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

THE NEW NATIONAL GALLERY.

Mr. HEYGATE asked the First Commissioner of Works
whether the scheme for erecting a new National Gallery at
the rear of Burlington House, and which was last year
stated by the First Commissioner of Works to "have been
for a considerable time under the consideration of the
Government," has yet been approved ; and, if not,
to what national purposes it is proposed to devote the estate
purchased for the nation in 1854, at a cost of £140,000, and
now occupied by Burlington House and Gardens.
Mr. COWPER said that the Government determined
to propose an estimate for the erection of a gallery on the
site in question.
THE ARMY ESTIMATES.
In reply to General PEEL,

The Marquis of HAIL TINOT ON it would be impos-
sible to say the day on which tke army estimates would be
brought on, but when the na:ey estimates were gone through.
they would then be subrAitted to the housa.
ITIE TUSCALOOSA.
_ _

Mr. PEACOC-dE called attention to the case of the
Tuscaloosa ; and to move the following resolution :—That
the instt (lotions contained in the despatch of the
Duke ‘..if Newcastle to Sir P. Wodehouse, dated the 4th day
of November, 1863, and which remain still unrevoked, are
:At variance with the principles of international law." The
hon. member argued, from the dicta of Sir W. Scott and
other learned jurists on questions of international law, that
the Tuscaloosa was sufficiently clothed with the character
of a man of war to exempt her from seizure under the
Queen's proclamation, and that the commander of the Ala-
bama, who had captured her and converted her into a Con-
federate cruiser, had as much right to commission her in
that capacity as a commodore. He charged the Govern-
ment with cowardice in evading the responsibility that
rested only upon themselves, and endeavouring to cast it
upon the shoulders of Sir P. Wodehouse. He complained
that the instructions of November remained virtually un-
repealed, and called upon the house to demand their recall,
for if we enforced them against one power we were bound
to, enforce them against another; if we acted upon them in
the case of a weak power we must do so in the case of a
strong power. Supposing, then, we applied them against a
strong power, the results must be to plunge the country into
war; and if against a weak power, it would cover the
country with intolerable shame. It was in the interest of
peace that he invited the house to assist in obtaining a re-
vocation of these instructions; for as long as they stood
unrepealed, they were at once a source of danger and
disgrace.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, in resisting the motion,
observed that at present we were neutrals, but the day might
arrive when we should become belligerents, exercising belli-
gerent rights, and when we were again in that position it
might be that another armed neutrality was formed against
us. It behoved the house, therefore, to think well before
they furnished such an armed neutrality with weapons
forged by themselves. The question was whether the Tus-
caloosa, when she entered Simines Bay. was still a prize to
the Alabama, or had lost that character and assumed the
new character of a vessel of war. There was no disputing
that she was a prize ; that she had net been taken into any
port of the Confederate States for the purpose of being ad-
judicated upon; and the evidence showed, moreover, that
her supposed conversion into a confederate ship of war was
a mere sham and pretence. Sir Baldwin Walker had no
. doubt about her real character from the first ; but he was
overruled by the opinion of the attorney-general of the
Cape. She was, therefore, permitted to leave port , but
upon her return, the instructions from the Duke of New-
castle having been received in the interval, her seizure was
effected. With regard to the cases cited by Mr. Peacocke,
they all applied to vessels which were bona fide armed and
fitted out as vessels of war, which was not the case with the
Tuscaloosa. He admitted on the part of the Government
that, upon reconsideration, they did think that the instruc-
tions were not as full and explicit as they ought to have
been had they been issued as a guide for colonial govern-
ments throughout the empire; but the despatch was not in
the nature of a circular of that sort ; it was merely a com-
ment of the Colonial Secretary upon this particular trans-
action. The whole subject had received the serious atten-
tion of the Government, and instructions had been pre-
pared and would be sent by way of circular to the several
colonial governors, so that hereafter these cases would
present no difficulty, and a copy of these instructions would
shortly be laid upon the table of the house. He trusted,
then, that the house would not affirm tho proposition con-
tainee in the resolution. It was not necessary; it was
useless; it would have no practical effect; and it might
hereafter be attended with serious inconvenience and injury
to the best interests of the country.
Mr. WHITESIDE must deny the assertion of the Soli-
citor-General that there was no question of policy involved
in this matter. True, there was a question of law, but there
was also a question of policy, and a very interesting one too.
On the perusal of this despatch, he was induced to ask
himself how it was that such a despatch could have ema-
nated from the Government; but the answer wile, the war
was gone against the South, and the North was on the eve
of being successful. He called to mind the speech of Earl
Russell at Blairgowrie, and the more satisfactory speech of
the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Newcastle-upon-Tyne;
1 but he recollected that the speech of the noble lord was the
more recent of the two, He accepted the doctrine of the
Solicitor-General that they were to have strict neutrality;
but it was because the laws of neutrality had been most
shamefully violated— (Opposition cheers)—because these
transactions were indefensible—because his hon. and
learned friends opposite knew they were indefensible, and
because they themselves had corrected the very instructions
laid down in this despatch of the 4th co November—that he
stood there to protest against them. (Renewed Opposition
cheers.) The facts of the case were very simple—there was
nothing of a sham at all about it. But, as it appeared to him
throughout, it was Admiral Walker who decided the law,
and the lawyers who decided the facts. (Laughter.) In a
word, Admiral Walker had entirely overruled the lawyers.
Now, upon the 21st of Jnne, the day on which the Tusca-
loosa—then the Conrad—was captured, did the vessel be-
long to the captor or not? He might have burned it, he
might have destroyed it in any way ; unless, indeed, they
would apply a different law to the Confederate States from
that upon which their own admirals and commanders had
invariab'y acted. At the moment of capture the property in
the ship was changed, and it became Captain Semmes's
without the adjudication of any court of law. The next
question was, had Capt. Semmes a lawful commission from
the Confederate Government? But that was admitted by
the Duke of Newcastle himself. Lastly came the ques-
tion„had he authority to grant a commission to the officer
whom he placed on board the .Tuscaloosa ? Well, upon
that point, Lord Stowell held that it was enough if an officer
in command had only a semblance of such authority; it
sufficed, in fact, if the commission which he granted was
only, as it were, inchoate. Lord Stowell had decided that
officers in command of even single ships might grant such
commissions, and therefore the commander of the Alabama
had authority to grant a commission to the commander of
the Tuscaloosa. It followed from that that they could not
inquire whether the ship was something different from what
she appeared to be—that was to say, a ship in the legal
employment of a belligerent power. The effect of that com-
mission was to change the character of the ship, to convert
it from being a ship of commerce into a ship of war. He
had great respect for seafaring gentlemen, but he denied
that they were safe guides upon a question of law. What
they ought to have done was to follow the advice given by
the American consul to the authorities at the Cape; if they
would not seize the Tuscaloosa as being the Conrad, they
ought to have ordered her immediate departure from port.
(Hear, hear.) Instead of that, however, they had allowed
her to remain for seven days, and to take in provisions.
The correspondence with the American Government sup-
plied the key to the course taken by Earl Russell ; and the
despatch of the 29th of October showed what produced the
instructions of the 4th of November. The hon. gentleman
then, in humorous style, remarked upon the return of the
Tuscaloosa to the Cape as a recognised ship of war, belong-
ing to a belligerent Power, and dwelt with some indigna-
tion upon the seizure of the ship, and the handing of her
over to her former owner, the commander of the Alabama.
Looking at the whole transaction from beginning to end, he
submitted to the house this was a case in which they ought
to affirm the resolution before them, for the purpose of pre-
venting international law from being violated in like manner
in time to come, and that the law of neutrality might be
hereafter acted upon towards all nations, whether North or
South, Denmark or Germany, with impartiality, consis-
tency and justice. (Cheers.)
Mr. J. J. POWELL opposed the motion, and said that
if the Tuscaloosa had been a tender she would have had as
much right to enter port as the Alabama herself ; but this
was altogether a question of fact, and the fact was that, so
far from her being a commissioned vessel and a tender to a
man of war, she was only < olourably such, and passed under
that character for purposes which would be in derogation of
the Queen's proclamation against bringing prizes into
English I.arhours.
Sir J. ELPHINSTO NE complained that the Govern-
ment had throughout the American contest been actuated
more by a spirit of hostility than of neutrality towards the
Confederates.

The motion was opposed by Mr. Lefevre, Mr. Neate, and
Mr. Denman, and supported by Sir J. Hay, Mr. M. Smith,
and Mr. Bovill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he understood the
hon. baronet to say that the words used by Admiral Sir B.
Walker were equivalent to saying that the Tuscaloosa was
under the command of one of the Alabama's lieutenants.
At all events, it was subsequently shown that nothing was
founded upon the supposition of there having been a com-
mission, His hon. and learned friend (Mr. Bovill) when he
made the statement respecting Sir B. Walker, must have
overlooked the despatch of that gallant officer written on
the Bth August, when full particulars respecting the Tusca-
loosa had been obtained. Sir B. Walker said, " The admis-
sion of this vessel into port will, I fear, open the door for
a number of vessels, captured under similar circumstances,

being denominated tenders, with a view to avoid the `prohi-
bition contained in the Queen's instructions;" and farther
on he said, " Viewirt, all the 'CiirittM`etinees of the case,
they afford Toone for the ti4Position that the vessel is styled
a tendor' With the object of avoiding the prohibition
against her entrance as a prize into our ports, where, if
the captors wished, arrangements could be made for the
disposal of her valuable cargo, the transhipment of which
might be readily effected on any part of the coast, beyond
the limits of this colony." And although it did hot appear
in the correspondence on this subject, it was well known
that Sir B. Walker apprehended what did actually occur.
When the Tuscaloosa went to Angra Pequina to deposit
her cargo, she was followed by the colonial thip Saxon,
and the result was a most unhappy ciechrreece, which led
to the loss of the life of a British subject. With regard to
the opinion expressed by the acting Attorney-General for
the colony, that gentlem
most able, upright, all--who he might observe was a
excellent public servant—was evi-
dently m- i
8-e into error by supposing that the passage he
qu°te`/... from Wheaton was applicable to this particular case.
ne Governor of the Cape and Sir B. Walker of course acted
upon the opinion given by the colonial Attorney-General,
but the latter never changed his own opinion that the Tus-
caloosa was not a vessel of war. The rules laid down by
positive statutes had no bearing whatever upon the rights
of a neutral Power to vindicate the neutrality of his own
territory in any manner he may think fit, whether by the
restoration of the vessel to the owner or otherwise. The
question involved was not one of law, but of discretion on
the part of the neutral Power ; and he submitted that,
although hon. members might reason from analogy if they
pleased, the oases of the Exchange and the Santissinaa
Trinidad, which had been referred to, were altogether
foreign to the right possessed by every neutral sovereign
to preserve inviolable the neutrality of his own territory.
The house would see that it was altogether a fallacy to
ascribe the character of a vessel of war to the Tuscaloosa
when she first came into Simon's Bay. It was true that
when she returned she had something like an armament
and something like a commission; but the question
which the house was called upon to consider was not
what the Tuscaloosa was when she returned, but what
was the state of the facts as they stood on the 4th of No-
vember. The hon. and learned gentleman then read the
passage in the Duke of Newcastle's despatch, and said he
had no wish to avoid any responsibility which might attach
to it ; for although it was true the law officers had suggested
that the matter was one worthy of serious consideration,
and although they might wish that the form in which the
instruction was conveyed had not been so short and little
developed—(Opposition cheers)—yet he accepted the full
responsibility of it, and maintained that the principle in-
volved in the instruction was not opposed to international
law. No one disputed the proposition that as between bel-
ligerents and belligerents there were no rights whatever
under such circumstances: The capture was good, provided
the neutral Power did not interpose to vindicate its autho-
rity ; but where it did so interpose it was the invariable
practice that the neutral Power restored the property to the
original owner. The house would recollect that, when in
the fight against Lagos, our navy, engaging the enemy in
Portuguese waters, captured several of his ships. Lord
Chatham told our Minister at Lisbon to make every apology
possible to satisfy the dignity of the Portuguese Govern-
ment, but on no account to give back one of the captured
ships. But in any case of a capture by a neutral Power, it
was the practice to restore the prize to the original owners.
He quite agreed that the United States consul was entirely
at sea in this matter, and that there was no foundation fur
the doctrine that the right of the original owner to have the
prize restored proceeded from the circumstance of its not hav-
ing been condemned in a prize court. It was quite plain,
on reference to precedents, that the principle laid down in
this despatch was not opposed to the principle of interna-
tional law, although it might be open for discussion whether
a less strong course would not have met the difficulties of
the occasion. He maintained, however, that, according to
every principle of international law the doctrine laid down
was justifiable. But had Sir P. Wodehouse construed his
instructions differently, he had no hesitation in saying he
would have been well borne out. Good faith and honour
required that the Tuscaloosa ought to be released, and when
good faith and honour were under consideration, would any
one say that anything should be permitted to let or hinder
them ? (Hear, hear.) He regretted exceedingly that those
circumstances should have occurred, but at the same time
he warned the house that to affirm that the principles laid
down in that despatch were contrary to international law,
would be affirming that all parties in time of war had a right
to set aside the orders of a territorial sovereign, and not only
on the high seas, but in the territory itself, to say they could
violate the principles of international law with impunity.
(Cheers.) He therefore pressed upon the attention of the
house that their object should be to maintain those princi-
ples of neutrality for which this country stood pre-eminent
before the world. (Cheers.)
Sir 11. CAIRNS said he was glad the Attorney-General
had told the house that they were not required to affirm the
conduct of the Government in these transactions; for he
believed no member of the house, not oven the Attorney-
General, who was as bald as any one in the house—not even
the Solicitor-General, who was not quite so bold—would
say these transactions had been characterised by wisdom.
(Cheers.) With respect to the Tuscaloosa, he should have
thought that the be: t person to pronounce an opinion was
the United States consul, who, he found, on the 10th of
August, when the Governor and Sir Baldwin Walker
were puzzling themselves on the point, wrote to Governor
Wodehouse, saying that an armed vessel called the Tusca-
loosa had entered Simon's Bay ; that she was formerly a
merchant vessel in the service of the United States, but,
while engaged in lawful commerce, was captured by the
Alabama, and was subsequently fitted out to prey on the
commerce of the United States. (Hear.) Another natural
course to have taken would have been to ask the comman-
der of the Tuscaloosa if she were a commissioned ship;
but it was not until she arrived a second time that it oc-
curred to the authorities at the Caps that it would be a
desirable thing to ask whether she had a commission or
not. Thus, when they did not know whether she had a
commission or not they let her alone, but when they knew
she had a commission they seized her. (Opposition cheers,)
As soon as her Majesty's Government knew that she was
seized orders were sent to release her. The proper course
to have taken on finding that a mistake had been com-
mitted was to restore the ship, explain the mistake that
had been made to the Confederate captain; and apologise to
him for what was a gross and palpable insult. But what
was the course taken ? In a letter of the 10th of March,
the Duke of Newcastle said, " Her Majesty's Govern-
ment have therefore come to the conclusion that, under the
special circumstances of this particular case, the Tuscaloosa
ought to be released, with a warning, however, to the cap-
tain of the Alabama that the ships of war of belligerents
are not to be allowed to bring ships of war into British
ports, and it was left to her Majesty's Government to de-
cide to what class those vessels belonged." Her Majesty's
Government had decided that. (No, no, and Opposition
cheers.) The hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to
argue that in a cue in which we had been so clearly in the
wrong as in that of the Tuscaloosa, it was our duty not only
to make restitution, but apology and indemnity. Instead
of doing that, her Majesty's Government had only written
a despatch directing their subordinates to return the ship.
If we had been dealing with the Federals instead of with
the Confederates, a different course would have been taken.
That might be neutrality, but it in no way deserved the
name, because it consisted in doing all the mischief they
could to one belligerent as long as they could, and then
making an ungracious, churlish apology, without any
defence, and restoring property they were afraid any
longer to keep. The motion was altogether beside
the Tuscaloosa; it referred to those instructions which
he understood the law officers to justify, but which, if
unrepealed, might land us at any time in a war, not only
with one of the belligerents, but with any of the neutral
Powers of Europe. Quoting the proclamation of neu-
trality issued at the outbreak of hostilites, the hon. and
learned gentleman said that it merely warned the bellige-
rents that they were not to bring their prizes into our
colonial ports, end that if after such notice they seized prizes
with the intention of restoring them to the original owners,
it would be a gross violation of good faith and international
law. He pointed out an inconvenience of such a course in
regard to neutrals, in dept iving the original owner of a cap-
tured prize of the opportunity of going to the prize-courts
of the captor, and there recovering his ship, with costs and
damages, if improperly seized. The neutral owner, he held,
would then have a claim upon us for costs and damages,
which, if refused, might lead to war with the neutral nation
to which he belonged. The fact was, that " Wheaton's
Elements" negatived the idea that her Majesty's Govern-
ment had the right they contended for. As, however, the
law officers of the Crown maintained that the instructions
were in accordance with international law, it behoved the
house to take the matter up, and to declare that the instruc-
tions sent by the Duke of Newcastle to Sir P. Wodehouse,
and which were still in force, were at variance with the prin-
ciples of international law. (Loud ana continued cheering.)
The house then divided. The numbers were—
For the motion
Against
Majority

The resolution was accordingly lost; and the house went
into committee of supply pro forma, and immediately re-
sumed.

In committee on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill,

DUTY ON GRAIN.

Mr. CRAWFORD moved a proviso at the end of clause
2, for protecting the rights of the mayor and commonalty
of London with regard to the duty chargeable upon grains
entering the port of London.

Mr. AYR I ON opposed the introduction of such a pro-
viso as an attempt to keep up the claims of an antiquated
corporation of levying duty on grains entering the port of
London. The claim to levy such a duty had been con-
demned by successive committees.
After some discussion,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER recom-
mended the hon. member for London to withdraw his pro-
posal, and to endeavour to protect the privileges of his con-
stituents by separate legislation.
Mr. CRAWFORD adopted the suggestion.
New clauses were added, and the bill passed through
committee.

The Court of Chancery Despatch of Business Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The Local Government Supplemental Bill and the Pro-