The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-24 00:00:00

BILL.

This bill passed through committee.
DOCKYAADS PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.

This bill was read a third time.
SEIZURE OF BRITISH VESSELS BY FEDERAL

CRUISERS.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE said he rose to put
two or three questions to the noble earl at the head of the
Foreign Office upon a matter of very grave importance,
namely, the seizure by a naval officer of the United States
Government of vessels belonging to British merchants.
He was well aware of the gravity of the subject, but the
1 circumstances were so gross and so notorious, and of a
character so deeply affecting the best interests and the
honour of the country, that no time ought to elapse before
it was made known to the world, by the expression of
opinion of both Houses, that we did not hear of such
occurrences without the strongest feelings of indignation.
(Hear, hear.) The first case to which he would allude
was that of the Dolphin. Presuming the accounts they
had probably all read were true, an insult had been offered
to the British flag. She was a legitimate trader, her papers
were all clear and in order, and she was going from Lon-
don to Nassau. On coming out of St. Thomas's, however,
she had been stopped and seized, without any excuse
being made for her capture ; and, moreover, her crew were
detained on board the captors' vessel, and put ashore, not
on territory of her own nation or of her captors, but on
Danish ground. (Hear.) Indeed, they were not put ashore
at all until her Majesty's ship (Nile left St. Thomas's in
pursuit. That was clearly contrary to international law. I
shall be glad, therefore, to know if any official account has
been received at the Foreign-office ; and if so, what has been
done in the matter. It was impossible to look upon it as an
isolated case of reckless imprudence, because, only a month
ago, they had the case of the Peterhoff, which was very
similar, and the Adele, respecting which there were no
grounds for seizure whatever. It must not be forgotten
that those things were done under the very eye of that
Commodore Wilkes who had once before brought his coun-
try to the shame and humiliation of making an apology for
the Trent affair. It was therefore necessary for the Govern-
ment to understand that the people of England expected
they would bestir themselves, and not submit to acts which
he believed were both unlawtui and unprecedented. It
appeared by the reports in the papers, if correct, that a de-
putation of merchants and shipowners had waited upon the
noble earl (Earl Russell) and laid before him an example
of audacity such as had seldom occurred in any country,
muca less in Great Britain. Why Mr. Adams, the Ameri-
can Minister, had actually given a certificate of protection
to a ship sailing from London to a neutral port to enable
that vessel to sail safely through the waters of the West
Indies and the Gulf of Mexico. (Hear, hear.) He appre-
hended something had been said, however, by the noble
earl, because there had since appeared another letter
from Mr. Adams, in which he said he had been mis-
understood, and added, with some fine irony, that he
could not give any protection to British subjects,
but no doubt they could get it from their own Government.
That letter was in answer to an application for a certificate
by the owners of the Sea Queen, and would appear to have
been after some hint had been conveyed that ho had no
power to give it. That circumstance led to the consideration
what ship it was for which the certificate was given, what
was her destination, and how the matter became known to
the public. Their lordships would admit that while the
ships or subjects of another power were in this country, and
subject to our laws, there was no occasion, when leaving
for a neutral port, to take their papers to Mr, Adams to be
examined. That was for the authorities of the port of Lon-
don to do. It bad turned out on inquiry that the vessel be-
longed to a New York trader, who had made a contract to
supply arms to the Mexicans to use against the French.
(Hear, hear.) That was the country whose boasted neutrality
had been so well exposed in another place a short time back.
They wanted to sell £BO,OO worth of arms and £30,000
worth of goods for the use of the Mexicans—and when the
New York merchants went to effect an insurance for those
sums a certificate was produced from the American Minister
giving protection from the Federal cruisers. (Hear.) Such
a departure from all usage could not pass unnoticed, and so
far as was consistent with the public interests, he should
like to know what representations had been made on the
facts becoming known. Another topic on which he should
like some explanation was the withdrawal of the mail from
the Sea Queen, and the notification that for the present
British ships trading to Matamoras and other ports in the
Gulf of Mexico would be relieved from the necessity of
carrying ship letters. Could her Majesty's Government
give any reason for that, except fear of the American cruisers?
(Hear.) He used the word with shame, but what else could
it be? The letters were put on board, but the owners would
not let her sail unless they had an assurance that they should
have protection. They also referred to the case of the Adele,
where here Majesty's mails had been broken oPen,in thee.hz•Pe_
to find some letters that would subsequently justifyths:
ti!ne,
of the vessel ; and ultimately the agent offered tueomiLlettene
Government would. at the owner's expense,
au 1"
Ululate v • n
the cases:
ih.realmtuhsalt
tee that she was going upon a
mail agent to go on board with the letter
graran.,,e-
bnogt'°toYa send the
thought the Postmaster was ttetini
rnent ought to have itu-
have done it in all ;but the Gov
t to the W +
mail agent, becauesel,ari_f
reinforcement es. ...Mutt
med lately sent
station and the Gulf, an
that
• forceneant was coming, and he would be held
eh;
rbealal also dn:Ornt notified nt
o
such rem
that no further outrages of that kind
respoesible f were tole-
rated. (cheers.) • lt was a arca to talk of those ships being
dealt with by the prize courts. The condemnation of theg
Ad ela and Peterhoff showed that, though in th
there was an appeal pending He did not
wishe former case
eenntry drift into another war, and therefore itto see the
the British Government should know was right
people would not submit to. (H what the British
ea ,)
to the circumstances that foreign So flagrant were
Americans were trying to
newspapers believed the
been no great difficulty in get us into a war. There had
when became known arranging the affair of the Treat,
what the public feeling was, He
thought the Government of
called the United States ought to be
upon to decide at once, " Do they or do they not
mean to go to war with England P' (Hear.) What could
the English
people think when they remembered the
speeches of Mr. Wilkes at public
eupon inthners, when he went
home fresh from the outra
he would lose no opportunity g of insultinge Itirheen Id that
or destroying a British cargo, wherever he could find the
one or the other." (Hear.) If the Government did not
dare to send the mails or our ships to sea, and our own
merchants were obliged tr apply to foreign Ministers for
a certificate to trade, the sooner the shipowner hoisted
his broom at the masthead the better, so that Com-
vaodoro Wilkes might go and boast all over the world

that ho had driven us from the seas. The Government
ought to see to the matter promptly. He had th it day seen
a newspaper which contained the following advertisement :
"Wanted, a French vessel to load for a good English island
in the West Indies.—Apply to K. and Co., Pudding•laue,
E.C." That was the state of things we had arrived at al-
ready. (Hear, hear.) lie had great confidence in his noble
friend at the head of the Government, but those were mat-
ters that could not be passed over in silence, and it was ne-
cessary they should satisfy Parliament and the country
that they were prepared to uphold the honour of British
merchants and the dignity of the British Crown. (Hear.)
Earl RUSSELL—My noble friend has made a very
warm speech upon this subject, and would be perfectly
justified if the points to which he alluded had been
facts, and were not, for the most part, assumed by him
to be facts. For instance, he stated that various vessels
had been condemned by the Prize Courts,—the Adele, the
Peterhoff, and others. That, certainly, is unknown to me,
because, though the Adela has been condemned by the Prize
Court of Rey West, an appeal has been made ; and with re-
gard to the Peterhoff we have no account that any such
event has taken place. (Hear, hear.) For my own part
instead of proceeding on assumptions, I have thought it my'
duty, in the grave and responsible position which I hold, not
to proceed in any of these cases without seeking in ti..e first
place the best information as to the facts that could be pro-
cured, and in the next place, without referring to the law
officers of the Crown in order to know the character to be
attached to those facts. (Hear.) I have not thought it right
to proceed in matters of such difficulty without taking
soundings at every step. (Hear, hear.) That has been my
course in the various instances to which my noble friend.
has referred. With regard to the Dolphin, 1 thought it ne-
cessary, having received the reports with regard to that
vessel, to refer those reports to the law officers of the Crown,
P,thweirthe
washey saayprisim, tahfatsictiedgoreosunnodtfaoprpseeaizr
nfrreom;
tbtheye pdaopneorts
tahnadtwthhaertet
mseaeyanbye pfraoebtsabulnekrneaoswonn ftoormheerancadptuurnek,
nbouwt,nttoheytbademd
respect to the master of that vessel, which may have afforded
sufficient grounds for sending the vessel to a prize court.
But they say that two evident violations of neutral rights
have taken place with regard to that vessel. They state that
the vessel which took the Dolphin had made use of a neutral
port for the purpose of watching British merchant vessels,
and that as soon as the Dolphin left the port she was imme-
diately pursued, and when she had passed beyond the three
miles of water of the neutral power she was seized by this
United States vessel of war. (Hear, hear.) There is
another point upon which they say there is great reason
for complaint, namely, the taking a part of the clew out of
the vessel and landing them afterwards upon neutral terri-
tory. (Hear.) With regard to these two matters ihey say
there cannot be a doubt her Majesty's Government have a
right to complain; and accordingly, having this day re-
crived their report, which is dated yesterday, I shall irawe-
diately, by the next mail, bring those matters of complaint
under the notice of the United States Government (Hear,)
My noble friend says that this impunity which the United
States have affected to claim is owing to our neglect of out..
rages which have taken place on the part of the United
States. Now, with regard to that particular point to which
the law officers have referred—namely, the unneutral use oil
a neutral port—the placing there of a belligerent vessel to
watch a neutral one and pursue her immediately after her
departure, —a case of that kind took place last year with re-
spect to the Tuscarora. It was immediately brought to the
downaant tde ns tioar iudnl
et
shoabf
that
tt
whh
ehe
officer
United
wh
hSot ate
conducts
had
' committed
should Government;
no ttbhee
permitted,
et let ae, idid;
it could be shown that he had done so, should be censured.
Well, then, again, we complain that in certain cases there
are no searches. With respectto that they say that no ves-
sel was to be seized without a search. They lay it down
"That when that visit is made the vessel is not then to be
seized without a search carefully made so far as to render it
roast nab/e to believe that she is engaged in carrying contra-
band of war to the insurgents and to their ports, or other-
wise violating the blockade; and that if it shall appear that
she is actually bound and passing from ono friendly or so•
called neutral port to another, and not bound or proceeding
to or from a port in the possession of the insurgents, then
she cannot be lawfully seized."

Now, that is the rule which the United States' Secretary of
State has laid down for the guidance of the Secretary to the
Navy, and of the United States' navy itself. Well, then,
it is not fair to assume that, in a case where the rule is ap-
parently violated, the United States are not able to sho w
that the vessel that has been seized was not proceeding
from ono neutral port to another, but that she was proceed-
hag to a port of the belligerent States while apparently on
her way to a neutral port. That is a case which the law
officers of the Crown say frequently occurs. Even sup.-
posing that Admiral Wilkes and other officers have
' violated these rules, we have no reason to assume
that reparation when asked will not be given in
conformity with the rules the United States have
themselves laid down. I do not think, then, it is
convenient—l will say more, I think it tends to interrupt
the friendly relations between the two nations, as soon as
you have a report of an cutrage, to say that the Govern-
ment of a friendly people will act in contravention of the
law of nations; that they meant to commit an offence, and
that they will refuse reparation. (Hear, hear.) On the
contrary, we are bound to assume either that there were
some facts not known to us which will show that the act
was not indefensible, or that the Government of a friendly
nation will, even from regard to its own character, give re-
paration. This, then, is the case of the Dolphin. There
were no apparent prinia,facie grounds for the seizure, and
if it turns out that there weie no grounds then we must not
assume that the United States will refuse to conform to the
rules which they have themselves laid down. (Hear, hear.)
My noble friend adverted to the letter of Mr. Adams which
has appeared in the public prints. I must say that was a
very extraordinary and, in my opinion, a most unwarrant.
able act, and I cannot cone, ive that it can be proper for a
person holding a diplomatic p, sition in this country to issue
such a permit to a vessel. That is making a distinction be-
ween vessels departing from the ports of this country, and
giving a security to one vessel as distinguished from another.,
(Cheers.) It is not possible, as it appears to me, that he can
bestow that favour on one vessel without makic g an in-
vidious and perhaps dangerous distinction as against , ther
vessels. The' e can be no dsubt that the conduct ( f Mr.
Adams is entirely unwarrantable, but I should not think of
complaining to Mr. Adams. I shall bring that conduct
before the consideration of the United States' Government.
(Hear, hear.) It is for them to say in what manner such
an act should be visited. (Cheers.) My noble friend next
went on to name a case which he described fairly enough
according to the facts known to him. But the whole facts
were evidently not known to my noble friend. He spoke of
an interview at the Foreign-office between myself and seve-
ral owners of ships and persons connected with the trade of
the port of London, with respect to vessels sailing to Math-
mores. The account of that interview, although, generally
speaking, fairly given, was certainly marked by many omis-
sions. The persons who came to me complained of this
grievance, They said it might happen that the letter bags
that wore sent by their vessels by the Postmaster-General
might contain letters that were written by persons con-
nected with or favourable to the Federal Government, and
tnat those persons might invent a story that the ship was
conveying stores to the Confederates, that they might put
false names to those letters, that those letters might be
opened, and used as evidence against the vessel, and that
there was not sufficient security against such practices be-
ing resorted to, because they could not avoid taking the
and
smot e
ehbelai
ndi tgtyhmeaf
oraa
my
mail bags, in consequence of shipowners being liable to a
penalty of £2OO if they refused to take the letter bags. They
therefore complained that their ships and cargoes might be
put in danger by acts of her Majesty's Government which
were beyond their control. I considered that matter, and
also a proposal which they made to me that an agent should
be put in charge of the bags, as is done on board the Queen's
nm e dais
,l.hbo
bagu
ul
tds:
packet ships. On consideration there appeared to me
v maulan
nwohti which othersdene without would
consideration.eny
\Av
objections to taking such a courustn
have fallen
have
Ishouldihhbui the f
act
into the same error as that of Mr. AdanistTit
a protection
singled out particular vessels and given
There was, however
e.
o
oto
them,
ete
hmo:b obvious
arpsessatdy;yridao
uce;iarbregireo: hle.s
compelleda
Well,
cowl ue gI
altvwt.vvll i
eTlesr
et eventsehrhal ceisaoeeu
teuvi that
et. lejdp
dider were
epwl
aydast
p •
.jeopardy
and I will master-General
and
youe grievance of which they comp a
toou your
bays been understood out of door
bags to WMaa
ask the Post
noble friend says, 37011 from
danger,to take the mail bavve
shipowners,migl,l,tihiaypepuenl:
tion that we would not send inail
ereafraidp tsa mnaltrrate:
al
of the con-
at liberty to a
ottlat
shall
be
scalya rtao
vessels, sequences
Ike to send mail bags in these
pel you to do so." I hay o so, but we will not corn-
to the Foreign-office b e now in my hand a letter written.
states that, for the y the Postmaster-General, which.
on board any vessel sParils'ent, no ship letter mail shall be put
lull concurrence of the sailing
for Matamoras "unless with the
not Use the compulsory .oeinwmanthder " It is only that we do
r at the law gives us in these
cases. I cOnfese it wouldP have beenive hard upon the owners
of vessels to have refused to them
willthe security for
which they asked. I have no doubtg there
ves-
sels the commanders of which will be ote br
ready
manyd
ekothese letters, but if they do, we ought notg to leaaveytthoemt
to
say they have been put in jeopardy by the act of the Go-
vernment, nor ought the law to be put in force to their in-
jury. My hon. friend states truly that the fears of the
owners of the Sea Queen and other vessels were founded on
what had been done in the case of the Adela—namely, that
the United States had got possession of her letter bags.
Now, in the letter of Mr. Seward, dated Aug. 8, 1162.
there is the following order :--
"And, finally, that official seals or looks or fastenings of
foreign authorities are in no case, nor on any pretext, to be
broken, or parcels covered by them read by any naval au-
thorities of the United States; but all bags or other things
conveying such parcels and duly sealed or fastened by
foreign authorities will be, in the discretion of the United
States' officer to whom they may come, delivered to the
consul, commanding naval officer, or Legation of the foreign.
Government to be opened, upon the understanding that
whatever is contraband or important as evidence concerning
the character of a captured vessel will be remitted to the
Prize Court or to the Secretary of State at Washington; or
such sealed bags or parcels may be at once forwarded to this
department, to the end that the proper authorities of the
foreign Government may receive the same without delay.
The President desires especially that naval officers may be
informed that the fact that a suspected vessel has been ire+
dicated to them as eruiaingin any limit whjahas hew pre-