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

scribed to them by the Navy Department does not in any
way authorise them to depart from the practice of the rules
of visitation, search, and capture prescribed by the law of
nations."

That is the general direction given by the Secretat'y of State
to the Secretary of the United. States Navy, to be forwarded
by him to the officers of the Federal Navy. It may be that
complaints have been made in this country which are not
without foundation; it may be that the United States officers
have not observed these rules, but have gone beyond the
directions that they have received ; it may be that they
have seized vessels that were really going to Mantamoras
or some neutral port without sufficient evidence that the
cargo was of a contraband character. But it does seem to
me, in spite of what my noble friend says, that the Govern-
ment of this country is bound to take a calm view of these
matters, to represent them fairly to the United States Go-
vernment, and not to presume that the Government of the
United States would fail in their duty to a friendly Power,
or that they would countenance outrages which are against
the law of nations. These representation-is will be made,
and I expect that, if they are just, reparation will not be
refused. (Hear.) 1 have already said that what took place
at the interview which I had with the shipowners has not
been fully given. One mistake has certainly been made.
It is said that I expressed surprise at the information
that certain British subjects had been made prisoners
and detained in a place of confinement by the authorities of
the United States. I certainly did not express any such sur-
prise, for I had been reading that very morning the repre-
sentations not only of our consuls but of those British sub-
jects themselves who had been so detained, and detained
apparently with great and unnecessary harshness, the object
being merely to detain them in order that they might Rive
evidence in the Prize Court. It cannot be doubted that there
are precedents showing that when a case h brought before
the Prize Court the master of the vessel may give evidence
of the real character of the cargo and the destination of the
vessel, and that he may be detained for that purpose. But it
seems to me that the United States' authorities have gone
beyond what they fairly had a right to do When we were
belligerents many eases involving belligerent and neutral
rights were brought before a very eminent judge, whose de-
cisions aro generally and universally respected; and though
I believe he carried the principle favourable to captors to
perhaps rather a severe length, beyond doubt they were in
conformity with the law of nations. I allude to Lord Stowell.
We were the belligerents; we are row neutrals. But I said
I thought it would not become the character of this nation,
because we had changed our position, to invoke another law
end anether measure (cheers); to denier° that thee. doeiainr.a
of Lord Stowell which were advantageous to us when we were
beiligerents should be thrown aside and rejected by us when
we bscame neutrals. (Cheers.) Accordingly, those persons
who think that, whatever may be the destination of a ship,and
whatever papers she may have on board showing that she is
about to break the blockade, or to carry arms to some one of
the Confederate States now in hostility with the United
States, they are to be protected by the power of the British
nation in contradiction to all our own decisions, and in con-
tradiction to the declared law of nations, wile I hope, know
that the British Government never will place itself in that
position. (Cheers.) Let us look impartially at these cases
which have occurred. It may be that we have suffered
grievous wrong; it nay be that we have a right to consi-
derable reparation ; but let the two Governments treat the
cases fairly. We have on this side of the Atlantic the de-
cisions of a great Judge; in America they have the views
laid down by Judge Story and the writings of Mr. Whea-
ton. With these authorities to guide us, let us see who is
in the right and who is in the wrong. But let us discuss
the circumstances with a wish to do justice to each other.
Don't let us be led by passion into anything which is not
founded on justice, and which cannot afterwards be justified
in the face of the world. (Cheers.)
The Earl of CARN &RYON said he was anxious to ob-
tain from his noble friend an explanation of one part of the
observations he had addressed to their lordships. In reca-
pitulating the circumstances connected with the Sea Queen,
Itio noble, friend stated that the owners of the vessel com-
plained of the difficulty in which they were placed by the
apprehension that they might ultimately be compromised
by the supposed contents of the mail-bags, which might
induce American cruisers to commit acts of aggression.
The terms of that answer appeared to imply a certain
doubt or confusion in the mind of his noble friend with
regard to the supposed right of the American Govern-
ment to arrest any ship, to open any mail-bags, or to take
from them treasonable correspondence which they might
contain. He spoke under the correction of noble and
learned lords present when he ventured to say that no
amount of treasonable correspondence within those bags,
once they were sealed with the broad seal of England, would
warrant the officers of any foreign Power in stopping the
vessels in conveying those bags, in breaking the seals,
and in taking from them the letters which were therein.
(Cheers.) Why, in the letter which had been read from Mr.
Seward he distinctly disclaimed any such right, and said it
should not be exercised. (Hear, hear.) But according to
the inference which might be drawn from the answer of his
noble friend, it was obvious that a ship passing from Dover
to Calais, and happening to have treasonable correspond-
ence on board, would be just as liable to capture by Ame-
rican cruisers as vessels sailing between Nassau and Mata-
moros, Nassau and Liverpool, or any other neutral ports.
He hosed his noble friend would be able to explain the
unelerisfactory impression which had been created by his
words. (Hear, hear.)
Earl RUSSELL--I did not for a moment suppose that
All American naval officer would have a right to open these
bags. But the members of the deputation said such a thing
might happen against law or justice, and I thought it was
ray duty to relieve them from a fear of that kind as far as
possible. Mr. Seward had, in fact, admitted, as my noble
friend has said, that such a proceeding would net be regular,
and had given orders to stop it.
The Earl of DERBY—But the admission made by the
Government that there was reason to suppose the United
States' officers might commit an illegal act—an admission
which was involved in their relieving these vessels from the
necessity of carrying the mail bags—does imply a sort of con-
templation on their part of the prebability of that illegal ace,
without any accompanying declaration that such an act, if
attempted, must call for the intervention and very serious
notice of her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) I think
the noble earl was quite right in refusing to put a mail
agent on board these vessels, because he could not appoint
one to a particular ship without likewise sending out agents
in all the others, or without exposing those which had not
an agent on board to still greater risks than they at present
incur. (Hear, hear.) But I think he was to blame in ad-
mitting as a ground of exemption from the duty of carrying
the mail-bags, and that a practical and serious injury was
done to British commerce in admitting that there was a
risk of officers of the American Government so misconduct-
ing themselves as to take these vessels, and to break open
the mail-bags on board. I think we ought to have held this
language, that shipowners were bound to carry the mails,
and that we were bound to protect our commerce in the in-
stance of those vessels, Of this 1 am quite sure—that if
those vessels had been captured, whatever might be the
esult of the investigation, this country would never have
submitted quietly to acts affording so serious a ground for
eomplaint against the American Government.
Earl RUSSELL—No doubt there would be a serious
ground of complaint, and I will not suppose that the United
States Government would sanction such a proceeding, But
we have seen, both in the case of the Tuscarora and in that
Which happened the other day, that naval officers have acted
in entire contravention of Mr. Seward's desire, and therefore
I certainly did suppose it possible that some United States
officer might in this respect likewise violate the general rules
and directions of the American Secretary of State. I there-
fore thought it might have been a very harsh operation to
rut in force against gentlemen who made these representa-
tions to use the compulsory powers as regards the carriage
of mails which are in the hands of the Government. (Hear.)
The Earl of DERBY—The noble earl says he does not
mean to contend that the United States Government would
have sanctioned such a proceeding, but he does think it pos-
eible that without the sanction of that Government some
indiscreet officer might adopt this unwarrantablefzm thecobreurat
Evidently the danger which was apprehended
ins open the mail-bags was that letters would be discovered
lead to the condemnation of the vessel.
Earl RUSSELL—I did not say the condemnation.
The Reel of DERBY—WeII, if not exposed to condem-
nation, What was the injury done by having the letter-bags
on board? (Cheers,) If the vessel was subjected to no greater
inconvenience teem carrying the letter-bags than she would
have been it she carried no mails at all, I do not see what
was the ground for exetapting her from liability to perform
this duty. (Cheers.) But I understand the case to be
argued on the ground of the risk which it is supposed would
he incurred if an officer of the United States' Navy by an
illegal act obtained possession of traitorous correspondence
on board a British ship. Does the noble lord mean to admit
that if such a course were pursued this country would re-
..oenise the right of the United States to condemn the yes-
eel on evidence so procured, which could not be legally
bra ught into court ? (Cheers.) Would he not be bound to
protest against the use of information acquired in such a
',tanner, as well as against the original act of illegality
;. self ? (Hear.)
Earl RUSSELL—There can be no doubt that we should
have a very good ground of complaint, and that we should
have a right to redress, which, no doubt, would be afforded,
But, of course, very serious injury would ensue meanwhile
to the owners of the vessel through her being taken first to
Key West, and afterwards to some other port, possibly to
Boston or New York.- (Hear,)

Earl GREY thought it was much to be regretted that his
lordship did not explain himself more clearly. If a mail bag
were opened, we ought to insist on full reparation for any
105.4 that might be occasioned._

Lord STAN LE Y of ALDERLEY wished to a
explain that
pitting mail bags on board a ship in that way didnotbindt
her to any particular course on the voyage, or prohibit her
at a Confederate port if she could, There was no
compulsory contract as to that.
Lord WODEFIOUSE said it ought to be clearly under-
stood that a vessel going from London to Matamoras ought
not to be questioned by any Ilnited States vessel whatever.
(Heart hear.) The only way to preserve peace with the
.ttnoricans was not to abate one jot or tittle of our own
"Oats, while we carefully respected the rights of others.
GRANVILLE quite approved of the course pur-
nu a by the noble earl. Any other would have been neither
wise for Pradent.
Lord REDBBD ALE also thought it was to be regretted