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

euU0tanco 0t~WAeEA 80 IT'LL l4.! 8 \ NV
reader viii remaz1 , ~ snffissdl y NE
United States. The remarks of the Boble
Lords 10 moee RECON ne aAblllhed gov
eminent 81 tie United Stats, With which
they have been doing profitable business fol
seventy-Iive years, than il We were some
kingdom Of Dahomey o. some wild Indians
who had established some sort of domin-
ion upon some desert isle. JErFERsoN DA-
Wis is, 10 their eyes, Is much . de faao 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,
lin the East Indies or in the West Indies
lin the Canadas or in Australia, just as
would the Wabash or Minnesota, under the
United States flag, capturing @. S. A.
privateer, with like honor and like recogni-
tion, and upon perfect terms of equality.
Second. lThe Lord Chancellor laying
down the law,) That Briton taken. on
board a O. s. A. privateer, though yiolat-
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 BRoUaH-
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 priva4
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 marlborough. in his speech, made two
points
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
blockading feet should ever be before the
| port, as that was often physically impossible ;
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 space that it is physically
impossible to blockade effectively, he reasoned,
| should be recognized UEga
Earl Derby then commended 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
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 yet
| pirates, and the Northern States could not
treat them as pirates. The treatment of such
Britons 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.
| Lord Brougham commended that Britons thus
| priyateering would be committing an act of pr
off "a W. yiv froyr tho
| British Government-but privateering in the
! case of recognized belhgerents was clearly not
| piracy. Blockades were, in bis judgment eff.
| fective when they precluded any reasonable
! chance at entrance, a
| Lord Chelmsford contended British priva-
| teersmen would nopbe pirates-clearly, as the
| British Government had recognized the South.
| efn States as belligerents. m
The Lord Chancellor said, a subject entering
into the service Of either of the belligerents
| 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 commission from recognized
belligerent State, would be murder.
| Lord Kingsdown spoke of Mr.. Lincoln's pro.
clamation calling them pirates, as extravagant
"a mere brutum fMlmen. 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
correspondence, the men so interfering and
captured woald be hanged. (Hear.)
No STATE FAIR THIS YEAR.-ln conse-
quence of the absorbing interest in the war,
and the probability that the Fort will be
occupied by soldiers, and "hard times" gen.
- -