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

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 14, 1864.

less, he had such confidence in the justice and goad feeling
of the people of England, that he believed they would per-

ceive the coarse 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 sad 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
proclamation of neutrality—(cheers)—to make themselves
parties to a war in which her Majesty had professev her-
selt 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 wonld 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. (Hoar,
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 Flor;da.
She left before the Government obtained any information

upon which they could possibly sot. 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 ol

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 ho was lure 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 nikich he would say nothing, because they were
now the subject of a judicial trial, In Scotland, in the
oase 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
anent 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 let of April to the 231 of June she was registered in
the name of a British merchant in Liverpool, and that she
was during that time carry ing 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 at a British vessel, and that she
was net a vessel belonging to the Confederate States. He
regretted that his hon. friend could for one moment give
his countenance and authority to language which had de-
scribed these ships as "British pirates," That expression
was untrue in fact; it was dishonourable to this country,
and he trusted those who had the honour of the count ry at
heart would never give any encouragement to an assertion
so extravagant and so utterly without foundation. His hon.
friend had taken notice that the Georgia was now in the
port of Liverpool as a public ship of war of the Confederate
States, although she had never been in a Confederate port.
Whether on that account she ought to be allowed to come
in or not, he should notice hereafter. No doubt she was
entitled to come in so long as the rules issued by her Ma-
jesty in January, 1362, 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 repairs 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 ter depart, they in-
quired into the circumstances, and learned that she was
brought into the dock for repairs, and was likely to be dise
I 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, en 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, he certainly 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•
meat in the case of the Georgia. He was sure the house
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.) Ile need hardly remind the house
that in 179 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 state 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 sometimes used, that we ehould net enforce our
own laws because the effect might be 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 wo might not unfairly weir,h down the
balance to one side. Again, the whole argutsetheaesmesawtt
henstlae all they
member alleged
assumed
tthargument assumed
that ehseut bwseteann tui as t
ae dn.d The
Confederate States was beyond controversy—thet the
Georgia had been fitted out in violation of our neutrality.
No doubt there were strong reasons for suspecting such hart
been the care—but they were asked to act upon a state of
facts which hall never been judicially established in any
way, and which it was not easy to suggest any mode of

bringing to the test otherwise. That was a proposition
which required great consideration before being accepted ;
and the difficulty was increased by the fact that we had not
the ordinary means of access to the Confederate States. (We
had not recognised their Government, der Majesty's exo-
vernment had not the 61.'portunities of intercourse which
recognitieen would give ; and that difficulty was increased
by access to their ports being refused by the United States.
The other day, her Majesty's Go'Veinimen't, wishing to
re-
monstrate with the Usti:federates, had actually commis-
sioned a diplomatic servant to go to Richmond ; but the
blockading squadron would not allow even one of her Ma-
jesty's ship of war to pass for that purpose. It
would be found that American authorities by no
means warranted the notion that we ought to act lightly, or
without cogent proof. In the case of the Santiseireta Trini-
dad, it was said, in referenee to the evidence which was
insisted on in Atterica, that they were bound to abstain
from interference unless it could be proved by clear evidence
that there had been a distinct violation of neutrality. This
was a principle of which we were entitled to have the bene-
fit, and which made is a matter of serious difficulty to act
upon a case of mere strong moral suspicion. It was possible
that the Confederate States thought that they had kept
Within our law. Again, they must, in any case, act towards
the United States on just the same principle as they acted
towards the Confederates. If they were to proceed on mere
moral belief, it wrs impossible to acquit the agents of the
United States, although they might acquit their Govern-
ment, of acts, on a considerable scale, not consistent with
the kw or with the neutrality of this country. The hon.
and learned gentleman referred to the recent case of the
Kearsage, which while in Coeb Harbour had shipped Irish
seamen. But the matter did not rest there, for it was well
known that agents of the Federal Government enlisted men
in Ireland for the Federal army under pretence of employ-
ing them on railways and public works in America. This
took place also in Canada and New Brunswick. They knew
also that cases had occurred of British subjects being kid-
napped into the service of the United States, and being
treated, when they tried to escape, as deserters, Claims
made by her Majesty's Government in such cases had not
been met in that prompt and satisfactory manner that they
might be expected. (Hear, hear.) Were her Majesty's
Government to exclude all the vessels of the Federal States
because they had taken advantage of the acts of their
agents, which had certainly added largely to their armies,
in violation of our law ? He wished to make one more
observation without offence to the United States Govern-
ment. Her Majesty's Government was not assisted in
these matters by the Government of the United States. The
demands made upon us by that Government were far be-
yond anything to which they would be entitled from any re-
cognised rules and principles of international law. It became
necessary, therefore, for her Majesty's Government to act
with great caution before taking any steps which might
possibly be misunderstood. He referred particularly to
the extraordinary demands which had been made in the
case of the Alabama. He had no hesitation in saying that
the United States Government had advanced such demands
as to seek to make her Majesty's Government pecuniarly
responsible for all the prizes taken by the Alabama,
though they had never been brought into our ports, or in
any way under our control. The United States, in so
seeking, had advanced a demand directly contrary to their
own authorities, and which rendered it infinitely more diffi-
cult than it otherwise would be for her Majesty's Govern-
ment to do anything that was within their discretion.
They were quite justified in saying that they would adhere
to the rule which the United States authorities had laid
down; that they would endeavour fairly to execute English
laws ; that they would give no asylum to prizes and pro-
perty unjustly captured; that if any such were brought
into English ports, and reclamation made, such reclama-
tion would be attended to. But her Majesty's Govern-
ment would not undertake to recognise claims going beyond
those limits ; they would not undertake to interfere between
the belligerents in any other way than the rules of inter-
national law and our obligations as neutrals required.
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. W. E. FORSTER did not wish to treat the matter
as a party question. The Attorney-General had hardly
explained why the Georgia had been allowed to stay, even
upon the ground that she was to be treated as a belligerent,
The instructions of the Admiralty required that v ssels of
either of the belligerents should leave our ports 24 hours
after receiving needful supplies and repairs, unless detained
by stress of weather. Now there was no ground for stating
that she was staying in Liverpool for repairs, because she
had been repaired in Bordeaux, and had come direct from
that port to Liverpool. She had come ostensibly for the pur-
pose of paying off her crew, and he should like to ask her
Majesty's Government whether any Federal ship would
bo allowed to pay off her crew in an English port'
The right hon. gentleman the Attorney General said that it
was of no consequence that such a vessel as the Georgia had
never been in a Confederate port. Now he (Mr. Foreter)
thought that it did make a difference, combined with the
fact that she had sailed from a British port, and that such a
course would establi, h a precedent for our future relations
with neutral Powers when wo became belligerents. Those
Powers, under this precedent, though possessing no 'levies
of their own, might harass our commerce. The present
question divided itself into two branches, first, whether in-
ternational law, as between us and other nations, could be
put upon a hotter footing ; and, secondly, whether we had
done what we could with our present law to make ourselves
so truly neutral as in future we should wish others to be.
The Attorney-General had given sufficient reasons why he
thought the law ought not to be altered; but that did not
meet the true point of the question, which was that we had
had an opportunity offered by the Uni, ed States of putting
the international law of the world upon such a footing us
would have been vastly to our advantage in the future, and
at the same time, of advantage to the cause of civilisation.
Was the Attorney- General prepared to say, after the expe-
rience of the last few mouths, that the law was fully effec-
tive in its present state? Just let them consider what our
position would be if we were to receive from a foreign coun-
try the same treatment which the Americans had received
from us. Suppose, for instance, that we were at war with
Germany, and had sealed every port belonging to that
country, and that a French ship, with a French crow,
sailed out of Marseilles, and, having been furnished by a
French vessel from Brest, proceeded to the Mediterranean,
and preyed upon cur commerce. Did any one suppose that
we should allow that, unless we were engaged in a death
struggle like that which was now going on in America ?
Even in the middle of last year, 143 vessels, representing
two millions and a half of property, had been destroyed by
these cruisers, and this was only a portion of the injury
they had inflicted upon American commerce, because im-
mense sums of money had been paid for insuring ships at
very high rates, amounting to five or ten per cent, upon all
imports brought into American ports by American ships,
and the consequence had been the ruin of the American
carrying trade, and its transference to foreign ports. In-
deed, so completely had the American flag been driven from
the ocean, that the Georgia did not a capture a prize for
six weeks. It had been stated that the United States
ought themselves to have prevented vessels intended for
the Confederates from leaving our ports, but that was ob-
viously impossible. He trusted that the effect of the ques-
tion which had been asked by his hon. friend, backed as it
was by all the shipowners of Liverpool—who, he might
observe, sympathised more with the South than the North
—would be that the Government would be impressed with
the duty and necessity of not letting the present opportu-
nity pass without putting us in a good position for the
future, in case we should unfortunately become bellige-
rents. (Hear.)
Mr. COBDEN wished to add a word or two with refe-
rence to what had fallen from the Attorney-General. Two
questions had been brought under their notice by the state-
ment of the hon. gentleman who had introduced this sub-
ject. The two suggestions he had made were, that we
should alter our law, and that wo should, in the exercise of
the powers which we now possess, and which the hon. and
learned gentleman that we did possess, prevent vessels such
as had been referred to from entering, our ports. Now, with
regard to altering the law, the Attorney-General had en-
tered into a long argument to show that it was effective
as it stood at present for the purpose of preventing a breach
of neutrality in this country. But he could not imagine a
more cruel joke than the speech of the hon. and learned
gentleman would appear when it was read at Washington,
For what were the facts ? rhat war had been carried on from
these shores against the United States,which had done more
damage to that country than could have been inflicted by
many ordinary wars. The damage done to their ship-
ping atone amounted to fifteen millions of dol-
willions sterling. But that
lars, or nearly three
was but a small part of the injury which had been
inflicted upon the American marine, for the rest
of their vast mercantile property had been rendered value-
less, Under the regime of free trade, if 3 ou raised the rate
of insurance upon the flag of one:maritime people you threw
handsnthoelotrnagdeerinptroofitthaeblefor merchants to employ shipping to
of its competitors, because it was
carry freights when that shipping was liable to great war
risks, and consequently to high assurance. He had a fact or
two which he would state to the hon. and learned gentle-
man, and would show him the way in which this had been
operating, and then ho would see what a cruel satire it was
to say to the Americans that our law was sufficient to en-
force neutrality. Ile had an account of the foreign trade of
New York for the quarter ending June 30, 1860, and the
quarter ending June 30, 1865. In the first named quarter
the total amount of the trade of New York was 92 million
dole., and of the trade 62 million dols. was carried in Ame-
rican and 32 million in foreign bottoms. On June 10, 1863,
it stood thus : the total amount of the trade was SS million
dollars, of which 23 million was carried in American ves-
sels and 65 mil,lion in foreign vessels. In other words tho
change might be stated thus : in 1860 two-thirds of the
foreign trade of Now York was carried in American bot-
toms, while in 1863 three-fourtbs was carried in foreign
bottoms. One could see, therefore, what a complete revo-
lution had been mac °in the value of the property, The
Americans had sold many of their ships to English capita-
lists, because it was no longer possible to carry on their
business. He considered the depredations committed upon
American commerce by those cruisers, built and equipped
in English ports, to be the gravest part of the question as
affecting the relations of this country with America, and
he hardly knew whether they could have done more to
excite the rancour of the American people, or injure their
commerce, if they had joined the Confederate Govern-
ment, and burn. .d all the accessible towns on the

rican frontier, than they had done by moans of these
cruisers. lie regarded the question of refusing hospitality
to those ships as the most important one that could now
engage the attention Of that, JiOllP3. The liononrable
geutieman then referred to the Alabama, the Georgia, and
other vessels, which had been built in English ports, and

equioe4 and manned frOrn .rttngllsh i)orti;', and shov;'ed that
they conld not be consideied vessels of war, foi their never

attacked a vessel of war, and were not armed for war, but

were fitted out solely for preying upon American commerce.
Let them consider what reprisals would be made upon them
if this country was ever again to go to war. Zf they be
lieved American nature to be human nature, they should

expect the American people would in their almost number-

less creeks and lakes fit out a swarm of cruisers to prey

upon English commerce, whidh they t ould do both in the
Atlantic and Pacific. It was thought that the donferente

of Paris had put an end to pirates; but it turned out to be
a stupendous hoax, Last year, when it was thought that

France and England would make war upon Russia on ac-
count of Poland, the long-headed statesmen at St. Peters-

burg sent the Russian fleet to America, well knowing that
the Russian crews would be put on board the swiftest
vessels for the purpose of destroying English commerce.
(Hear, hear,) He had also noticed in the German papers
frequent references to the vulnerability of England, on ac-
count of the law established by herself in this respect. There
would be Alabamas in abundance sent out to burn or cap-

ture English merchant vessels. The way to build an Ala-
bama was to build a vessel neither for war nor for freight,
but a vessel that could run off from everything and catch
everything. It might be said that this country had vassels
of war to catch those pirates. But nothing was more diffi-
cult than to find a vessel on the ocean once she got out of
sight ; but even if such vessel should be found in a port,
nothing could be done, by reason of the practice which Eng-
land herself now sanctioned. He therefore thought the beet
reparation that could be made for the havoc committed upon
American commerce was to deny hospitality to those cruisers
which had been clandestinely built and equipped in Bri-

tish ports. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL said a fallacy underlay the entire
speech of the honourable member for Rochdale. He be-
lieved that if a war broke out now they would be required
to protect their commerce from swarms of privateers in every
quarter of the ocean. Let them not imagine that they would
offer one iota of :protection to their mercantile marine in
future wars by driving the Georgia from their ports. Much
had been said about precedents, but once nations were en-
gaged in war they paid very little regard to what the coun-
try might have done 10 or 15 years before. It seemed to
him that the proposed mode of dealing with international
law was more dishonest and more immoral than any pro-
posal which he had heard submitted to Parliament in his
time. The hon. member had spoken much of the losses
endured by the Fedora's, and of the bitter feeling which
they must entertain against those who had been the cause
of them. But had there been no losses nor sufferings on
the other side? It was said the Federals had put to death
200,000 Confederates; and in the course of the year 1862
muskets and rifles to the value of £564,500, and 12,000,000
of percussion caps, were forwarded from thie country to the
Northern States. And the fact could not be ignored that
the mercantile house which was mainly instrumental in
conveying that assistance to the Federals was the house of
Baring and Co. Did they suppose that no feelings of bitter-
ness would arise in the breasts of the Southerners when
they learned that all that havoc had been caused to them
through munitions of war conveyed from this country? In
his opinion England would have as much permanent cause
of regret at the alienation from her of the feelings of the
people living to the south of the Potomac as of those who
occupied the northern territory. Too much praise could not
be given to the speech of the Attorney- General ; it had
exhausted the law.
Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE had listened with great regret to
_ _

the speech of the Attorney-General, and could not help
feeling that if the learned gentleman had paid adequate
attention to the history of America he must have come to
a very different couclusion. When, during the war of
the last century, French privateers crowded the American
ports, the American Government did not say that they
had no municipal law bearing upon the subject, but they
at once dismissed the French vessels from their ports.
That was a precedent for them to act upon, and there-
fore he hoped the Government would seriously entertain
the suggestion of the hon. member for Huntingdon.
Lord R. MONTAGU said that, although the hon. mem-
ber for Rochdale had shown them conclusively that the
trade of the Northern States had been seriously damaged,
he had not shown that it was by the fault of England that
that commerce had been reduced.
Mr. Alderman ROSE believed the country would endorse
the definition of the law of neutrality as laid down by the
Attorney General, and carried out by the Administration.
He denied that the opiniocs of the hon. members for Roch-
dale and Bradford were shared by the people at large; and
after remarking upon the maladministration in the military
and civil departments of the Federal Government, he con-
cluded by expressing his belief that this country must
shortly recognise the South, and by so doing promote the
peace of the world.
The subject then dropped.
The motion for adjournment was then agreed to.
THE MALT TAX.
On the motion for going into committee of supply,
Mr. MORRIT 1' rose to move that in any future modifi-
cation of the indirect taxation of the country the excise upon
malt would require the consideration of the house. He
remarked that the delay which had occurred since ho first
intimated his intention of lninging this question before the
housegimproved his position. The only thing he regretted
was the extremely crowded state of the house. (Laughter.)
At this time the number of members in the house did not
exceed twenty-four. The remark of the hon. gentleman
having drawn the attention of the Speaker to the fact, the
latter proceeded to count, and, there not being forty mem-
bers present,
The house stood adjourned to next Thursday.