The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-11 00:00:00

IMI PE lAL PARLIAM EN T

HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY,
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on th© woolsack
to tho) usual hour.

POLAND.

The Marquis of NORMANB Y presented petitions from
Vottingham and Bolton, expressing sympathy with Poland.

IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH. SUBJECTS.

The Earl of CARNARVON said he was most anxious
to put a question to the noble earl opposite, relative to the
notice which he had given him previously, On
Friday last ho had referred to the imprisonment of
a Canadian subject, under a warrant from Mr,
Seward. Since that day he had 1-arned that
three other British subjects, had been detained in a
Federal fortress, and that all liberation was denied until the
oath of allegiance to the United States was taken, Re
thought if such was the fact the Government ought to take
the most energetic steps to prevent such seizures for the
future. The names of two of the parties were Charles
Reed of Savannah from Liverpcool, Andrew Low, and an-
other person, whose name he did not at the moment
remember.

Earl RUSSELL said—l think the noble earl can henna'
have read the papers that have been laid on the table of the
house by command of her Majesty. There has been a cor-
respondence between Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward told be-
tween the British and American Governments on this sub-
jeot, and in the statement the noble earl has made I think
he has hardly taken into account the very critical circum-
stences in which the Government of the United States was
placed. In the spring of last year nine States of the Fede-
ration declared war against the Federal Government. Now,
it has been usual for all Governments in such circumstances
to imprison on suspicion the persons of those who they con-
eider are taking part in the war against them. Not many
years ago, in 1848, when a conspiracy existed in Ireland for
the purpose of overturning the authority of her Majesty's
Government, the Secretary of State applied to the other
House of Parliament for a suspension of the habeas corpus,
and, consequently, the power of arresting persons on sus-
picion of treasonable practices. After that date there occur-
red two cases in which American citizens wore arrested in
Ireland by order of the Secretary of State. On those two
cased representations were made to her Majesty's Govern-
ment by the Government of the United States. Lord Pal-
merston replied, that with regard to those two persons, the
British Government had full information that they were at
the time engaged in an attempt to subvert the authority of
the Sovereign. Those persons, I believe, were neverbrought
to trial; I never heard of their having been tried. They
were arrested, and detained solely by the authority vested
in the Crown by Parliament. No doubt complaints have
been made by certain British subjects in America that they
had been arrested on suspicion, only on the order, and by
the authority of the Secretary of State of the Federal Go-
vernment. I directed Lord Lyons to represent these cases
to Mr. Seward, and, as especially with regard to one of
them, it appeared that there had been very light grounds
for the suspicion, I thought an inquiry into them ought
not to be delayed. I do not vindicate the act
of the American Government in any of these cases ;
whether it had good, or only light grounds for its suspi-
cions, I am not here to say. It is not nay business to un-
dertake the defence of the American Government in this
house. But it is contended that the constitution of the
United States gives the President a power, under certain
circumstances, to arrest persons on suspicion and confine
them in prison during his will and pleasure. This question
has been much debated in America. Some high legal autho •
lilies say that the Act of habeas corpus cannot be suspended
by the President alone ; but, on the other hand, lawyers
have maintained the contrary opinion. I have received within
the last few days a pamphlet written by a gentleman at the
head of the bar of America) !.i which it is argued, with
much ingenuity, that the writ of habeas corpus can be sus-
pended without the 'assent of Congress, and by order of the
President alone. The question has been brought before
Congress itseU; a resolution was proposed that the act of
the Pre...'ident should be sanctioned by the Legislature ;
but 'A 'was contended that such a resolution was without
any precedent to support it, and a majority decided thatthe
question should not be discussed. With regard to the par-
ticular acts which Mr. Seward, under the sanction of the
President, has authorized, in the arrests of British subjects,
as well as American citizens,l am not here to defend them.
But I think the authority to make such arrests is one that
mint belong to some person in the Government of the
United States, if it believes that the parties are engaged in
a treasonable conspiracy against it, either by furnishing
arms to the enemy or acting as spies. As to many of these
cases, I believe there has been what was very likely to
occur—some unnecessary suspicion and some ill-treatment.
But I do not find that in any of these cases there has
existed any disposition on the part of the American Govern •
went to prevent the British consuls from having access to
prisoners, or to prevent them from stating their complaints
to Lord Lyons ; nor do I find that Lord Lyons has been
slow in representing them to the American Government.
I understand that attending to those cases has taken up
a great part of his time. Nor can I say that
Mr. Seward has refused to listen to those com-
plaints. Whether these parties were or were not engaged
in treasonable practices against the Government is a ques-
tion upon which we cannot enter. The noble earl says the
arrests were illegal, and that the present detention of the
parties in prison is illegal. That is more than I can ven-
ture to say. I cannot venture to say that, supposing these
persons were engaged in treasonable practices, the Presi-
dent has not the power to arrest them. That is a stronger
denial of the opinion of the Jaw officers of the United States
than I can venture to give. We all know that since the
time when the American States were divided much sym-
pathy has been shown in this country, both with one side
and the other. Some have shown a strong sympathy with
the North, while others have displayed an equally strong
sympathy with the South. It is quite impossible for the
Government to say, without knowing the circumstances,
that these persons were not connected with the Confede-
rates. In some of these cases I shought it quite evident
that the persons arrested had not been engaged in any
conspiracy. One gentleman happened to be partner in a
firm the other member of which had great connexions with
the South and had Southern sympathies. But the gentle-
man himself was always a staunch supporter of the Union,
and his arrest was induced merely by the circumstance of
letters having been sent through his firm. I thought that
very arbitrary and unjust. Mr. Seward said ho thought
the circumstances were sufficient to create suspicion, but as
soon as it was ascertained that there was no ground for the
suspicion this gentleman was released. A mere release
however, was far from being adt.quate compensation to him,
because he was a person in a most respectable position,
and for such a person to be arrested and kept in a close
pti-on for several days is a grievance of which
any Government has a right to complain. Beyond
the right of complaint, however, and beyond the
content interference of Lord Lyons, whenever cause is
shown to him, I do not know in the present state
of things what further course is to be taken. The
noble earl mentioned three cases, and among them was
that et' Mr. Green. This gentleman stated that he desired
no action to be taken by his friends in England with refer-
ence to his arrest, as Lord l yons was possessed of the lead-
ing facts of his case, and in due time they would receive in-
vestigation. The result of the whole matte: is that there
have been many cases of arbitrary imprisonment, and that
these cases have occurred when the Government of the
United States are engaged in a civil war, perhaps one of the
most serious and formidable in which any country was ever
engaged. It is not fur us to decide the right or wrong of
the case, but I think we must admit that all the arts which
are used by civilised nations against each other in time of
war are open to both the belligerents bare. With regard to
these arrests, I believe that to whatever it may be owing—
'whether to the novelty of the thing in North America, to
the inexperience of the persons intrusted with the duty of
exc. cising this power, or to the circumstance that arbi rary
power can never be safely intrusted to any one, and if so in-
trusted is sure to be abused—however this may be, I believe
there has been much abuse of the power of arbitrary arrest.
(Hear, hear.) This I can only say, that every case where an
appeal has been made to the British Minister has been sedu-
lously attended to, and has been brought before the Ame-
rican Government. In every case also where reasonable
cause of complaint can be shown I shall be always ready, if
the larrs to instruct Lord Lyons to bring the matter under
eration of the United States Government. Lord
Lyons has never •
himself, I
think, been wanting in that duty. He has shown
and Ilf,
trust that respect, vigilant British Minister,
your lordsip cwillnot be of opinion that
these cases have been
neglected by the Government of this
country. (Hear, near.)
Te Earl of DERliy_e
tihaemtsorry to find that the noble
earths not able to answer
staotement made by my noble
friend, and that he seenied cask some censure upon
my noble friend for having troll
brought this subject to your
lordships' attention with a
arrests 4
Nxporwesslion of opinion
as to the illegality of these
munstblsay that
it was difficult to listen to the statement
of
'without being excited to the highest degree oyf indignation°e friend
at the gross outrages thus inflicted upon British
aub.ces
(Hear, hear.) am willing to admit that every allowancej
should be made for the circumstances of difficulty in which
the American Government is placed and the exigencies of
the civil war in which they aro engaged ; but I must say
that the course they have pursued respecting British sub-
jects in America, notwithstanding the remonstrances from
time to time addressed to them by Lord Lyons—and I am
sure no thought was further from my noble Heed's mind
than to cast the slightestupon Lord Lyons, who
seems to have performed his censure
diuffirceult duties at Washington
with firmness and with prudence—(hear)—l say that the
treatment of British subjects by the American Government
has been such as highly to try the patience
strong language
ience of this country.
(Hear.) I think we are justified in using
upon the course thus pursued by the American Government,
considering more especially that on some former occasions
her Majesty's present advisers have not been slack to assert
or slow to vindicate the civis Romerirts doctrine professed
by the noble lord now at the head of the Government.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) In this instance, however, the
civis Romanus does not appear to have derived a great deal
of benefit from his citizenship. (Laughter.) In the course
of his correspondence with Mr. Seward the noble earl seems
to have invoked against these proceedings the protection
of American law, declaring that he had no right to re-

sist, with regard ta Briliala subjects, that which the law
sanctioned With Yegard to American citizens; but the ques-
tion was, did the law sanction these proceedings P The
noble earl, however, acquieseed,2nntelateclly when the Ame-
rican Secretary cf State replied that he did not feel botuad
to accept from a British Minister hie Aplanatiott of the
American Constitution. No*, t wish to ckli a question,
raised by my feeble friend, which the noble earl very con-
veniently thought it unnecessary to answer, He gates that
Congress had passed a reaolutien all-Ming the course taken
by the President in impending the h4beas (corpas. Earl
Russ= —Virtually affirming it.] Well, Virtually affirm-
ing it. No law can be shown to support the President's
exercise of the power, and a number of the most leerted and
able judges in the States have denied that he possesses any
such power, although the action of the judges at the present
moment le Object to rather unusual restrittiente (Hear,
and laughter.) At present thetrrdta there exists no appeal
with respect to the !eve of the United States, kit the noble
earl says that virtually Congress has affirmed that the Pre-
silent possesses by the constitution, whetleVet• hethinks fit,
the power of suspending the haltem yOrpus without reference
to Congress or to any authority other than his own discre-
tion. Certainly, for a very free Government and pure de-
mecracy, I do not think that is a very happy state of law
to live under, and it does not seem to afford a very strong
illustration of the superior happiness which the American
people enjoy over those whose lot is cast under the old
monarchies. (Hear.) The noble earl has shown that in
Ireland the habeas corpus has been suspended by the autho-
rity of Parliament, and that the Lord Lieutenant has exer-
cised the right thus conferred upon him, even in the case
of American citizens. But what I want to know is, can he
show us any British or any American precedent where upon
su la an arrest it has been required as a condition, not of
release, but of being brought to trial, that the person ar-
rested should forswear allegiance to his own country.
(Cheers) The noble earl has not denied that this indivi-
dual was called upon, as a condition of being brought to
trial, to for feit hp nationality, and that he was only laughed
at when he stated that he was a British subject. Even
admitting that we have no right to question the American
interpretation of American law, admitting the doctrine that
the President may at any time, under circumstances of
suspicion, exercise the power of suspending the habeas
corpus without the sanction of Congress, I think the noble
earl will be at a loss to point out any law or precedent by
which a person may be called upon to forfeit his nationality
and swear allegiance to another country before he enjoys
the privilege of being brought to trial. (Hear, hear.)
Earl RUSSELL—What has fallen from the noble earl
renders necessary a word or two of explanation from me. I
stated that a motion had been brought before Congress,
declaring that under the existing circumstances the exer-
cise of this power could not be refused to the President,
even without the sanction of Congress. I am not versed
in the forms of Congress, but I believe that this motion
was laid upon the table, and it was resolved to pass to the
order of the day. That amounts to a virtual confirmation
of the power, and I do not know that we can look to any
other authority. The President exercises this power, and
Congress declines to interfere. With regard to the three
cases mentioned by the noble earl (the Earl of Carnarvon),
I did not, of course, know that he would refer to them, or
I would haNe taken pains to inquire into the facts of each
case. I do not, however, recollect any instance in which a
person was called upon to take the oath of allegianceto the
United States, except one in which the person arrested had
given notice of his intention to become a citizen of the
United States. The form, I believe, is that the person who
wishes to become a citizen of the United States must give
three months' notice of his intention to do so. When that
time arrives he must take an oath, not only of fidelity to the
United States, but he must also forswear all other allegiance,
and more especially allegiance to Queen Victoria. (Hear,
and laughter.) The gentleman who was arrested made an
application to the British consul, to whom the reply of Mr.
Seward was, " This gentleman on account of whom you
write has renounced all allegiance, and especially allegiance
to Queen Victoria." The matter was further inquired into,
and it was found that Mr. Seward was wrong in his facts
—(hear, and laughter)—that this gentleman had not given
notice, and that although he had stated in a court of justice
he intended to forswear his allegiance to Queen Victoria,
yet the requisite forms had not been completed, and there-
fore he remained still a British subject. Lord Lyons re-
marked, if that were not so, the gentleman would be placed
in such a position as to be debarred from seeking the protec-
tion of the United States or of his own Government.
The Earl of DONOUGHMORE would like to know
whether the noble earl proposed to remonstrate with the
United States Government against a continuance of pro-
ceedings such as were complained of. He would also ask
whether the noble earl approved the practice of tendering
an oath of allegiance to a British subject as a condition for
his release or for his case being inquired into. For his own
part, he could conceive no greater insult than to make such
an offer to a British subject.

Earl RUSSELL—My answer is that as far as I know, the
American Government never tendered the oath of allegiance
to the United States to a British subject, knowing him to be
a British subject. Mr. Seward, when told by Lord Lyons
that this person who had been arrested was a British sub-
ject, said that he was quite unaware of that fact, and ho
would take care that the oath of allegiance was not put to
him. I repeat, that I believe the oath of allegiance to the
United States has never been administered to a British
subject when he was known to be such.
The Earl of DERBY—My noble friend's question re-
ferred to the alternative that was given of taking an oath
of allegiance or of not being brought to trial. (Hear.)