by British subjects upon the United States government, sustained either in person or property since the secession of the southern States, specifying how and the grounds on which such claims have been disposed of.” EARL RUSSELL. My lords, the noble earl seems to suppose that I shall have no difficulty in granting the first part of his motion, relating to the returns of claims mutually made by the United States government and the British government in respect of injuries sustained since the secession of the southern States. Now, so far as her Majesty's government are concerned, there will be very little difficulty in giving any information that is asked for as to representations which have taken place on the part of the government; but when I consider the public utility to be served by this motion, I cannot encourage the noble earl to press it. The fact is, that these dispatches upon cases arising from time to time, and almost from day to day, become formidable in point of extent. I saw in the Foreign Office to-day a volume, not indeed a very thick one, but one of several folio volumes, many of them exceedingly thick, which are said to contain about half of the returns which the noble earl moves for. Now, I ask, what would be the advantage of producing, what would be the advantage of printing, for this House, such a voluminous return of cases that have arisen between this country and the United States? I am quite sure that my noble friend would hardly think of pressing a motion of such a character. And if there is no advantage in it, there may be some disadvantage; because if hereafter there were to be any commission on these claims, the American government would probably take the evidence which had been laid before Parliament as complete with respect to them. They would say: "There is your case. It has been laid before the Foreign Office; it has been presented to Parliament and printed, and it is impossible to go beyond it." If, therefore, these cases were printed, and a commission on claims were hereafter appointed, persons who had claims, and who were prepared to produce further evidence in support of them, might be precluded from the full benefit of that evidence. I cannot, therefore, think that there would be any advantage in producing this voluminous mass of papers. The noble earl seemed to think that our commerce was nearly extinct. [The Earl of Carnarvon dissented.] I took down the noble earl's words, and he certainly said that our commerce on the southern coast of America had been brought almost to the verge of extinction. Now to what do these words apply? It is known that this trade of blockade-running has been a most profitable trade, that great fortunes have been made by many persons in carrying it on, and that Nassau and some other places have swarmed with vessels which had never previously been seen in those ports. That a great number of vessels have been stopped by the American cruisers I readily admit. The noble earl says that the judges of the prize courts in the United States have given decisions some of which are not based upon principles of international law. Now I say here, what I have frequently had occasion to say before, that we are bound in the first instance to accept these decisions; and I think the complaints which have been made very often arise, and naturally arise, from ignorance of the principles of international law, as laid down by Lord Stowell and other great jurists in this country. It has been many times complained of that a vessel bound from this country to Nassau should be captured on her voyage while upon the high seas, and should be sent for adjudication before an American prize court. Evidently the persons who make that complaint think it quite sufficient if the nominal destination was Nassau, and do not take into consideration the circumstance that, if Nassau was not the ultimate destination, but it was merely meant that the vessel should touch at Nassau, and then, without transshipment, carry her cargo into the blockaded port, that vessel, according to the principles laid down by Lord Stowell, would be liable to capture. But it is natural that this should be forgotten when for so many years these belligerent rights have been in abeyance, and the result is that many of the persons who have employed their capital in this manner are severe sufferers. With regard to the Saxon, we were advised that that vessel was taken, not in British, but in foreign waters. The noble earl says that the law officers of the Crown must have been completely wrong, because it was quite sufficient if the governor of the cape had declared the island of Angra Pequena to be a British possession. Now I do not think that we should be guided by such a declaration in an analogous case. Suppose that on the coast of Africa a slaver was taken by one of our cruisers near an island; it would not be sufficient to prevent the capture by the statement that the governor of the neighboring French or Portuguese settlement had declared that island to belong to France or Portugal. We should say at once, "Have the French and Portuguese governments confirmed the declaration?" and if they had not, we should hesitate to acknowledge that the island belonged to either country. The argument which we should use ourselves we ought to accept from another nation; and acting, therefore, on the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, I did not assert that this vessel had been wrongfully captured. What was affirmed by the American captors was, that the Saxon had received from the Alabama and the Tuscaloosa part of the spoil which they had taken from American vessels. The noble earl refers to what appears to us, if the information we have received be accurate, to be the wanton and barbarous murder of the mate of the Saxon. All that we could ask in such a case was that the person accused of that crime should be tried, and should be brought as soon as possible before a tribunal in which the charge could be fairly examined into. That, accordingly, is the demand which we made. The noble earl says it was no satisfaction that the captain of the Vanderbilt expressed his regret. But I do not know what more he could do. He did not order that the mate of the Saxon should be killed. had no concern in the murder, but when he heard of the occurrence he expressed his regret. He could not immediately order a trial and have the man convicted and executed. The EARL OF CARNARVON. Did the captain order the man under arrest ? He I EARL RUSSELL. That is a point upon which we have no information. But certainly I do not think it an injury that the captain expressed his regret at the occurrence. believe it is stated in the newspapers that the man was afterwards put under arrest; that is only a newspaper report. With regard to the Tuscaloosa, that vessel was captured by and was a prize to the Alabama. The law officers of the Crown gave it as their opinion that she should have been detained, and orders were sent out in conformity with that opinion. She has now been detained, and it will be for the noble earl to show that the law officers were wrong in that opinion, and that upon grounds of public law known to himself her Majesty's government should have taken another course. I now come to the noble earl's statement with regard to the Alabama, and I cannot say how much I feel indebted to him for enabling me to clear up a misconception which, as it has affected his mind, may also have affected others in the same way. My lords, her Majesty's government have always maintained that they were in no way responsible for the hostilities against the merchant ships of the United States committed by the Alabama. We have maintained that position from the beginning; we shall maintain it to the end. The noble earl seems to suppose that in a letter of mine of the 26th of October I admitted that these questions would afterwards be referred to a commission. My lords, I admitted nothing of the kind. I stated then, as I have always stated, that her Majesty's government was not responsible for the acts of the Alabama. The United States minister may have in view some kind of commission or arbitration; but her Majesty's government have never consented, and never would consent, to a commission or arbitration. According to all the principles of international law, her Majesty's government are in no way responsible for the doings of the vessel referred to. There has been a question of a commission, but we have always thought that a commission would be of no use, because the United States government would be sure to propose that the case of the Alabama should be referred to the commission, and it is quite impossible that we could consent to that. Therefore we have never proposed what under ordinary circumstances would be a proper course; we have never proposed a commission to consider the respective claims of the subjects of each country, and which the United States government intimated they were ready to agree to, because we knew that it would be proposed to include the case of the Alabama, which we were determined not to consent to. I say, therefore, the government may well await the time when a calm consideration of the principles involved in the case of the Alabama can be given. Every one is aware that for a long time there has been great excitement in America upon the subject of the Alabama; that she has been called a British pirate, and the American nation has been roused to anger against this country for the doings of that vessel. I say that when the United States government say they do not wish to press that question further now, it is fair to believe that a time may come when the United States government, considering all the precedents laid down by their own judges as well as by British judges, will be satisfied that they have no claim against this country on account of the Alabama. My expression was not intended to convey the notion that the British government would change their minds, but that the United States government would change theirs when the excitement of the moment had passed away. Therefore I go on to say: "The British government must decline to be responsible for the acts of parties who fit out a seeming merchant ship, send her to a port or to waters far from the jurisdiction of British courts, and there commission, equip, and man her as a vessel of war." And I further say, that if "An admitted principle was thus made elastic to meet a particular case, the trade of ship-building in this country would be seriously embarrassed." The noble earl, in a manner unaccountable to me-for it never from the time I wrote that letter until now occurred to me that such a meaning could be applied to it, and that it could be understood as admitting a future examination of this case-the noble earl says it is desirable that these cases should not be kept open, but that they should be settled at once. I quite agree with him that they ought to be settled at once, if there is any amicable way in which they can be settled. The American government says, "We have a clear and undoubted case for reparation on account of the Alabama." We say, "We have a clear and undoubted case for refusing reparation in the case of the Alabama." Who is to be the arbitrator, unless we resort to that method of arbitration which the noble earl thinks I agree to? In no way can this question be settled, unless the United States should push us to the verge of war for the purpose of getting this question settled. The United States government say, "We have a good case, but we are ready to keep it in abeyance, and to continue on terms of amity and friendly relations with Great Britain, if Great Britain will consent to do so." Am I to say, "We will not agree to anything of the sort. Why do you not make war upon us? Why not push your claims to the utmost extremity?" That is the case of the noble earl. He says it is desirable to have these questions settled, and not to have them hanging over us. It is desirable indeed; but how is it to be done while the positions of the two countries are so entirely opposed? I have had the good fortune, in some cases, to bring to an amicable termination matters which had long been causes of dispute between this country and the United States. For many years there was a dispute pending upon the question of the Mosquito Shore and of the Bay Island. The President of the United States said at the time, “If this be the only question of difference," as I believe it was until the secession occurred; "if this be the only question of difference we have with the government of Great Britain, let us endeavor to settle it." I for my part was quite ready to make concessions of what might be considered fair claims on the part of the British government in order to settle the dispute, and happily I was enabled to make a treaty which put an end to that dispute. There was another question which arose since the Ashburton treaty, and which went on for some years, respecting the Hudson's Bay Company, and that dispute it was agreed to refer to arbitration, and a convention has been made for that purpose. So I am by no means indisposed to settle these questions, which, as the noble earl truly says, ought not to be kept open if they can be settled. There is also the question of the island of San Juan, adjoining Vancouver's island, and in that question also I proposed an arbitration, which proposal has been for some time under the consideration of the United States government. That government thought the Senate could not agree to arbitration, but I trust there will be an agreement upon that question also. I think it would be much better that the question relating to the island of San Juan should be decided by an arbitrator than that it should remain a cause of dispute between the two countries. Referring again to the Alabama, the noble earl seems to be much shocked because I said that that case was a scandal and in some sense a reproach upon British law. I say that here, as I said it in that despatch. I do consider that, having passed a law to prevent the enlistment of her Majesty's subjects in the service of a foreign power, to prevent the fitting out or equipping, within her Majesty's dominions, of vessels for warlike purposes without her Majesty's sanction; I say that, having passed such a law in the year 1819, it is a scandal and a reproach that one of the belligerents in this American contest has been enabled, at the order of the confederate government, to fit out a vessel at Liverpool in such a way that she was capable of being made a vessel of war; that, after going to another port in her Majesty's dominions to ship a portion of her crew, she proceeded to a port in neutral territory, and there completed her crew and equipment as a vessel of war, so that she has since been able to capture and destroy innocent merchant vessels belonging to the other belligerent. Having been thus equipped by an evasion of the law, I say it is a scandal to our law that we should not be able to prevent such belligerent operations. I venture to say so much, because at the Foreign Office I feel this to be very inconvenient. If you choose to say, as you might have said in former times, "Let vessels be fitted out and sold; let a vessel go to Charleston, and there be sold to any agent of the confederate government," I could understand such a state of things. But if we have a law to prevent the fitting out of warlike vessels, without the license of her Majesty, I do say this case of the Alabama is a scandal and a reproach. A very learned judge has said that we might drive, not a coach and six, but a whole fleet of ships through that act of Parliament. If that be a correct description of our law, then I say we ought to have the law made more clear and intelligible. This law was said to be passed to secure the peace and welfare of this nation, and I trust it may be found in the end sufficient for that purpose. I say, however, that while the law remains in its present state its purpose is obviously defeated, and its enactments made of no effect by British subjects who defy the Queen's proclamation of neutrality. To these observations I will only add, that, if the noble earl wishes for any other paper relating to the Alabama-I believe there is only one-I should be willing to give it; but as to the folio volume of papers to which I have before referred, I hope the noble earl will not press for their production. The EARL OF CARNARVON said he had already explained that he did not wish for the correspondence in extenso, but would be satisfied with short summaries of each case, containing such details as names, dates, and amounts of claims. There would surely be no difficulty in producing such information. With regard to the interpretation he had put on the language of the noble earl, he thought their lordships would agree that he had been not unnaturally misled, and was justified in asking further explanation. He accepted, howeyer, the explanation the noble earl had given him, and he rejoiced to receive it. He hoped there would be no objection on the part of the noble earl to produce the papers in the case of the Saxon. That transaction had occurred between five and six months ago, and the negotiations in that case must be nearly complete. It was most important that Parliament should know precisely the position in which it stood in reference to such matters; and when the noble earl challenged him to prove his case, although he was quite ready to take up his challenge, he could not do so unless the noble earl supplied him with the materials. He should only further press for a copy of the instructions which were sent out to the colonial authorities at the Cape of Good Hope, and on which they had acted in the case of the Tuscaloosa. He hoped there would be no objection to give a copy of these instructions. EARL RUSSELL said that he should have no objection to the motion of the noble earl, on the understanding that names, dates, and other details of that kind only were to be given. With regard to the papers connected with the case of the Saxon, he was quite ready to produce them, if the noble earl would move for them. The EARL OF CARNARVON then moved for the correspondence or extracts relative to the capture of the Saxon, and for copy of instructions to the colonial authorities relative to the detention of the Tuscaloosa. EARL RUSSELL said it would be necessary to communicate with the colonial office in regard to the instructions to the authorities at the Cape. Address for "Return of claims made by British subjects upon the United States government, sustained either in person or property since the secession of the southern States, specifying how and the grounds on which such claims have been disposed of." Also, "Correspondence, or extracts from correspondence, relative to the capture of the Saxon by the United States ship Vanderbilt." And, also, "Copy of instructions to the colonial authorities relative to the detention of the Tuscaloosa." APPENDIX No. XX. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS OF APRIL 26, 1864, AT THAT PORT.* From Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, vol. 174, pages 1595–1617.] HOUSE OF LORDS, April 26, 1864. UNITED STATES--THE LAW OF PRIZE. LORD CHELMSFORD, in rising to call the attention of the House to the statement of the views of her Majesty's government as to the mode of dealing with prizes brought by the belligerent powers of America within the dominions of her Majesty, contained in the correspondence respecting the Tuscaloosa, which has been presented to the House, said that the subject was of such great importance that he would not apologize for submitting it to the attention of their lordships. In the deplorable war which had been so long raging on the other side of the Atlantic both belligerents had shown themselves so extremely sensitive as to the conduct of this country, that it was necessary for the government to be extremely careful not to exceed the strict limit of neutral rights and obligations, and to do nothing not strictly in conformity with the principles of international law. In the papers laid on the table of the House under the title of "Correspondence respecting the Tuscaloosa," he found some instructions issued by the government with respect to the mode of dealing with prizes brought by the belligerents into ports belonging to this country, which appeared to him so much. at variance with principle and policy, and which, if acted upon, seemed so likely to lead to unpleasant consequences, that he felt bound to present to their lordships his views on the matter for their lordships' careful consideration or necessary correction. At the commencement of the present unhappy war in America her Majesty was advised to issue a proclamation interdicting the armed ships of both contending parties from coming with their prizes into the ports, harbors, and roadsteads of the United Kingdom, or of any of the British colonies and possessions. This he thought a wise precaution, and perfectly consistent with our neutral character. The writers on international law laid it down that although it was not a violation of neutrality for a belligerent to bring her prizes into a neutral port, and even to dispose of them there, yet they all added that the neutral might refuse that privilege, provided the refusal extended to both parties. No fault, therefore, was to be found with the proclamation, and the only consideration was as to the proper course of proceeding in case the prohibition should be disregarded. The Tuscaloosa was originally a federal vessel named the Conrad; on the 21st of June last she was off the coast of Brazil with a cargo of wool, and was there captured by the well-known confederate cruiser the Alabama. The captors put some guns on board, placed in her a lieutenant of the confederate navy and ten men, and changing her name to the Tuscaloosa, employed her as a tender of the Alabama. The two vessels were in company at the Cape of Good Hope in the beginning of August, and Captain Semmes ordered the Tuscaloosa to Simon's Bay, for the purpose of obtaining provisions and undergoing some slight repairs. She arrived off Simon's Bay on the 7th of August. The admiral upon the station, Sir Baldwin Walker, who had heard something of the previous history of the Tuscaloosa, doubted whether she could properly be considered as the tender of the Alabama, whether she did not retain her previous character of an uncondemned prize, and therefore whether she could be admitted under the terms of her Majesty's proclamation. He wrote to Governor Wodehouse, and requested that he * Transmitted with dispatch No. 675, from Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward, April 29, 1864, see vol. III, p. 255. |