The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-19 00:00:00

'ERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OP LORDS—Last Evening.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.
THE WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.
In reply to Lord CHELMSFORD,
Earl GRANVILLE said he proposed on Thursday
next to move, that the house at its rising do adjourn till
the following Monday week.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Blackfriars Bridge, Elsecar, Wentworth, and Hey-
land Gas, Exeter Gaol, and Tees Conservancy Bills were
read a second time,

THIRD READINGS.
St. Ives and Weet Cornwall Junction Railway, La Iv Life
Assurance Society, Irish North-Western Railway, and
Cheltenham Roads Bills were read a third time and passed.
DUBLIN METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
The Earl of CLANCARTY moved that it be read a
third time that day six months.
Lord LLANOVER said—Having been chairman of the
committee to which the bill had been referred, he was of
opinion that the proposals of the noble earl to refer
the wh, le quest:cm involved in this bill to a
royal commission, or else to have it recommitted,
were quite unnecesary. The committee had taken the
grea'cst care in the consideration of the various clauses of
the measure, and they thought it would be a great
gain far Ireland to have a through line with-
out break from Kingston to Dublin and Cork on the
one hand, and Galway and the ncrth on the other. That
was the precise question their lordships would have to
consider, and he hoped as the committee had passed the bill,
the house would reject the motion of the noble lord.
The Earl of B.NDON and Lord BELUORE objected to the
third reading.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought the same con-
sideration that was given to the proposals regarding
the City of London ought to be extended to Ire-
land. It was too much, he thought, to say that because
Dublin was smaller than London, it ought not to be treated
in the same way.
Lord REDESDALE said the opposition had come too
late. The objection to the measure ought to have been
raised before the bill had arrived at its last stage. He
thought the house ought to support the decision of the com-
mittee, and read the bid a third time.
Their lordships divided--
For the third reading
Against
Majority
The bill 'was then read and passed.
METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.
Lard CAMPBELL asked whether the Government in-
tended to appoint a commission upon the proposed metro-
politan railways similar to that of 1846 ?

Earl GRANVILLE could not hold out any hope that the
Government would recommend the appointment of any
such commission ; at all events, not until after the report
of the present select committee had been received.

NORTH AMERICAN PRIZE COURTS.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE rose to move for copies
of the reports of consular and diplomatic agents is North
America as to the decisions and proceedings of the prize
courts of North America, The noble marquis said he was
aware he was approaching a delicate question, but the whole
commerce of the country was in such a sate of confusion
on the subject that interference of any kind must be ac-
ceptable to the shipping interest. He then quoted the
cases of the Labuan, the Springbok, the Adela, the Peter-
hoff, and other vessels, which had been seized for a long
time, and had not been adjudicated upon till now. The
noble marquis also called attention to the recent proclama-
tion of the American Government, by which British ships
Were prevented from carrying coal, and a large number of
other articles, from any of the British North American
ports to any part on the American coast south of the 11,13 a.
mas, from whence it might be suspected they would be
carried for the use of the Confederates. When there had
been mention made lately of sending a fleet to the West
Indies, the noble earl (Earl Russell) told them that we
were at peace and not at war. Did the noble earl mean to
say that that was peace, when our trade was stopped and
our flag insulted in a most irritating manner ?

Earl RUSSELL—My noble friend has made a speech
bringing very grave charges against the American Govern-
ment and the American prize courts. He has broaght, in
fact, a charge that the American Government and the
American Courts appointed for the purpose of judging these
questions of capture and prize have set aside the whole in-
ternational law of the world—that they have given orders
quite inconsistent with that international law, and he more
than once stated that they had decided that they would in-
terrupt British commerce ; that commerce might be as law-
ful as they pleased, that it might be as fair commerce as
could be carried on upon the seas, but the American Go-
vernment had decided that they would interrupt and put an
end to it. Well, in one of those sentences my noble friend
put in the word " almost," and that, like the word " if," is
a great peacemaker ; so that they have not quite decided to
put an end to British commerce. (A. laugh.) But when my
noble friend came to give proofs of his assertion I thought
he very much failed in so doing. There were, I think, three
proofs on which he relied. One was in re; and to the Labuan.
That ship was taken in the neutral waters of Mexico, and
therefore Lord Lyons asked that both the usual and ordi-
nary course of sending it before a Prize Court should not be
pursued, but that it should be set free. But it was stated
afterwards to us that the American Government did not
claim a right to seize ships in neutral waters, but that there
were great doubts thrown upon the facts ; that it was as-
serted that the particular position in which the Labuan was
found was not in Mexican waters, but in the waters of the
United States, off Texas ; and, therefore, that the question
must go before a Prize Court. Another proof of my noble
friend related to an assertion of Mr. Adams. Mr. Adams,
speaking in this country, and not concerned with the
particular details of capture, it appeared, said on one
occasion that it was no wonder certain merchant
ships had been taken, because they were in the
position in which many ships had teen found intent on
breaking the blockade, and on carrying contraband
goods to the enemies of the United States. Well,
of course Mr. Adams did not mean that that was sufficient
ground of capture, and his own Government, on a represen-
tation which had been made to Mr Seward, have said that
they would direct that no merchant ship should be stopped
in neutral waters, and also that it should be no sufficient
ground for capture that information had been given that a
ship was about to break the blockade or was carrying con-
traband to the enemy, but that there must be a regular
search, and there must be, as the result of that search, a legal
cause of capture before the vessel could be taken and sent
tefore aPrize Court. So far from denying the principles of
the law of nations, Mr. Secretary Seward fully and com-
pletely acknowledged them The only doubt I had was whe-
ther the officers of the United States navy were in every
case instructed according to the declarations of the Secretary
of State and to the instructions he had given, by order of
the President, to the Secretary of the Navy; and for that
reason, having had some doubts on the subject in the case
of the Labuan, I desired the Admiralty to instruct Admiral
Milne to send a ship or ships of war to Mexican waters, that
British merchantmen in those neutral waters might be pro-
tected from unjustifiable seizure. Well, it does not appear
that there have been since that time in the waters of Mexico
any seizures of which any great complaint can be made.
There certainly was a report which the Admiralty sent the
other day to the Foreign Office from one of the captains of
our men-of-war, who had been at Matamoras, and which
said that that port was crowded with merchant vessels en-
gaged in carrying on a commerce which now exists between
this country and various countries of Europe and the
Mexican side of the Rio del Norte. The next proof that
my noble friend gives is the assertion of a United States
captain with respect to the ships which he should take. But
I submit that the assertion of a captain as to what he should
de—that any idle boast or loose words of such a person about
what ho feels authorised or intends to do, do not bind the
United States' Government or the United States' Prize
Courts to his doctrine. And I must hold that it would be a
scat unjustifiable inference if my noble friend, having no-
thing to prove his case but the assertion of some naval cap.
L.Bit,_should say that the United States' Government and
the t
United States' tribunals, being bound to do justice ac-
cording to the
law of nations have entirely thrown aside
the law of nations,
and are prepared, against law and against
justice, to intertltßritish ships carrying on a legitimate
trade.
The Marquis of CLAzaticAßDE__l quoted, not what
the captain said he would do, but the official report of what
he had done.
Earl RUSSELL—WeII, that Was his report of what he
had done and his justification of it,
Then my noble friend
went into various ease, into which I ceerutaY don't mean
to follow him. But he referred to certain
decisions
said had been made. The case of the
Adelans
been
brought under the notice of the Foreign-oleo with r
to the judgment stated to have been given—a jades!'"
which, if true, would be a very improper one. But on
ceontn
suiting the law officers of the Crown, and receiving their
report as to the legal effect of the matters submitted to them,
I desired Mr. Hammond to write a letter to the owners of
the Peterhoff, in which there was this passage :—.

"As regards the allusion which has been made to the
of the Adele, before her Majesty's Government can ;oar"
any opinion as to the judgment stated to have been given
in that case, they must have before them a correct report of
that judgment, it being impossible to rely upon the general
representation of its effect contained in a newspaper para-
graph, founded on printed letters, especially as none of the
other judgments of the United States' Prize Courts, which
have been reported to her .Majesty's Government during
the present war evince any disregard of the established
principles of international law."
I desired Mr. Hamm-2nd to write than letter, because such
was.the substance of the report of the law officers of the
Crown. I have been careful to refer every case of complaint
that might come to us, whether through Lord Lyons or
from the owners of vessels, to the law officers of the Crown,
and they, after attentively watching all these decisions, say
there has been no rational ground of complaint as to the
judgments of the American Prize Courts. My noble friend,
reviewing the proceedings connected with the trial in the
case of the Peterhoff, declares on his own authority that the
u l'nort pronouncinc, a certain person to be an alien enemy
of the 'united States is a wrong decision, and he wishes the

Government of this country to proceed upon the judicial
determination that that dac'sion of the United States court
is erroneous, 'Well, it may have been erroneous, but I con-
fess myself totally unable to judge whether : was right
or wrong. But this I say, that a great cou '1 y like the
United States having tribunals constituted older its own
laws for the determination of these que ,Loris of prizes,
those tribunals are not at once to be held 0 !;e of no value,
and to have decided against the law of nations. On the
contrary, our presumption must be that as their knowledge
of international law is very great, so their impartiality and
their desire to do justice must be for the present unques-
tioned. We may be told, and it has been very often re-
peated, that a judge sitting in a national court, and bound
to decide according to the law of nations, decide for all
other nations interested in these questions of interna-
tional law—that he does not decide solely for the benefit
of England or of any one other country. Lord Stowell,
in the great Swedish case, said, " I am saying in a Bri-
tish court what I would have said if I had been a judge in
a Swedish court, and have felt myself compelled to decide
according to the law of nations, and the authority of
great jurists and established precedents." Are ae to sup-
pose that the judges of the United States courts, who are
always quoted with respect and often with admiration by
the great text writers on international law, whether in
Europe or America—are we at once to conclude, because a
navy captain has given a very faulty account of his cap-
tures, and because in one or two cases wrong has evidently
been done, that the courts of the United States have sunk
into such a state of degradation that they will not do jus-
tice to the subjects of another country ? My noble friend
says that many of these vessels have been taken on very
slight suspicion, and that this shows a foregone conclusion
to interrupt British traders going to the colonies or to Ma-
tamoras on lawful voyages. With respect to that matter, I
must ask this house to attend a little to circumstances which
have evidently escaped my noble friend. Those circum-
stances are these : —lt has been a most profitable business
to send swift vessels to break or run the blockade of the
Southern ports, and carry their cargoes into those ports.
There is no municipal law in this or any country to punish
such an act as an offence. I understand that every cargo
which runs the blockade and enters Charleston is worth a
million dollars, and that the profit on these transactions is
immense. It is well known that this trade has attracted a
great deal of attention in this country from those who have
a keen eye to such gains, and that vessels have been sent
in the one case to Nassau, in order to break the blockade
at Charleston, Wilmington, and other places, and carry
contraband of war into some of the ports of the Southern
States. 'Well, is it wonderful—is it a matter of which we
can complain—that the cruisers of the United States look
with suspicion upon vessels that are bound to Nassau, or
are going from Nassau—that they very frequently stop
them to ascertain fie m their papers whether they are not
intending to break the blockade, or carry contraband of
war to certain Southern ports ? Well, there are two posi-
tions in which some of these vessels are placed. They
are sent out with a view to an attempt to break the
blockade, and directions are given among the ships' papers
that they are to break it. That is one position, in which
they very often make a most fortunate voyage and lucrative
trade; and they exult exceedingly on the immense gains
they make. But there is another position in which the
owners of such a vessel sometimes find themselves—viz.,
that their vessel is captured, when the owner immediately
comes to the Foreign-office with all the air of injured inno-
cence—(a laugh)—declares that nothing was further from
his thoughts than the breaking of the blockade, and asks
that the strongest representations may be made to the Ame-
rican Government on his behalf. There are some instances
in which I have no doubt the American cruizers have acted
upon slight suspicion, and had no claim to seize the vessel,
but that they should look with jealousy upon such cases as
I have mentioned is by no means wonderful. We must be
somewhat cautious in believing all the reports which are
made to the Foreign-office by the owners of ships. Above
all, I certainly am not prepared to declare, nor is there any
ground for declaring, that the Courts of the United States
do not faithfully administer the law, that they will not
allow evidence making against the captors, or that they are
likely to give decisions founded, not upon law, but upon
their own passions and national partialities. Another case,
into which I need not enter, is that of certain cargoes going
from New York, and alleged to be contraband of war. The
American Government say they will not allow American
ships to leave New York with certain goods bound for certain
ports, and, because they will not allow their own vessels
therefore they will prevent British ships. We have argued:
on the other hand, that the municipal law is not sufficient
in the case of British vessels; and I think our argument is
conclusive. My noble friend having introduced this subject
very generally, I may state, in justice to Mr. Adams, that
he thinks that what he did lately with respect to vessels
going to the Mexican coast has not been accurately repre-
sented by me in the statement I addressed to your lordships
some time ago. He says it would appear from my state-
ment as if he had proposed to interfere with British vessels,
giving an advantage to one British ship over another, sup-
plying a sort of certificate of character to some merchants
as against others. Now, Mr. Adams assures me he never
intended to give any such advantage to one British vessel
over another, but he thinks he had a perfect right to give
certificates to American citizens with a view to a trade with
Mexico. I do not know, of course, whether any person sup-
posed from my statement that Flriti.l. ~,,gQ4AIR wrra fn tao in-
terfered with by Mr, Adams. Upon that point his own
letter was not quite clear, but I confess my own opinion is
that the letter was one which ought never to have been
written. (Hear, hear.) I may mention that the French
Government were somewhat surprised at seeing an enter-
prise against the French in Mexico. spoken of rather in
terms of praise by the American Minister in this country—
(a laugh)—but they were satisfied the American Govern-
ment did not know anything of the matter, and, therefore,
did not think it necessary to take those measures which
in other circumstances they might have adopted. (Hear,
hear.) With respect, then, to the complaint of the noble
marquis, although in some cases we have reason to think the
American cruisers were wrong, yet, on the whole the in-
dictment of my noble friend is not borne out, and there is
certainly nothing to justify his charges against the Ame-
rican Government, as represented by the President and the
Secretary of State, or against the American courts of law.
We must wait and see what is the whole proceeding in the
case of the Peterhoff and other vessels before we can judge
fairly of their conduct. Meanwhile, Ido not think it would
be right in compliance with the request of the noble mar-
quis to give such loose reports as we have from newspapers
of the proceedings of the American Prize Courts. If we
are to give anything to Parliament at all—and for my own
part, I confess I think it extremely doubtful whether we
should publish the proceedings of foreign courts—we should
at all events take care that the reports are full and authen-
tic. (Hear, hear.) When we get authentic reports, there
may, perhaps, be no objection to their production, should
your lordships desire to see them ; but, in the meantime, we
have no papers to lay on the table. A few more words and
I have done. Let it be remembered that there is immense
excitement in America about the proceedings of the Alabama
and Oreto, which the Americans say have been fitted out
and armed with the connivance of the British Government,
and which are preying upon American commerce. I do not
think that charge can be justified. The Foreign Enlistment
Act is liable to be evaded by a ship being built here as a
merchant ship and then taken elsewhere to be armed ; but
still there is a strong opinion in America that the British
Government intends to prey upon American commerce and
take part in the war ; while here, on the other hand, there
is just as strong and, I believe, quite as sincere an opinion
that the American cruisers are preying upon British com-
merce, I cannot help thinking that the two nations are
somewhat in the ease of the two respectable persons who last
winter, when great alarm prevailed about garotting, met and
attacked each other in the belief that each was a garotter.
(A. laugh.) Your lordships will recollect reading in the
newspapers how one of them, calling upon a friend rater in
the same evening, complained of having been attacked by
garotters, and how his friend condoled with him, saying
that his own son was in bed upstairs suffering from a simi-
lar assault. Then, you will remember, it turned out that
the two had mutually taken each other for garotters and
had punished each other rather severely, (A. laugh.) So
it is, I think, with America and this country. They are a
little excited in the same way, but I am convinced the
American Government do not really intend to di-turb our
commerce ; while I am certain that neither the British Go-
vernment nor the British nation have any wish to interfere
in the contest now going on in America. (Hear, hear.) I
hope that, as in the case of the sham garotters, they will
eventually be reconciled to each other, and that, seeing they
are old and respectable friends, the little passing excitement
under which they now labour will speedily end in the re-
storation of their ancient amity. (Cheers.)
that iHe
has
e the
The Earl of DERBY—I think the noble earl has satis-
trhaesnhloybiteomaassruqumise,
shown clearlyansweredthat
theremarksof
ought
ot
law and justice, and that we should make every allowance
for the provocation which the Americans must feel from the
large extent to which a contraband trade has been carried
on with Confederate ports. There are two points, how-
ever, upon which I should be glad to have a word of expla-
nation. In the first place, did I understand the noble earl to
say that there were cases in which British merchants had ap-
plied for the interference of our Government, though it subse-
quently appeared that among the ship's papers were instruc-
tions actually directing them to break the blockade ? I can
hardly imagine that there haveth been such cases. I suppose
I must have misunderstood
nleeadvertopuhterondbeotaenrdtiohnis.the noble earl, because, setting
shipon
ar et 3. ye a
aside other considerations, surely British merchant would
paperothwehich must inevitably
be glad to hear that I have misunderstood the noble earl.
Point, also, I shall
There may be some reason to believe thar'l
of the cargoes from this country to Nassaau arana
ugdei proportionileieate e o
onlisiugtneddoiens the negobileemiieacanarl
na are intended t etnhdee d
Confederate ultimately
States, be c
mean to say that on account of that suspicion the American
cruisers are entitled to seize a vessel proceeding in thatn
direction ? If the vessel be really and in good faith bound
for Nassau, whatever may be the character of her cargo, or
whatever suspicion there may be as to her ultimate destina-
tion, the cruisers have no right to capture her. I hope the
noble earl has not conceded to the American Government
anything like an acknowledgment that render these circum-
stances they are justified in interfering with a vessel sailing
from one neutral port to another, whatever grounds of