giving Government
security against the employment of the vessels for bellige-
rent services. He assumed, therefore, that the law had
been vindicated in this instance. At all events, whatever
might have been the difficulties they had to encounter, the
fact was that a check had been interposed to the fitting out
of naval armaments in this country for belligerent states,
With regard to the law, he could not but entertain a san-
guine hope that the result of the measures which Govern-
ment had taken would be to clear up many of those difficul-
ties, and to place the law on the subject before the people
in a form and in a light which would in future tend to
ensure their better observance. He was encouraged in that
hope by the fact that two of the judges in the Court of Ex-
chequer had adopted the view of the Government ; and this
view had received the concurrence of one of the judges of
the Court of Queen's Bench, and also that of the Court of
Session in Scotland, in the case of the Pampero. The result
of those proceedings was to place the Government in a posi-
tion which gave them a right to hope that the law in all
such cases would be vindicated, and under these circum-
stances the house would be of opinion that it was not for
the Government to seek any change of the law on a subject
for the purpose of which the present law would be found
sufficient. At all events, the Government deemed that law
sufficient for all the cases that might arise, and they did not
think it advisable to make any change in it until they really
believed the house and the country would give them that
support without which a change could not be carried into
effect. He would now address himself to the case of the
Georgia. That vessel had returned with a regular commis-
sion as a ship of war. His hon. friend had stated that from
the Ist of April to the 23,1 of June she was registered in
the name of a British merchant in Liverpool, and that she
was during that time carrying on the war as a British ship.
He must demur altogether to the law of the hon. member in
that respect. The register could be evidence of nothing
but a British title for municipal purposes in this country.
Therefore the mere circumstance of a ship with a British
register would not in any degree justify the assertion that
she was carrying on war as a British vessel, and that sh,,
was not a vessel belonging to the Confederate States. n;
regretted that his hon. friend could for one mgr Fie
give
his countenance and authority to language e
,nich had de-
scribed these ships as "British pirates,"
try,
and untrue in fact ; it was dishonoe „ That e
exn
to this counress try'
and he trusted those who had th-
honour of the country at
heart would never give any -
so extravagant and so ut' ,ncouragement to an assertion
friend had taken not .erly without foundation. His hon.
'
port of Liverpool ce
e that the Georgia was now in the
as a public ship of war of the Confederate
States, eitheregh she had never been in a Confederate port.
Whether
on that account she ought to be allowed to come
in or
not, ho should notice hereafter. No doubt she was
e.atitled to come in so long as the rules issued by her Ma-
jesty in January, 1862, remained in force, because those
rules allowed ships belonging to a belligerent to come into
her Majesty's ports on condition that they should not re-
main
more than twenty-four hours, except for repairs.
Those refetirs were not to be for warlike purposes. They
were not to receive any warlike stores, and were to leave
as soon as the repairs were completed. The ship, as an
avowed ship of war of the Confederate States, was allowed
to come in by the law of nations, and subject to the restric-
tions he had named. As soon as her Majesty's Government
heard that the Georgia was not likely to depart, they in-
quired into the circumstances, and iearned that she was
brought into the dock for repairs, and was likely to be dis-
mantled and sold. Well, if she were to be dismantled alto-
gether it was obvious that no harm could be done in taking
a belligerent vessel from the sea, and obviating for a time
any harm she might do. It, on the other hand, there was
not a positive pledge given that she would not leave as a ship
of war, then it would be the duty of her Majesty's Go-
vernment to require her to depart as soon as was consistent
with the circumstances. Upon the larger and more general
question whether the admission of such ships into a British
harbour was consistent with our international obligations
and professions of neutrality, ho ,3r.ainly thought they
were not breaking any international obligations by the per-
mission they had given. As to the allegation that this was
a ship which had never been in a belligerent port, but had
been originally manned and equipped in British ports—if
that element were not in the case, no doubt every man
would feel it was right to admit those ships in the same way
and under the same conditions as we admitted into our ports
the ships of the Federal States. The doctrine enunciated,
that because she had not been in a Confederate port she was
not entitled to be considered in the character of a bellige-
rent ship of war belonging to that State, was altogether pre-
posterous, and merely tended to throw dust in men's eyes.
Therefore they could not on that ground make this ship an
exception to the rules. The hon. and learned gentleman,
after citing the dictum of Judge Story in support of his views
on this point, went on to point out a practice on the part of
the United States analogous to that of the British Govern-
ment in the case of the Georgia. He was sure the hcuse
would think that he did not wish to utter one word in any
degree offensive to persons in the United States, and least of
all to the Government ; but he could not help wishing they
had remembered this authority when over and over again
they had sent in extravagant demands to our Government
to pay the value of all ships taken by the Alabama, or any
such vessels. (Hear, hear.) He need hardly remind the house
that in 1793 the compensation given to us by the United
States was limited to prizes brought into their ports in vio-
lation of international law. They did not even give us com-
pensation in all these cases. Mr. Justice Story said that the
obligations of a neutral to a belligerent was that it should
fairly execute its own laws, and give no asylum to property
unjustly captured. It was bound to restore such property if
found in its ports, but beyond that it was not bound to in-
terfere between belligerents. Mr. Justice Story did not say
that we ought not to give asylum to public ships of war,
whatever might have been their previous history. Now he
(Sir It. Palmer) would now shit° what reasons her Ma-
jesty's Government had for hesitating to take the extreme
step of absolutely excluding this particular ship from our
ports, when at the same time all the ships of the United
States Government were admitted. First they had an
honest desire to maintain our neutrality and to fulfil our
international obligations. The maintenance of that neutra-
lity was perfectly consistent with the maintenance of our
own rights, He entirely repudiated the argument which
had been sometim,s used, that wo should not enforce our
own laws because the effect might bo to put one of the belli-
gerents at a disadvantage rather than the other. Neutra-
lity did not require that. When called upon to enforce what
was not an international obligation, it was a matter for con-
sideration whether we might not unfairly weigh down the
balance to ono side. Again, the whole argument assumed
that all they alleged in these cases were substantiated. The
hon. member assumed that the matter between us and the
Confederate States was beyond controversy—the.t the
Georgia had been fitted out in violation of our neutrality.
No doubt there were strong reasons for suspecting such had
been the case—but they were asked to act upon a state of
facts which hal never been judicially established in any
way. AO, hieh it vat not ef,.y to suggest any mode of