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 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
proclamation 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 whieh 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 actual:is,
gone. So excellent was the design in respect to b.-
her crew were enlisted for a voyage to Shangh-
dr,
in
that,
eat and it was only on the coast of France the'
she received her
-
e recei China,
armaments and re-enlisted her c- sn.ew. The Government
..
had therefore no opportunity cv, resisting those proceedings.
People who thought these transactions
wereTher e
lawfulwe re same
and
no was sure the house would agree
with him in regretting that if these proceedings were
lawful, th,ey were not openly avowed and placed
abaveeboard. (Hear, hear.) Alter 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 le 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
hope ;potter observance. He was encouraged in that
by the fact that two of the judges in the Court of Ex-
che'ener 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 23J 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.
lie 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 chip with a British
register would not in any degree justify the assertion that
she was carrying on war as a British vessel, and that she
was not 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 country 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, 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 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 to depart, they in-
quired into the circumstances, and learned 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 reet 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, Ureon the larger and more general
question whether the admission of such ships into a British
harbour was consis'eent with our international obligations
and professions of neutrality, he certainly thought they
were not brri„king any international obligations by the per-
mission ',hey had given. As to the allegation that this was
a sle
,p which had never been in a belligerent port, but had
:
Ant 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. Ho 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 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 R. 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 should not 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 we might not unfairly weigh down the
balance to ono side. Amin, the whole argument assumed
that all they alleged in these cases were substantiated. The
hen, member assumed that the matter between us and the
Confederate States was beyond controversy—that 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, and which it was not easy to suggest any mode of

bringing to the teat 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 Si etas. We
had not recognised their Government, flier Majesty's Go-
vernment had not the 'Opportunities of intercourse which
recognition Would give; and that difficulty was increased
by access to their ports being refused by the United States.
The other day, her Majesty's Government, wishing to r -
monstrate with the Confederates, lied actually commis-
sioned a diplomatic servant to go to Richmond ; but the
blockading squadron would not allow even one of her Ma-
jestes ship of war to pees 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 Santissima Trini-
dad, it was said, in reference to the evidence which was
insisted on in America, 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 it a matter of serious difficulty to act
upon a case of mere strong moral suspicion. It was possible
Again,
just they
the moat,u
that the Confederate States thought that they had kept
within u
r law.
States
in any case, act towards
theeams,
et principle as they acted
t United o
towards the Confederates. If they were to proceed on mere
moral belief, it wre iteepossible to acquit the agents of the
on
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
beeti 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 ? Re 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-
ond 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 priz,ei 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 tee 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
be 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. Forster)
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 establish a precedent for our future relations
with neutral Powers when we became belligerents. Those
Powers, under this precedent, though possessing no navies
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 better footing ; and, secondly, whether we had
done what we could with our prekent law to make ourselves
as truly neutral as in future we should wish others to be.
The Attorney-General had giver sufficient reasons why he
thought the law ought not to be altered; but that did not
meet the true point of the questian, which was that we had
had an opportunity offered by the United States of putting
the international law of the world upon such a footing as
would have been vastly to our advantage in the figure, 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 months, 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 crew,
sailed out of Marseilles, and, having been furnished by a
French vessel from Brest, proceeded to the Mediterranean,
and preyed upon our 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, 148 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-
dead, 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
vioualy impossible. lie 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
future, in ease we should unfortunately become bellige-
rents. (Hear.) good position for the

• 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 we 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 jeke than the speech of the hon. and learned
gentleman would appear when it was read at Washington.
For what wore the facts ? That 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 alone amounted to fifteen millions of dol-
lars, or nearly three millions sterling. But that
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 on raised the rate
of insurance upon the flag of one:maritime people you threw
the trade into the hands of its competitors, because it was

mwani ---- -
in which this had been
no longer profitable for merchants to employ shipping to
carry freights when that shipping was liable to great war
dc would e wouldtwo
wsthaitme
tthoetwheayhon. and learned gentle-

Operating, and then he would see what a cruel satire it was
to say to the Americans that our law was sufficient to en-

force neutrality. He 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 dole. 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 88 million
dollars, of which 23 million was carried in American ves-
sels and 65 million in foreign vessels. In other words the
change might be stated thus : in 1860 two-thirds of the
foreign trade of New York was carried in American bot-
..

toms, while in 1863 three-fourths was carried in foreign
bottoms. One could see, therefore, what a complete revo-
lution had been =tee 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
excito 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 Ama-

rican frontier, than they had done by means of these
cruisers. He regarded the question of refusing hospitality
to those ships as the most important one that could now
engage the attention of that hens). The honourable
gentleman then referred to the Alabama, the Georgia, and
other vessels, which had been built in English ports, and
equipped and manned from English ports, and showed that
they could not be considered vessels of war, for they never
attaa-ed a l-essel 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. If they be
lieved American nature to 14e 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, which they Could do both in the
Atlantic and Pacific. It was thought that the Conferente
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,) Ho 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 bo 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 vassals
of war to catch those pirates. But nothing was more dill,
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 best

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 Federals, 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 aide? 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 this country to the
Northern States. And the fact could not be ignored that
the mercantile house which was mainly instrumental in
convoying 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 conclusion. When, during the war of
the Isst 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 opinions 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 hie 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. MORRITT 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 he first
intimated his intention of bringing this question before the
house improved 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. Tho 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.