LORD STRATHEDEN rose to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Appointment of a Commission to inquire into the Subject of Metropolitan Railways. He would remind their Lordships that the subject of the projected encroachments of the railway companies on the streets and squares of the metropolis had already occupied much of their attention, and that during the debates that had occurred there had been a great union of opinion among practical authorities, that a Commission of Inquiry, similar to that of 1846, ought to be appointed before any considerable progress should be made in the railway works affecting the metropolis; but, as matters now stood, their Lordships had no security whatever that such a Commission would be appointed. The Government had, indeed, expressed an opinion that possibly the Select Committee to which the Metropolitan Railway Bills had been referred might recommend a Commission; but inasmuch as it formed no part of the Instructions to that Committee to give an opinion whether or not a Commission should be appointed, there was no reason to anticipate any recommendation from it on the subject, either favourable or unfavourable. The question, therefore, which he had to put to the Government was, Whether they intended to appointed a Commission of Inquiry, similar to that of 1846, on their own opinion of the merits of the case, or only in the event of the Select Committee recommending the appointing of a Commission? Should the reply be that the Government would, upon their own opinion of the merits of the case, appoint a Com mission, that answer would be satisfactory. If, on the other hand, the Government should answer that they would wait until the Select Committee had reported, that answer though less satisfactory, would not be useless, as it would show a large portion of their Lordships, who desired a Commission of Inquiry that some further Parliamentary proceedings were essential. EARL GRANVILLE said, he could not hold out any hope to his noble Friend that Her Majesty's Government would appoint a Commission on the subject of Metropolitan Railways until they had had time to examine the Report of the Select Committee now sitting. As Chairman of the Committee, he could inform their Lordships. that they had taken all the evidence they required; but all noble Lords who were present would agree with him in thinking that he was not at all in a position to tell them what the Report of the Committee would be. UNITED STATES-PROCEEDINGS OF THE PRIZE COURTS. MOTION FOR PAPERS. THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE rose to move for Copies of any Reports from our Consular or Diplomatic Agents in North America of the Decisions or Proceedings of the Prize Courts of the United States. In making this Motion, he was as sensible as any man could be of the gravity of the subject and of the difficult and delicate nature of some of the propositions which must be adverted to in the few observations which he should think it his duty to make. But it was exactly because the subject was so importantbecause it was one which might have the gravest consequences, both now and for all future time-because it might affect not only the commerce, but the peace and best interests of this country, that he believed that some Parliamentary notice ought to be taken of it. From what he had seen in the public papers, and in the papers which had been presented to Parliament, he thought that it was absolutely necessary that the question should be brought forward, and that Government should take more action in the matter than they had hitherto done if it were to have a peaceable solution. What was the state of the case? It was this:-A large and important portion of our commerce was at present paralysed by the action of a Government which professed to be at peace and "What am I to do? Here was a ship trading in a legitimate way, her papers were perfectly regular, her conduct unimpeached and unimpeachable, and yet she has been seized and carried off, my cargo has been taken ashore and damaged, about £40,000 of my capital is locked up, and I lose my market. I make an appeal to the Government, and I am told that the matter has been referred to Lord Lyons to make a representation on the subject." amity with us. No legitimate justification | Earl at the head of the Foreign Office, had been advanced on the part of that Go- in the clearest way, and from their own vernment of the acts which had been done, American authorities, had convicted them and which had been complained of as incou- of their wrong-doing, and they had no sistent with the recognised law of nations answer but that it suited their position to The result was that nearly the whole of exclude our ships and commerce from a our trade with the Gulf of Mexico and legitimate trade. They did not attempt to in the West Indian seas was arrested justify their course by law, and yet they or put in jeopardy. Of this fact there could did not hold out the slightest hope that be no doubt; for at this moment it was that course would be abandoned. He impossible to effect, upon vessels trading would give two or three illustrations of to the West Indies, insurances on terms what he meant. The first case to which which would allow the merchant and ship- he would refer was that of the Labuan, owner any remuneration for his adventure. which occurred as long ago as the April He had a letter from a gentleman, one of last year. He did not know the parof whose ships had been seized, and he ticulars of that case further than thisaskedthat Mr. Seward acknowledged that the ship was illegally seized, and even went the length of giving orders that no British ship should be seized under similar circumstances. But did he order the release of the ship? Not at all; he ordered that she should be sent to a Prize Court, and told the noble Earl, who in his turn told the merchants of this country, that this remedy of a Prize Court was to cure all evils, and with the decisions of that court they were to be content. Upon those grounds, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) thought he had a locus standi in asking what were the rules and decisions followed in those Courts in America. The next case was that of the ship Adela, which sailed from Liverpool for Bermuda last February. No fault could be found with her papers. She went to Bermuda, and thence cleared for Nassau with a legitimate cargo though any cargo would have been legal, for she was sailing from one British port to another but she was seized near Porto Rico. The next case was that of the Springbock, which sailed from London for Nassau in February. She was seized about 200 miles from Nassau, and about 400 from the American coast. The fourth case was that of the Dolphin, which sailed from Liverpool to St. Thomas, and from thence for Nassau, and was seized off Porto Rico on the 25th of March. The fifth case was that of the Peterhoff, which sailed from Liverpool for St. Thomas and thence for Nassau. She was boarded when going into St. Thomas; her papers were found to be perfectly regular, but she was afterwards seized when coming out, by orders of Admiral Wilkes, within sight of port. He had named those ships, because the cases, however different in degree, were similar in character, and there had not been a shadow of irregu If this were a solitary instance, he should not mention it, but treat it as a case of oversight and as a wrong which must have redress. If there were any hope that these things would pass away, and that the tone of the Government of the United States would be characterized by respect for the recognised law of nations, he should wish our own Government not to be hasty or rash, nor to stand out for the utmost rights which we were privileged to enforce, but rather to make every allowance for the present embarrassments of the United States Government. But these things had gone on for a considerable time; and from the documents which had been laid before Congress, and which had also been laid before their Lord. ships' House, it was plain that the Government of the United States had advanced pretensions and had asserted them in a manner that was totally unheard of, and that the mercantile community and the people of this country would not stand. If such things were allowed to go on, it must come to war. It was by noticing them now, and acting in a firm but temperate manner, that we should avoid war. He had no fault to find with the language which the Government had held in the papers which had been laid before the House, and which most clearly exposed the wrong-doing of the United States Government and their officers. The noble ture. speed. The captain then described the course his ship took to cut off the Adela, when she should put about, so as to cross the channel going en route to Nassau!" IIere was a ship seized when going from one British port to another, on the showing of the Federal captain himself. Where was this to stop? They might just as well have seized a vessel going into Portsmouth. It was said, that sending to Prize Courts was to be the justification of all these proceedings; but the Adela was taken before the Prize Court, and what was the decision? LORD KINGSDOWN: What Court was it? THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: Key West. LORD KINGSDOWN: Is it a provincial court or a supreme Court? THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE presumed it was a provincial Court. He had often heard it said that certain Judges should not give reasons for their decisions, but in this case they had the reason for the decision. The Judge said, he condemned, on the ground that whatever way he decided an appeal would be had. This was the precisely contrary rule to that which prevailed for sixty years in our courts. The justification required in a condemnation for breach of blockade was clearly laid down by Lord Kingsdown in the case of the Ostee. Lord Kingsdown said larity imputed to the vessels-their papers were admitted to be in regular order, and it was not alleged that they had deviated from their course. He therefore asserted, that they had been taken, not because, contrary to the rules of international law, they were attempting to run the blockade, or to run contraband of war to an enemy's port, but under a design of the Government of the United States and their officers, to stop the legitimate trade of this country, not only between England and foreign ports, such as Matamoras, but actually also between our own ports. If the Government of this country submitted to these things now, or allowed such acts to be done with simply a verbal remonstrance, they were submitting, not only to an indignity to the British flag and an injury to British trade, but they were creating precedents of the most grievous naNone of the conditions which Lord Stowell laid down in the case of the Betsy, as justifying capture, could be pleaded in the case of the Labuan, which had never made any attempt to run the blockade. Mr. Adams, in adverting to the ground on which the Labuan was seized, stated, that she was involved in the suspicion not unfairly attaching to all British vessels sailing under British colours in the neighbourhood in which she was seized." This neighbourhood, be it remembered, was that of the Havannah. The same claim was set up in Mr. Seward's despatch, breach of blockade, three things must be proved, "In order to justify a condemnation for in which it was laid down that the Federal-first, the existence of an actual blockade; secruisers had a right to seize every ship found in these seas trading to Matamoras and the West Indies; and if they sent her into a Prize Court, no complaint of such seizure could be made. In the case of the Adela the intervention of Her Majesty's Government was invoked, and the matter was brought under the notice of the United States Government. There was a dispute whether she was seized within two miles or ten of the coast (although that he considered unimportant in reference to the present argument). The captain of the Federal cruiser was, thereupon, ordered to send in a second and supplementary report. The captain and crew of the Adela declared that she was cap-had come to the conclusion that the maritured in British waters, not two miles from time code and international law ought to shore; but this was in dispute. The captain be modified in favour of neutrals. He of the Federal cruiser, in his second report, might observe, with reference to a point said, that "from the speed she was making that had been much spoken of latelyshe was evidently endeavouring to escape the right of captors to open mails found us;" as if a British vessel were not allowed on board vessels they had seized, with to prosecute her voyage at her own rate of a view to obtain evidence to justify their condly, the knowledge of the party; thirdly, some act of violation, either by going in or coming out with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade.' Before he reverted to the decision of Lord Stowell in the case of the Betsy, he would remark that Lord Stowell's judgments had sometimes been considered somewhat harsh towards neutrals, and Lord Stowell himself complained of the difficulty he experienced in finding exact precedents to guide him, and that he was therefore compelled to arrive at a decision from the application of sound and just principles to the cases before him. Since this time, however, the whole civilized world, including America, - capture he found in Lawrence's edi- namely, the depositions and the ship's papers. This ship was, according to the evidence, taken twenty miles from the coast of Finland. If that was a cause of detention, and justifies the introduction of captor's evidence, any vessel navigating that gulf may be detained on similar presumption. He wanted to know whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to overturn the law as laid down by the best late and highest authorities both of Europe and America, to vary the practice that had obtained for so long a period, simply to suit the exigencies of the United States Government at this particular moment? He repeated that there did not appear to be a shadow of law or equity to sustain the acts which had been committed by the American Government, and they almost avowed that there was no such authority. "The law which we are to lay down cannot be confined to the British navy. The rule must be applied to captors of all nations. No country can be permitted to form an exceptional rule in its own favour. Whatever is held in England to justify an officer of the British navy will be held There was a virtual, if not a by the tribunals of every country, both on this and declared determination to put a stop to on the other side of the Atlantic, to justify or ex- British trade in those waters. He might cuse the captors of their own nation. By the refer to another matter, in which an atusage of all countries captors have a great interest in increasing the number of prizes. The tempta- tempt had been made to set aside all the tion to send in ships for adjudication is sufficiently obligations of international law, of direct strong. Is it too much to say, that where no treaties, and of usage, under the pretence ground of suspicion can be shown, and all that the of a municipal law. The New York cuscaptor can allege is that he did wrong under a mistake, he should make good in temperate dama-vessels trading to the Bahamas or West toms officers refused to give clearance to ges the injury which he has occasioned? Ought a captor to be permitted to say to the captured, True, nothing suspicious appeared in your case at the time of seizure, but, upon further inquiry, something might have been discovered. I had a right to take my chance. You have nothing to complain of. I subjected you to no unnecesary inconvenience. Go about your business, and be thankful for your escape.' We cannot think that this would be a satisfactory answer to a British neutral ship seized by a foreign belligerent." That was the case of a ship seized only twenty miles from a blockaded port, and the noble and learned Lord felt himself bound to condemn the captors in damages, as well as to restore the vessel. Another high authority, Dr. Lushington, as late as 1856, in the case of the Olive and Fanny, captured by us during the Russian war, said "It is true, as has been urged by Her Majesty's Advocate, that circumstances have been somewhat changed, that captors now run greater danger of being condemned in costs and damages than they did formerly; but although that may be a sufficient reason for the Judicial Committee to depart from the authority of the Haabet, I do not think it competent for me to adopt such a course." The decree was that the prayer of the captors for admission of their evidence be rejected and ship restored, &c., but the Judge added My decree is founded on the conviction that no doubt arises upon the primary evidence India Islands. Complaints were made to Lord Lyons, who communicated with Mr. Seward, who, in reply, forwarded the report of the Collector of Customs, in which that functionary said In the exercise of the discretion devolving upon me as an officer of the Government of a sovereign people, I have prohibited the shipment of coals, of dry goods, of shoes, of quinine and other drugs, of tinware, of munitions of war, and Indies, and other foreign ports, when I had reason sundry other articles to Nassau and the West to suspect they were intended by individual enterprise, or the special contracts of British subjects, to directly contribute to the welfare of the enemies of the United States." Thus, if the collector thought that goods carried by a British ship might possibly contribute, directly or indirectly, to the welfare of the Southern people, he, in defiance of all law and of all treaties, took upon himself to prohibit the exportation of all such goods. It was said, that if those vessels were not themselves intended to run the blockade, yet their cargoes were destined to ports which were entrepôts for the supply of blockade runners. Matamoras had become a place of great importance in the western world, and the trade of Nassau had enormously increased. But could it be endured that the United States should say, because the Con federates or others might run the blockade, on their Lordships to look at the proceed. the liberty of the seas and our commerce ings of these Prize Courts with great with a port of our own should cease? Such a jealousy? These transactions commenced pretension could not be allowed. No doubt a year ago; they had continued up to the it might be said, that according to the present day, and were British merchants case decided in 1856, by Dr. Lushington, to be terrified into giving up their trade, the parties injured would get costs to a or were they still to cherish that confidence large amount from the United States. in the protection of their Government to Why, no man could seriously believe that which they were entitled? If such proany costs would be given. What had been ceedings were not checked, they would renthe nature of their proceedings? He had der it impossible to avoid war. He was shown what had been done with ships, with told by his noble Friend the other day, respect to which their conduct had been when he recommended a squadron to be utterly unlawful; but how had they dealt sent to the Gulf of Mexico, that that would with the owners of ships they had seized? be war. But did the present state of A very curious case had appeared in The things amount to peace?—our ships seized, Times of this very morning. It was as our commerce stopped, and our flag insulted follows:on the high seas! If war was to be avoided, the sooner such proceedings were checked the better. In July last a deputation from Liverpool waited on his noble Friend, and complained to him of their commerce being interfered with, and his noble Friend then stated that this country could not allow our commerce to be harassed in an illegal manner; but he added that Her Majesty's Government had no reason to doubt the adherence to legal requirements by the United States Government. He should be glad to hear from his noble Friend a similar assurance now. If Prize Courts were the sole resource of British merchants for justice, they ought to have full information respecting them. He begged to move for the Papers of which he had given notice. "In the case of the Peterhoff, on Saturday, a motion made on behalf of the owners of the vessel to admit the testimony of Captain Jarman was opposed by the district attorney and the counsel for the captors. Upon this motion the Court took the papers, and reserved its decision. An order to allow Mr. Redgate, one of the owners of the cargo, to testify in his own behalf, was then applied for. Mr. Redgate's counsel stated that his client was born a British subject; that he was an enemy of the Confederate Government; that his portion of the cargo had been legitimately consigned to his partner at Matamoras; and that he desired to be and remain a citizen of the United States, provided he could thereby receive the restitution of his property and damages for unlawful capture and detention; but if he were to be treated as an alien enemy, he demanded that he be regarded as a British subject, and as such he should claim protection from the British Go vernment." EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, my noble Friend the noble Marquess has made a speech bringing very grave charges against the American Government and the American prize courts. He has brought, in effect, a charge that the American Government and the American courts appointed for the purpose of judging these questions of capture and prize have set aside the whole Probably their Lordships would agree with him that Mr. Redgate would not be a very valuable accession to either country, for he offered himself to any one from which he might get back his property. But the Court decided, that as Mr. Redgate was resident in a rebellions State, he was to be considered an alien enemy," although he was an Englishman. The whole trans-international law of the world-that they action was illegal, and was sustained by the United States, not upon law, but entirely on expediency. It was laid down in instructions to the Collector at New York that British ships should not take British goods-not merely munitions of war, but any, even dry goods, into the Bahama waters and the waters of the West Indies, because they were liable to be taken to the Confederate States; and now it was decided by these Prize Courts, that because they happened to be resident in Confederate States when the rebellion broke out, British subjects were to be deprived of their undoubted rights. Was that to be allowed? Was he not justified in calling VOL. CLXX. [THIRD SERIES] have given orders quite inconsistent with that international law; and he more than once stated that they had publicly stated their determination to interrupt British commerce. That commerce might be as lawful as they pleased, it might be as fair commerce as could be carried on upon the seas, but the American Government had decided that they would interrupt and put an end to it in the Transatlanic Seas. Certainly, in one of the sentences in which he made these charges, my noble Friend put in the word "almost," and that, like the word "if," is a great peacemaker; so that after all, even according to my noble Friend, the American Government have 3 N |