The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS-LAST EVENING.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at
the usual hour.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The Agra and Masterman's Bank Bill was read a second
time.

REMOVAL OP THE CARTOONS FROM THE
HAMPTON COURT PALACE.

Lord ST. LEONARDS asked for some information on
this subject.
Earl GRANVILLE said that he would be happy to
afford information on the subject, but he thought a notice
of the question should be laid on the table previous to its
being asked. •
THE RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH THE
UNIT ED STATES.

Earl RUSSELL, in laying on the table the despatches
from the Minister of the United States, said—l wish to
make a statement in regard to the relations between this
country and the United States. My lords, one of these
papers is a letter from Mr. Adams, in which he states that
he is commanded by the President to deliver to the British
Government a notice, dated March 13, in regard to the ter-
mination of the Reciprocity Treaty between this country
and the United States, and stating that this treaty will
terminate 12 months from the date of the acknowledgment
of that notice. Mr. Adams also encloses the vote of the
Congress, which has been approved by the President,
declaring that it was no longer for the interest of the
United States that that treaty should continue. Coupled
with this notice is a notice given with respect to the arma-
ment of the lakes. I think it must be admitted that recent
occurrences on the lakes, viz., the seizure of vessels by the
agents of the Confederacy and other acts of hostility—com-
pletely justify the United States in giving notice of the
termination of the convention. My lords, it is not to be ex-
pected that the United States should submit passively to
such acts of violence without availing themselves of such
means of repression within their power. With regard to the
Reciprocity Treaty, although I will not say there are suf-
ficient grounds, yet tnere are grounds with respect to the ad-
mission of articles duty free into the United States which
may induce the United States Government to wish for a re-
newal of the treaty with modifications that may be more
advantageous, and which the United States Government
may consider just to the United States. When Mr. Adams
informed me of the result of the negotiations which had
taken place between the President of the United States and
the agents of the so-called Confederate States, I expressed
to him a hope that when he should present to me the no-
tice of the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty I should
find the Congress and Government of the United States
would be ready to consider propositions by which a small
and limited armament might be kept up on the lakes for
the purpose of police, at both sides ; and also that a renewal
of the Reciprocity Treaty, upon terms to be agreed upon
by both parties, might be negotiated during the 12 months
to elapse before the existing treaty ceased its operation. Of
course Mr. Adams was not authorised to give me any as-
surance upon the subject, but the words used induced me
to trust that such an assurance would be given. I am sure
your lordships will be anxious that the relations between
this country and the United States should continue as
they are now, of a pacific and friendly character—(cheers)
—and for my part I should be very sorry that anything
should occur, or be done in this country, that would tend to
prevent such a satisfactory result. But, my lords, I cannot
but think that the expressions which have been used, and
the speeches which have been made, may tend to excite in
the United States a disposition unfavourable towards the
end which we thus desire to see accomplished. I allude to
speeches declaring that this country has behaved wrongfully
to the United States, has given the United States just cause
of complaint, and that an unfriendly spirit has been shown
throughout these transactions. My lords, the obvious effect
of speeches such as these must be that individuals in the
United States who are in favour of hostilities with this coun-
try must know that there is in this country a party ready
to take up the view that the United States are in the right,
and, therefore, that they will be wanting in proper spirit
and in proper regard for the national interests and the na-
tional honour if they do not complain loudly of the conduct
of this country. I ask your lordships to attend for a short
time to the statement which I have to make ; because I can-
not but think that the Government of this country and this
country itself have been wrongfully accused upon these vari-
ous points. One of the chief complaints put forward is, that
this country in a great hurry and without proper considera-
tion granted belligerent rights to what are called the Con-
federate States. Now, every one who knows anything of the
law:of nations knows perfectly well that although a country
may put down insurgents who rise against its authority, yet
that a country has no right or power to interfere with neutral
commerce unless it assumes the position of a belligerent.
(Hear.) But that is what the United States did. The Presi-
dent of the United States by his proclamation declared that
the coasts of particular States wero in a state of blockade,
and that armed vessels belonging to those States were to be
treated as pirates. There came representations on this sub-
ject from her Majesty's Minister in the United States, but
in the first instance these merely covered despatches from
Admiral Sir A. Milne, commanding her Majesty's squadron
in those waters, asking how he was to treat the armed
vessels of the two parties. At that time Lord Campbell
held the high office of Lord Chancellor, and of course we
consulted him and the law officers of the Crown as to what
should be done. Lord Campbell declared, as we all supposed
he would do, that there was no course but one to pursue—
namely, to regard the blockade on the part of the United
States as the exercise of a belligerent right. And as belli-
gerent rights cannot be confined to one party, but are usually
exercised against somebody else, our advisers told us that
we were entitled to recognise the existence of belligerent
rights on the part; of both the combatants, and to declare
Her Majesty's neutrality between the two parties. (Cheers.)
And this, accordingly, was the course which we recom-
mended. The proclamation in that sense was approved, if
not actually drawn up, I believe, by my learned friend the
present Lord Chancellor—and the course of neutrality thus
adopted was certainly received with favour, and, I believe,
commended itself to the sentiments of the country as the
right course for us to take. It is said now that we ought to
have awaited the arrival of Mr. Adams. I know not what
Mr. Adams could say on the subject. If I had told my col-
leagues that we must wait for him and consult him I be-
lieve it would only have caused embarrassment in the rela-
tions between the two countries. He could scarcely have
approved anything which we did short of taking the part
of the North against the South. But, then, it is said, if the
proclamation of neutrality was not altogether wrong, at any
rate it ought to have been delayed, and that unfrendliness
was shown in the manner of its promulgation. I conceive
that there was nothing unfriendly, nothing:uncourteous in
the declaration ; but, on the contrary, that it was the proper
course for this country to declare at the earliest moment
that it meant to take part neither with the North nor with
the South, but to remain entirely neutral in the contest.
(Hear, hear.) But it observed also that from the issue of
the proclamation, on the 13th of May, Her Majesty's sub-
jects were bound to take no part in the contest, and were
warned that they would disobey her Majesty's injunctions
if they give aid to one side or the other. Your lordships all
remember the affair of the Trent. It is said with regard to
that affair, as with regard to the proclamation of neutrality,
that the proceedings of the Government were unfriendly
and uncourteous, and I am accused—not for the first time
certainly, nor probably for the tenth time, but with as little
justice now as on any of the former occasions—of having
had a despatch put into my hands which ought to have
been published, because it contained an assurance on the
part of the United States' Government that they did not i
intend to resist the delivery of the vessel and the Commis-
sioners. My lords, that was very far from being the case ;
and although Mr. Adams did bring me a despatch on that
occasion, it was a despatch relating chiefly to other questions
between the two countries, and merely ending with a decla-
ration that if any demand were made upon the subject of
the Trent that question would be fairly considered by the
United States' Government. The despatch was not put into
my hands, and therefore I could not publish it. Even had
it been left with me, and had I published it, it would have
given no satisfaction, because I certainly believed, and my
noble friend at the head of the Government also believed,
up to the last moment, that it was entirely a matter of
uncertainty whether the United States' Government would
give up these Commissioners, or whether they would re-
fuse to do so, and withhold arbitration.:And now as to the
manner in which these demands were made. In the first
place, I wrote to Lord Lyons, and begged him not to
make any demand in the first instance, but to acquaint
the Minister with the nature of the despatches, and request
that he would name a day when the despatches could be
put into his hand, after consulting the President. That
aPpeared to me the course which it was most courteous to
take. And I am bound to say, in mentioning these
facts, that there is one circumstance connected with them
which does the highest credit to the memory, good taste,
and discretion of the late Prince Consort. At the last
moment, after her Majesty had approved the despatch, we
received a letter from the Prince Consort, in which he said
that some of the expressions used in the despatch might
be considered too abrupt,
and
suggested other phrases,
which he thought might make it more easy for the Go-
vernment of the United States to accept the request which
which it conveyed. These phrases were adopted by the
Government and embodied in the despatch,doubtless,
tended in some degree to render thedocum and,
en more ac-
ceptable to the United States' Government, who were
called upon by its terms to perform a duty in conformity
with the law of nations and regarded by the people of this
country as an act of justice. (Cheers.) But it is said that,
while we displayed great haste in acknowledging the South
as belligerents, we were guilty of great supineness in the
case of the Alabama, and upon this point I have only to
state that the evidence on this subject was furnished to us
by Mr. Adams, and that the information which we received
was immediately laid before the law officers of the Crown,
and that on the very morning of the day on which they
reported the Alabama left Birkenhead. On this question,
however, I will say no more, because it may form a mat-
ter for discussion between the Government of the United
States and our own. I do not wish in any way to fore-
stal that discussion, but I think I may say that we have
done everything which either international law or the
laws of this country demanded of us in order to prevent