The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1861-06-14

The debate in the House of Lords, the

substance OF which Is gwen DelOW, the
reader will remark, is all unfriendly to the
United States. The remarks of the noble
Lords no more recognize the established gov
eminent of the United States, with which
they have been doing profitable business for
seventy-five years, than If we were some
kingdom of Dahomey, or some wild Indians
who had established some sort of domin-
ion upon some desert isle. JEFFERSON DA-
Wis is, in their eyes, as much de facto Pres
ident as ABRAHAM LINCOLN. The de jare
question, in their estimation, awaits only
the arbitrament OF arms. The debate de-
velopes-
First. That, in all probability, prizes
taken by the JEFF. DAVIS privateers, will
be received and protected in British ports,
in the East Indies or in the West Indies
in the Canadas or in Australia, just as
would the Wabash or Minnesota, under the
United States flag, capturing G. S. A.
privateer, with like honor and like recogni-
ton, and upon perfect terms of equality.
Second. 1.-THE Lord Chancellor laying
down the law That Briton taken on
board G. S. A. privateer, though violat-
ing British law, is no pirate, and if hung
by United States officers, as pirate, the
act would be deemed murder.
Third. That the British Government
having warned its subjects against such
privateering, does not pledge itself to pro-
tect its subjects from such MURDER"
Though it would not view it with indiffer-
ence,-the Earl of DERBY Lord BRoUGH.
AM, however, recites the cases of ARBUTH-
NOT and AMBRIsrER, and warns British
subjects, as they would be hung before the
British Government could interfere to pro.
tect them, they had better not turn priva~
teers.
The following is careful condensation
of the debate:
We have, at length the debate in the House
of Lords, the substance of which was tele-
graphed. but the full debate throws but little
additional light,
Lord Peterborough, in his speech, made two
points
LIST. What constitutes an effective blockade
I'd. What articles are cOntraband of war?
Earl Granville replied; Mere paper block.
AIDES would not be recognized. To constitute
a blockade, it was not absolutely essential that
a blockadiDg fleet should ever be before the
port, as that was often physically impossible;
but it must he effective, and SO effective as to
make it perilOus to try to enter.
Upon contraband of war, the Earl replied,
that what is contraband, is that which. when
in possession Of an enemy, would enable him
better to carry on war. This must vary, from
time to time. according to circumstances, and
the Prize Court must judge Coal was some.
times .contraband, at other times, not; ditto
provisions.
The Earl Of Derby said it was not possible
for the United States to blockade all the South.
ern ports. The British Government then, he
thought, should come to a clear understanding
with the United States Government, what was
meant by the increased blockade. No block
ade extending over a space that it is physically
impossible to blockade effectively, he reasoned,
should be recognized.
Earl Derby then contended that under the
law of nations, privateers were not pirates, and
that no agreement of one or two or three ma
tions to make priyateering piracy, can so make
it under the law of nations to parties not in the
compact. The Southern States were not in
this compact, and being recognized as bellig-
erents, they have right to use privateers and
British citizens, though on board of them, and
though violating the British law, were not vet
pirates, and the Northern States could not
treat them as pirates. The treatment of such
Biitons as pirates, he added, should not be
viewed with indifference by the British Govern
ment Earl Derby was pointed in his reason
ing that the Northern States could not treat
Southern privateersmen as pirates.
orlR r ham Qd hat Rrifn hing
privateering would be committing an act of pi-
racy. after the warning given them from the
British GOvernment-but privateering in the
case of recognized belllgerents was clearly not
piracy. BlOckades were, in his judgment, eff
tectve when they precluded any reasonable
chance at entrance.
Lord Chelmsford contended British priva-
teersmen would notbe pirates-clearly, as the
British Government had recognized the South
efn States as belligerents.
The Lord Chancellor said, subject entering
into the service of either of the bellgerents
would be clearly violating the laws of his own
country, and would be amenable to them, but
the subject ought not to be regarded as pir-
ate. The putting of such man to death, when
acting under a commission from recognized
belligerent State, would be murder.
Lord Kingsdown spoke of Mr.. I4ncoln's pro.
clamation calling them pirates, as eXtravagant
"a mere brutum tulaen. What the British
Government had proclaimed, that if British
subjects did thus violate British laws, they
would have no right to call upon this govern
ment for protection.
Lord Brougham warned British subjects that
they had better obey the proclamation Of the
British government. Thirty years ago, he said,
two british subjects were hanged for piratical
interference on the land, (Arbuthnot and Am
bristor, probably, by General Jackson) and
not one step was taken to protect or avenge
them.
The Earl of Peterborough feared very much
that good deal of what had passed that night
would tend to diminish the fear of those
disposed to engage in the privateering which
had been alluded to. He hoped it would not
have that effect, because he was sure that long
before the diplomatists could terminate their
captured would be hanged. (Hear.)
No STATE FAIR THIS YEAR-ln conse-
quence of the absorbing interest in the war,