APPENDIX No. VII. DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS CONCERNING THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE RECOGNITION OF BELLIGERENT RIGHTS TO THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY.* [From Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 180, pp. 1-6.] HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, June 12, 1865. UNITED STATES BELLIGERENT RIGHTS—QUESTION. The EARL OF DERBY. I wish to ask the noble earl, the secretary for foreign affairs, a question with regard to two documents which have lately appeared in the public papers, having reference to American belligerent rights. The first of these documents appears to have been communicated by the noble earl himself to the different departments of government, and the second purports to be a proclamation of the President of the United States. The first document, addressed by the noble earl to government officials, is to the effect that, peace having been restored throughout the territory of the United States, the status of the confederates as belligerents must be taken to be henceforth abandoned. When that document was issued, the statement it contained, that peace had been restored throughout the territory of the United States, was not quite accurate; but since the document was issued the confederate army, which was then in existence, and which was holding the extensive district on the further side of the Mississippi, and was said to be a powerful force, well organized, and capable of continuing the contest, has altogether surrendered, while the chief of the Confederate States, who for four years has maintained a struggle against the whole power of the United States, and who represented a population of seven or eight millions, is now a prisoner in the hands of the federals, and is awaiting his trial. The statement contained in the document issued by the noble earl is, therefore, now practically correct. It may not be out of the way that I should express a hope, entertained not only by myself, but by the noble earl opposite, not only by this house, but by the country at large, and by the whole civilized world, that the party which has achieved such signal success will follow a course not directed by revenge or violence-that they may seek not to exasperate the feelings of their former antagonists, which have been already too much imbittered; but will endeavor, by deeds of conciliation and of mercy, to re-cement, if possible, a union so nearly dissolved; and that they will consent to treat those whom the fortunes of war have placed at their disposal not as revolted subjects, but as vanquished though not dishonored enemies. On the course taken by the United States will materially depend the estimation in which they will be held by the civilized world, and, therefore, this is a subject which cannot fail to be of vital importance to them. I now wish to call the attention of the noble earl to the answer which he gave the other evening to the question of the noble baron (Lord Houghton) who asked him whether, under the circumstances which had occurred, it was the intention of her Majesty's government still to continue to acknowledge the belligerent rights of the Confederate States. The noble earl then gave an answer which was satisfactory to this house, namely, that this must depend entirely upon the course the United States themselves thought fit to adopt in the matter, and that as soon as the United States ceased to avail themselves of belligerent rights as against neutral commerce this country would cease to acknowledge belligerent rights on the part of the Confederate States. Now I desire to call attention to that answer, and to the light in which it is to be regarded in connection with the proclamation lately issued by the President of the United States. That proclamation directs that certain ports are to be opened, but that others shall, for various and particular reasons, be closed for the present, and that the crew of any merchant vessel attempting to enter such closed ports shall be treated as pirates. No doubt the President of the United States exercises great powers, but surely he does not possess the power of changing the international law of the world. He may claim to exercise belligerent rights, and so establish a blockade, or he may make municipal regulations, excluding vessels from certain ports, but he cannot by force of a proclamation justify the infliction on those infringing these regulations the penalties attaching to piracy. The penalty for the violation of a blockade is well defined; and the offense itself cannot be construed into the crime of * Transmitted with dispatch No. 990, June 15, 1865. See vol. 1, p. 375. piracy. To force an entry into these ports can simply be regarded as smuggling, and the assumption that any person guilty of an infringement of the regulations of the proclamation is to be held guilty of piracy is one which it is impossible to pass unnoticed. I therefore wish to ask the noble earl whether he has reason to believe that this alleged proclamation of the President of the United States is genuine; whether that proclamation has been communicated to him; and whether in that case he has taken any notice of it, and has protested against a doctrine which it is impossible for us to acknowledge; and whether he is prepared to communicate to Parliament any papers he has in his possession on the subject. I also wish to ask the noble earl how far the circular he has sent round is compatible with the answer he gave the other evening, in which he stated that belligerent rights would not be withheld from the Confederate States so long as the United States put forward a claim to interfere with neutral commerce. Earl Russell, who was very imperfectly heard, said: I will first state the circumstances under which the letter alluded to by the noble earl was issued. From what we had heard from time to time, the noble earl has been led to believe that the confederates would be able to continue the contest in one part at least of the southern States; but from the more recent accounts it appears that the success of the federals has increased from day to day, and that the confederates are correspondingly less able to keep up the contest with their adversaries, and that the surrender of the entire armies of the latter was to be daily expected. Under these circumstances we had to consider what course we should pursue. There was some difficulty in the matter, because we had no regular communication from the United States assuring us that, as regarded neutrals, belligerent rights on their part had been abandoned. On the other hand, there was great difficulty in our continuing the concession of belligerent rights to the confederates, because of the entire cessation of war on the continent of America, and of the fact that there were at sea two vessels, and only two-the Stonewall and the Shenandoah-which were supposed to be confederate cruisers. One of these was supposed, or understood, to have been disarmed and given up to the anthorities at Havana; and the other, the Shenandoah, had put into various ports in the Australian colonies. Obviously it would have been an anomaly, when the war in America had entirely ceased, that the Shenandoah should be going about from port to port in the British dominions obtaining coals and provisions under the Queen's order of 1861. It was under these circumstances the question of putting an end to the belligerent rights came under the consideration of the cabinet. Practically the whole of the American States were under the authority of the government of the United States; the whole of the frontier is now in the possession of the United States government. Since then Galveston has been given up to the United States authorities, and General Kirby Smith has surrendered; so that there is no military force whatever under confederate authority. Before I wrote the letter to which the noble earl refers, I had an interview with Mr. Adams, the United States minister in this country, and I asked him whether his government were ready to abandon their belligerent rights. He said he had no instructions on the point, but he was convinced that his government were prepared to adopt that course. The communication made to the French government on this point was still more explicit. That being the state of affairs, we believed it was due to the United States and to our own position to adopt the course which I indicated in the letter to which the noble earl has called attention. I have no objection to lay the letter on the table. It has been published in the London Gazette, and it has been communicated to the maritime powers generally. I may add that from Madrid and Copenhagen, as well as from Paris, we have received communications expressing a concurrence in our views. With regard to the question of the noble earl on the subject of the proclamation of the President of the United States, I must say that the document is certainly a very curious one. While, no doubt, it is right enough to announce in the proclamation that after a certain date, namely, the 1st of July, the southern ports will all be open to foreign commerce, the reason given for the delay being the necessity for making certain custom-house arrangements, the sentence at the end of the proclamation with regard to piracy is somewhat startling. Sir Frederick Bruce states he has been advised that, according to the American law, persons attempting to enter those ports could not be convicted of piracy for that act; and that if persons should be arrested while attempting to enter them no court of the United States can find those parties guilty of piracy. We must, therefore, presume that it is only intended to hold this threat in terrorem over parties who might be disposed to make the attempt. In the letter which I wrote it is stated that within a certain time vessels sailing under the confederate flag will be permitted to enter our ports and disarm. At the same time, her Majesty's government do not pretend to in any way interfere with the legal rights of the United States. As to what the noble earl has said with respect to the action of the American government, I took occasion, when addressing your lordships on the assassination of President Lincoln, to express my great regret that a man whose views appeared to be so just, and who had so pledged himself to a course of mercy, should have been taken away at the moment when he could have put into practice those principles to which he had expressed so firm an adherence. I would again express my opinion that, for the peace of the United States and of the world, it is most desirable there should be no appearance of passion on the part of those who have now the guidance of the affairs of the American nation. The EARL OF DERBY. The noble earl has not answered my question as to the proclamation threatening a penalty not warranted either by the law of America or by international law. The noble earl presumes that this proclamation is held in terrorem over persons who might be disposed to enter those ports; but I want to know whether the United States government have communicated the contents of this document to her Majesty's government, and whether he has asked for any official explanation of a threat which it is not competent to the American government to carry out, and which is entirely opposed to international law. The document has been published in an official form to the whole world, and it is hardly consistent with our position that no notice should be taken of it. EARL RUSSELL. It can hardly be said that no notice has been taken of it, as we have this dispatch of Sir Frederick Bruce. The Earl of Derby asked whether the noble earl would lay the documents on the table. Earl Russell was understood to reply in the affirmative. APPENDIX No. VIII. BILL OF COMPLAINT, AND THE JUDGMENT OF VICE-CHANCELLOR WOOD, IN THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. PRIOLEAU AND OTHERS. [Transmitted with dispatch of Mr. Moran to Mr. Seward, dated July 28, 1865. See vol. 1, p. 383.] Messrs. Harvey, Jevons & Ryley to Mr. Adams. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V8. PRIOLEAU AND OTHERS. In chancery. EUSTON HOTEL, July 27, 1865. SIR: We send you herewith a print of the bill filed in this case, and will send you a copy of the short-hand writer's notes of the argument and judgment at the hearing yesterday before Vice-Chancellor Page Wood. It will be observed by the bill and the short-hand writer's notes, when you have them, that the case, as put by the pleadings and argued at the bar, is that the so-called confederate government (which is styled throughout a pretended government) could neither acquire nor hold property; and though the vice-chancellor did not adopt the argument fully, his decision only involved the conclusion that the United States of America is the only lawful government, and entitled, as such, to all the public property of the United States. The motion yesterday dealt with the question of protecting the property pending the investigation of the facts, and before the hearing of the cause. The case to be contended for on behalf of the United States of America can be well considered, having reference to the facts as they will then appear. We have the honor to be, sir, your obedient, humble servants, Hon. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, HARVEY, JEVÓNS & RYLEY. Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the 1865. U. No. 20. Filed 18th July, 1865. Amended 24th July, 1865. By order dated — July, 1865. In chancery-Lord chancellor, Vice-Chancellor Wood-between the United States of America, plaintiffs, and Charles Kuhn Prioleau, Theodore Dehon Wagner, James Thomas Welsman, William Lee Trenholm, William Greer Malcolmson, Andrew Malcolmson, Legarde, the Mercey Docks and Harbor Board, and C. G. Ramsay, (out of the jurisdiction of the court,) defendants. Amended bill of complaint. To the Right Honorable Robert Monsey Baron Cranworth, of Cranworth, in the county of Norfolk, lord high chancellor of Great Britain: Complaining, show unto his lordship the United States of America, the above-named plaintiffs, as follows: 1. The plaintiffs sue and may be sued in respect of all matters touching the interests or public property of the United States by their corporate title of the United States of America, and not otherwise. 2. Previously to the shipment of the cotton after mentioned, divers persons who are inhabitants and subjects of the United States rose in rebellion against the government of the plaintiffs, and formed themselves into an association for the purpose of carrying on the said rebellion. The said several persons usurped the plaintiff's authority, and established in part of the plaintiff's dominions a pretended government, under the style of the government of the Confederate States, which assumed the administration of public affairs there, and they continued to exercise such usurped authority until the rebellion was put an end to, as after mentioned. 3. The said pretended government, during the period of their exercising such usurped authority as aforesaid, possessed themselves of divers moneys, goods, and treasure which were part of the public property of the plaintiffs; and other moneys and goods were from time to time paid and contributed to them by divers persons, being inhabitants of the United States, and who owed allegiance to the plaintiffs, or were seized and acquired by the said pretended government in the exercise of their usurped authority, and all the said moneys and goods became part of the public property of the said pretended government, and were employed or intended to be employed by them, for the purposes of the said pretended government, in aid of the said rebellion. 4. The said pretended government, some time since, caused a large quantity of cotton, which had been contributed by divers inhabitants of the United States to the said pretended government in manner aforesaid, or had been otherwise acquired by the said pretended government by virtue of and in exercise of such usurped authority as aforesaid, and which had become part of the public property of the said pretended government, to be shipped from Texas (being a place within the dominion and subject to the authority of the plaintiffs) to Havana, with a view to its being shipped thence to England and being sold there on account and on behalf of the said pretended government, and they shortly afterwards caused to be shipped on board the Aline a cargo of the last-mentioned cotton, consisting of 1,356 bales or thereabouts, destined for England. 5. The said ship set sail under English colors from the port of Havana on the 10th June, 1865, with the said cargo of cotton on board. The defendant Legarde is the master of the said ship. 6. The said cotton, the subject-matter of this suit, was shipped in the name of the defendant C. G. Ramsay, not on his own account, but as agent only, and on behalf of the said persons, who had formed themselves into and constituted the said pretended government. 7. The said cotton, the subject-matter of this suit, was consigned by the said C. G. Ramsay to the defendants Charles Kuhn Prioleau, Theodore Dehon Wagner, James Thomas Welsman, and William Lee Trenholm, who are merchants carrying on business in Liverpool under the firm of Messrs. Frazer, Trenholm & Co., for sale there. The said ship carried one hundred and two further bales of cotton, consigned to Edward McDowell and George Halidays, of Liverpool, and three bales consigned to or in charge of the defendant Legarde, but which last-mentioned cotton is not the subject of this suit. 8. The said ship Aline has recently arrived with the said one thousand three hundred and fifty-six bales of cotton on board at the port of Liverpool, and she is about to discharge her cargo there. The said ship is consigned to the defendants William Greer Malcolmson and Andrew Malcolmson, of Liverpool, and they now, in conjunction with the said master and with the dock board after mentioned, have control over the lastmentioned cotton. The defendants, Charles Kuhn Prioleau, Theodore Dehon Wagner, James Thomas Welsman, and William Lee Trenholm, hold the bills of lading of the last-mentioned cotton, and they threaten and intend to possess themselves of the said cotton and to sell the same. 9. The said ship, with her said cargo on board, has recently been placed in the docks of the defendants the Mersey Docks and Harbor Board, of Liverpool, who are incorporated under the Mersey Docks and harbor act of 1857, and she is about to discharge her cargo in the said docks, and her said cargo is now in the possession and power of the last-named defendants. 10. The said rebellion is now at an end, and the said association, or so-called confederate government, has been dissolved and has ceased to exist, and the several persons who had formed themselves into the said pretended government, and on whose account the said cotton was shipped as aforesaid, have submitted to the authority of the government of the United States, and have expressly ceded and made over to the plaintiffs all the joint or public property of the persons who constituted the said pretended so-called confederate government, including the said cotton shipped by the Aline and consigned to Frazer, Trenholm & Co., as aforesaid; and they do not, nor does any person on their behalf, now claim to be entitled to or interested in the said cotton, and by reason of the said pretended government having been dissolved, they cannot be made parties and they are not in fact necessary parties to this suit. 11. The said cotton, consigned to Frazer, Trenholm & Co. aforesaid, is now the absolute property of the plaintiffs, and ought to be delivered up to them. 12. The defendants Charles Kuhn Prioleau, Theodore Dehon Wagner, James Thomas Welsman, and William Lee Trenholm hold the bills of lading of the said cotton, consigned to them as aforesaid, as agents only on behalf of the plaintiffs; and the plaintiffs have caused to be served on them, and also on the other defendants in this country, a notice of the plaintiffs' title requiring them respectively not to part or deal with the said cotton without the consent of the plaintiffs; but they refused to act upon the orders of the plaintiffs, and the defendants, the consignees of the cotton and of the ship, |