The New York herald., 1862-03-08

them to have board and which therefore hey could
not be permitted 20 carry without violation OF neu
trality In all these respects the honorable gentleman
has totally misunderstood the law This country Is 60
verned by law and except far her Maesys govern
ment har~ aroers by e 10 control the aclaon Of pvpzte
BIik subjects, whether the master of ships or others,
OF course they perfectly poweress in the matter
The only law which enables her Mijesty's govern
ment to interfere in such cases is commonly called
the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the whole nature
and scope OF that act Is sufficiently ana shoruy
set out in the title. 1t is. An act to prevent the
enlistng and engagement OF her Maestys subjects to
serve In foreign service and the fitting out or
equpping in her Maesty's dominions vessels for
warlike purposes without her Maestys license" That
act does NOT touch ia way 'ohaere' prirdte ",ecaM
Ues lich may carry car IoeS eonTdbdd or id contra
land eeiceen hss country or any q me aomnens q her
Majesty and any port an ttgret country ,oheter under
blockade not and the government Of tis country, and the
go0e' ~ Of colonial possessions hare no poocr 'ohat-
interfere gth rai,ute vessels ander such circumstances
1t perfectly true that in tho Queens proclamation there
IS general ,vlyling at tho end, addressed to all the
Queens subjects that they not either in violation Of
their duty to the Queen subjects OF neutral
reign or IN violation aud contravention Of the
law Of nations, to do various things, one of
TO be contraband Of war, according to law
or the modern usagos of nations, for tho use
or service OF eherof the concrdng parties That warn
ing addressed 10 them to arrze them that if they do
these things they ,9 hare 10 e the penal consequences
by The statute or ly the lao cnations in thai bhaf imposed
or denounced In those cases IN ,iCh the statute is silent
the gocrnnlep poOess and the laac Of nations comes
an The lar of nations exposes such persons 10 have their
ships seized and their goods taken and subjected consation,
and ft d7aes Them of the right 10 look to the gov1n-
me Of their country for any protection. and this
principle OF interference In things which the law does
not enable the government deal with from being
violation OF the duty Of neutralitywhich the govern
ment arc sincerely anxious to comply withs in accord
ance with all the principles which have been laid down
by ursts and especially by the ursts Of the
United States OF America. In ordor that the honorable
gentleman may understand exactly how the stands
may be permitted to read short passage from one Of
the works OF these writer's. Wheaton, who as everybody
knows has written one Of the most valuable treascs
on the subject that was ever composed, says
of O q prOhihit
their subjects by previous laws from tranickng in
risk Of those engaged in it. under the abte aud penalties
pesc bed by the law of nations particular treaties
Wheaton thon goes TO justify the conduct Of the
United States for interfering prevcr he supply Of
arms to Texas, then at war with Mexico, and says:
The government not bound to prevent it, and could
principles OF neutrality and is in no way answerabe for the
Vice Chancellor Kent in his hardly less admirable
work, says
II is a general understanding hat the Powers at
may seize al conhscae an conraband g3ois without any
any mputaon Of breach of neutrality in the neutral
Senc % @ n @ p Gf n
70 esiEan their nc subjects from selling or exporting articles
successfully shown the Of the United States that
nsurals may lawfully sell home pu,chsssr
articles subject to the right OF seizure This right
Of this country The right Of the transport and
De ths 70 he her aFs With @ ana
think, therefore, is very clear that the gopeym.n
at home and the colonial authorities at Nassau hare taken
the only course which oas psssibe to take consistently ,o
the lac Of the fdnd-which they bound in any
TO foow--or with recognized conditions and customs,
and moro especially the customs as recognized
by tho United States themselves. (Hear, hear.
The OIoSoGnrE said no should be sorry to press for
tho return in opposition to the wishes OF the govern
ment. 1t was evident however that the honorable and
learned gentleman who had last spoken and the honor
able gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs not quite Of mind In opposition TO the
law stated by the Solicitor General the Under Secre.
tary for Foreign Affairs had alleged one reason for re-
fusing the return, that it would, in fact, be list of
Mr. LINDSAY hoped that any British vessels had, as
matter of fact been destroyed captured while en-
deavoring to break the blockade statement Of the Cir
cumstanccs would be given to the House.
Mr. LyARD was understood to state that some particu
papers promised by the government.
The motion was then, by consent, withlrawn.
Debate ON the Case OF Mr.. Shaver.
In the House of Lords on tLe 18th of February,
the EARL CARyARvoN said he had on a preceding
evening directed the attention Of his noble friend the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs to tho Ccblc detontion or
three British subjects at Fort Warren, In the United
States Of America; and he did not wish TO overstae
the any way he wished to take that opportunity
OF completing far he could the nfor nation he
furnished upon that subject. He had since rea-
tive OF one Of those three persons who lad told him that
that gentleman had passed under process of natu
razaon under the authority Of the American govern
ment and that would Of course in great dis
entte him to the protection OF the government Of this
country Having made that explanation, he (the Earl
Of Carnarvon) had to bring another case OF some
Wnat similar description uQuer the u0tlCo OF bis
noble friend. A Canadian gentleman, of the
OF Shaver, had been arrested under warrant of Mr..
Seward the Foreign Secretary of the United States
then son to prison. where there had been rendered
him an oath Of allegiance, which he declined to take
Various communications had subsequently passed. be
him and Lord Lyons and ultimately after he had
been detained three months prison secret charges
he released his conscnting to enter into very
extraordinary engagcnent-an engagement which no
government had o right 20 exact, ana to which
British subject ought, perhaps, 10 have Subscribed
an engagement % ne 5ec that hs 'coud neither to'ci
IN h> Southern States of Amsrtcd hold any comngni-
cation ch the peorle Of tsoe States cihom the
Of he AmeTicas Secretary Of Sate for Foreign 4fars.
lie ths Earl Of Carnarvon) did not to attach any
blame TO Mr. Shaver in that matter, and neither did he
blame Lord Lyons fer any advice which he ondered in
position of very great difficulty But the question
rally arose what the claim Mr.. Shaver might have
for compensation after he had been imprisoned for
three months to the injury OF his health, TO the
great disadvantage Of his private business, and
even it might be said at the peril of his lite. It
seemed TO him that that clearly which called
compensation and expression of regret the part
OF friendly government; ana he anxious to know
whether any claim 10 that effect lad been pat forward
by his nobe friend behalf Of alr Shaver. lie should
have thought hat his noble friend would have been
Of tho very first men To vlndicate The rights Of British
subject under such circumstlnces. Bat after having
heard tho statement mado the other evening by his
nobe friend and after having looked through tho
rcspondonce which had been presented members
Of The Husc that Day ne could s not help feeling some
40 demand for compensation made by his noble
friend; nay more, he did not find that there
single scrip OF tho pen on the part OF his noble frend
in reference 10 that matter II seemed TO him that that
was question Of sufficient importance attract tho
notice Of has noble friend and he felt surprise
theTo not tho slightest ntimaon in those papers OF
his noble friends having pursued that course Of his
having expressed any approval of the steTs which
had been taken by Lord Lyons. That not the
way Lord Mimesbury had acted in the Of tho Eng
sh engineers who had been detained In prison Naples
Lord Mamesbury had in that carefully inquired
the of the prisoners and had insisted their being
at either liberated or brought to trial. Again. that
was not the course which had been pursued by the
present in the Of these British subjects
who had been kept imprisoned, or who bad been
dsrcd during the late In China. And neither
tho adopted by the noble viscount the present
First Lord of the Treasury, in the case Of Don Pacco
In both these two latter instances ample compensation
had been exsced and obtained from tho foreign govern
ments which had been ansverabe for the injuries done
British subjects His noble friend had said the other
evening that the present had changed its character
since the suspension Of the habeas corpus act America
But that precisely the Plea nhich hod been put
forpord Jy G,e Mericdn gooernmen, when M.y had
ten dsttd 10 Offer repcrdticn for the inStice which
had been done 10 nuDsber Of British spbjsc,s.