UNITED STATES-THE NEUTRALITY MOTION FOR PAPERS. pur EARL RUSSELL: I rise for the pose of calling your Lordships' attention to the Commission on the Neutrality Laws, and to ask, how soon the Report of the Commission will be laid before Parliament? and to move that "An humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies or Extracts of any further Correspondence that may have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in reference to the Alabama and other claims." the blockade to be subject to the common law of nations, which exposed merchant ships to the risk of capture if they carried anything contraband of war. They were for protecting such ships by the naval force of this country. I find that the danger now is of a totally different kind. I find that that partiality for the Southern States has altogether ceased; and that, instead of the difficulty which I had to encounter, as the Minister of the Crown, in performing the duties of neutrality, there is a difficulty in preserving the proper position and dignity of this country against unreasonable or unfounded demands. Not that I think any objection can be taken to the course that has been pursued by the United States Govern My Lords, in doing this, though I do not desire to censure the course of the Government. It is only natural that people who ment, yet I may say that I do not concur suffered from the capture of their merchant in that course. My wish is that this coun- ships and the destruction of their property try shall avoid as much as possible just the should come to us for redress. The Governopposite error to that which both Houses ment of that country have stated their case of Parliament were disposed to fall into very temperately, and it is not from them three or four years ago. During the pro- that any of the excitement which has lately gress of the civil war in America it was prevailed has arisen. It is persons in this evident that a considerable number of country who, when the excitement caused Members of both Houses were hardly by the capture of the Alabama and other prepared to do justice to the Government vessels was entirely allayed in America, of the United States, and as non-bellige- have raised the question anew, being apparents to perform all the duties of neutrality rently apprehensive that we shall have to in good faith, and to abstain from every- meet the heavy claims which have been thing to which that Government could justly preferred. I confess that, under these cirtake exception. I remember that when, cumstances, I feel considerable apprehenon one occasion, I referred to the Southern sion that the Government may be so pressed, States as the "so-called" Confederate that, either by negotiation or by the introStates, the Leader of the Opposition told duction of a Bill into Parliament at a time me that I might with just as much pro- when the business of the Session is hurried priety speak of the United States as the through—or, perhaps, by both modes-our "so-called United States ;" and the same position as a neutral nation may be endannoble Earl indulged in a panegyric upon gered, and we may concede demands to Mr. Laird, who, in my view, was usurping which, as an independent Power, we ought the Prerogative of the Crown and endea- not to submit. It is with this view, therevouring to make war on his own account, fore, that I beg to recall to your Lordships thereby running the risk of involving this some of the circumstances which have occountry in hostilities. It will also be curred since the present Government have remembered that, in the presence of a been in power, and also during the former large company of Members of the House Government. Just before I left the Foreign of Commons, Mr. Laird said he was proud Office I had a correspondence with Mr. of having fitted out the Alabama, and Adams; and here I may say, that I cannot much preferred being the builder of that mention that gentleman's name without vessel to having made such a speech as expressing my high esteem and respect for Mr. Bright had recently delivered; and him, the value I place upon his character, that statement was loudly applauded by and the assurance I feel that in conducting many hon. Members. All this shows that business he did everything which honour many Members in both Houses were not and good faith and moderation could preprepared to do everything required by scribe. While carrying out the orders of the duties of neutrality. Moreover, some his Government, his invariably conciliatory noble Friends of mine objected very conduct tended to render easy what would strongly to our allowing ships fitted out otherwise have been an almost impossible in this country for the purpose of running task. Now, with regard to Mr. Adams, I may state the way in which he and I left | mode if he thought that beneficial results the question when I was about to leave the would follow, and to that course I could Foreign Office. I wrote to Mr. Adams not make any objection. But I certainly stating the whole case as then understood do not anticipate any good results from by Her Majesty's Government, and about arbitration. Now, as to the questions to a fortnight afterwards an answer was re- be submitted to arbitration, I'own I cannot ceived by my noble Friend (Lord Clarendon), concur with Her Majesty's present Governgoing through all the points to which I had ment. It seems to me that, Mr. Adams addressed myself. Mr. Adams stated that having stated that a succession of hostile upon the law we entirely agreed. I had cruizers, manned and armed by this said frequently that the conduct of the country, had been sent out to prey upon United States towards Portugal in 1818 the commerce of the United States, and was such as might advantageously be fol- Lord Clarendon having distinctly denied lowed, since when some Portuguese ships that assertion, the first thing for an arbiter had been captured by privateers fitted out or for any Commission that might be apin America they did all that was required pointed to investigate would be the facts. by their neutral position and by their dignity If it was found that there had been as an independent State. Mr. Adams, at armed vessels, or even that there had the commencement of his letter, stated that, been vessels built and equipped in this as we entirely agreed upon the law, there country, that had gone out to prey on the was no need of carrying on further discus-commerce of the United States, it would sion upon that subject; but he went on to make a statement with respect to the facts of the case. I had expressed a hope that there might be some legislation which would tend to ascertain more precisely the position of neutrals, and on which both Powers might agree. Mr. Adams, remarking upon this, said— "So long as the heavy list of depredations upon American commerce, consequent upon the issue of a succession of hostile cruizers, built, fitted out, armed, manned, and navigated from British ports, continues to weigh upon their minds, it would be the height of assurance to expect any common legislation." Upon this Lord Clarendon, in a letter dated the 2nd of December, 1865, remarked "It is, nevertheless, my duty in closing this correspondence to observe that no armed vessel departed during the war from a British port to cruize against the commerce of the United States." Thus, while there was an agreement respecting the law of the case, there was the widest difference with respect to the facts. Mr. Adams spoke of a succession of armed cruizers being fitted out in British ports. But Lord Clarendon said that no such cruizers left British ports to prey upon the commerce of the United States. The noble Lord who now holds the seals of the Foreign Office differs so far from me, that he holds it was wise to submit the question at issue in this controversy to arbitration. I have already stated in this House that that is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of State; and that the fact of my having refused to submit the question to arbitration was no reason whatever against Lord Stanley adopting that then become a substantive question to as- would have agreed upon an Opinion, and on | he demanded satisfaction and indemnifithe 25th the Alabama would have been de- cation for the injury which had been done tained. But, unfortunately, it so happened to Portuguese subjects, as well as for the that the great excitement to which Sir insult which had been offered to the PortuJohn Harding had been subjected in the guese flag. To this letter the American course of these questions unfitted his mind Secretary of State, after reciting the comfor giving an opinion on so important a plaint of the Portuguese Minister, replies matter, and therefore some little time was as follows:lost, and it was not until the morning of the 29th of July that the Foreign Office were in possession of the Opinion of the Law Officers. That Opinion would have been immediately acted upon, but on that day information was received that the Alabama had gone to sea upon a trial trip. Orders were immediately sent to Queenstown and also to Nassau with a view to the detention of the vessel; but I hold in my hand an account sent by the Consul of the United States at Liverpool "The Government of the United States having used all the means in its power to prevent the fitting out and arming of vessels in their ports to cruize against any nation with whom they are at peace, and having faithfully carried into execution the laws enacted to preserve inviolate the neutral and pacific obligations of this Union, cannot consider itself bound to indemnify individual foreigners for losses by capture over which the United States have neither control nor jurisdiction. For such events no nation can in principle, nor does in practice, hold itself responsible." The Act of 1818 The United States, however, not only "I do justice to, and am grateful for, the proceedings of the Executive in order to put a stop to these depredations, but the evil is rather increasing. I can present to you, if required, a list of fifty Portuguese ships, almost all richly laden, some of them East Indiamen, which have been taken by these people during the period of full peace. This is not the whole loss we have sustures of which I have received official complaints. tained, this list comprehending only those capThe victims have been many more, besides violations of territory by landing and plundering ashore, with shocking circumstances. One city alone on this coast has armed twenty-six ships, which prey on our vitals; and a week ago three armed ships of this nature were in that port wait to Mr. Adams, to the effect that she was not an armed vessel, and that after going, I think, to Beaumaris, she sailed round by the North of Ireland, and never stopped until she reached the Azores. There she obtained from another vessel her powder and stores. The Alabama was therefore not an armed vessel when leaving this country, and it was in the jurisdiction of another Sovereign that she received her armament. With regard to the question of neutrality, the policy of the United States may be said to be founded upon the conduct of the American President and Secretary of State in 1794. Until that time it had been held by writers on the Law of Nations that a neutral Power might take one of two courses -it might either allow arms and ammunition to be supplied to two belligerents impartially, or it might abstaining for a favourable opportunity of sailing on a from giving succour to either. The latter cruize." course was thought by Washington to be Now, the Portuguese having suffered by the safer and wiser. That course was the loss of many of their vessels, and the followed by the United States in 1794, United States Government having stated and the law remained in that condition un- that they had put the laws in force, and til the wars broke out between the colonies having assumed that they alone were to be of Spain and Portugal and the mother the judges how their laws were to be carcountries, when great complaints were ried into effect, Mr. Adams says he consimade by the latter of the number of cap-ders the case of the United States against tures that had been made by the cruizers acting from the United States. I hold in my hand the complaint made on the 8th of March, 1818, by Senhor Correa de Serra to the United States Government, in which he said that three Portuguese ships had been captured by privateers fitted out in the United States, manned by American crews, and commanded by American captains, though under insurgent colours, and Portugal "impregnable." They endeavoured to put their laws in force; but there was a great public feeling in favour of fitting out privateers against the Portuguese Government, and they were not able to prevent Americans for the ships were manned and commanded by citizens of the United States-from carrying on such depredations. Then, I say, if that case be impregnable," if the United States had no reason to make any indemnity, or to agree to any commission for the purpose of seeing whether the Portuguese owners should be indemnified, the case of Her Majesty's Government, which is similar to that of the United States in regard to Portugal, is equally impregnable. Your Lordships know what proceedings took place with regard to the Alexandra. A very long argument was carried on in the Court of Exchequer, and the reason why the case was not fully judged was owing to a very strange peculiarity in our mode of proceeding. Another matter of dispute was with regard to the rams that were built and fitted out at Birkenhead. There was great difficulty in getting legal evidence with respect to these vessels. We were informed, however, that these vessels were intended for the service of the Confederate States, and the question was whether, on my own responsibility, I should order their detention. The allegation made, on the other hand, was that these vessels were intended for the Pasha of Egypt. Thereupon I sent a telegram to our Consul General in Egypt, directing him to inquire of the Pasha whether these vessels were really building for him at Birkenhead? and I received an answer that the Pasha denied that he had given any such orders, and said that a proposal for a contract had been made to the former Pasha, but that he had refused to have anything to do with it. I then directed the Secretary of Embassy at Paris to make inquiry there of M. Bravay, with a view to ascertaining whether or not these vessels were intended for the Confederate States; and a contract was placed in his hands, by M. Bravay, according to which Captain Bullock, the agent of the Confederate States, was said to have transferred, for a certain sum of money, the possession of these vessels into his hands. I at length succeeded in ascertaining a fact which the Customs Department had previously been unable to ascertain-namely, that these vessels were clearly built for the Confederate States; and when I had once ascertained that, and that the Confederate Government had tried to secure themselves by selling the vessels to other parties, I thought that I was fully authorized to detain them, though I was advised that it was doubtful whether, when the case came to a trial, there was legal evidence against them. Still, it seemed to me that there was sufficient moral evidence that these vessels were intended to act against the blockading squadron of the United States; I therefore gave orders for the detention of these vessels. Now, I do not believe that I exceeded the law in so doing; but it was very possible that if the case had come on for trial it might have been found that we had not the legal evidence to secure a conviction. I was told even that, although I had in my own hands a copy of the contract to which I have just alluded, it would not be possible to produce it in a Court of Law in this country, the peculiarities of our law being such that it was necessary that the original contract should be produced. I know not how that may be; but I thought that possibly the peace of this kingdom was at stake, and that if these vessels went out to break the blockade instituted by the United States, an injury would be inflicted upon that Government which the United States probably would not pass over; and I therefore thought that, whether all the requirements of the law had been complied with or not, I should be right in ordering the seizure of these vessels. Mr. Adams continued to complain that we had not altered our law; but if we had altered it-if we had adopted the American law-we should not have been able to take the efficient measures which we did take. We might then have compelled them to forfeit a certain sum of money, but we should not have been able to seize and keep the vessels. We certainly incurred considerable risk, which, I think, we were bound to incur in order to maintain the peace of this country. The only other case I shall mention is a very important one, to which great weight should be attached-the case of the Shenandoah. The Shenandoah was a regular merchant vessel, and was sold by the person then the owner of it to some person who was engaged for the Confederates. It left this country without any arms, equipment, or furnishing whatever, other than those of a merchant ship; and it was not till a month afterwards that we heard it had arrived off the port of Funchal, and was being armed by other vessels. Now, it seems to me that this is a very important question, not only as regards the conduct of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but as regards our future legislation. There are two things we may very well do in order to preserve our neutrality. You may prevent troops from being drilled or recruited on your own soil with a view to enter the service of a belligerent Power. That you may do by the exercise of your belligerent purposes. But if we were by treaty or by law of the realm to impose such further obligations as I have just mentioned, and if we, as a shipbuilding country, engaged to stop unarmed vessels from leaving our coast, that would be a dangerous obligation into which Her Majesty's Government ought not to enter. Another suggestion has been made with regard to the Alabama claims and our differences with America. It is understood to have been made by Mr. Seward— namely, that every other question with regard to which we have had controversies with the United States as to the meaning of treaties and the occupation of territory should be considered at the same time, and that we should come, if possible, to some general agreement on all these points. I believe that to be a very wise and prac ticable suggestion, and at all events we should endeavour to settle all these matters. My Lords, I will now ask the noble and learned Lord how soon the Report of the Neutrality Commission will be laid on the table? authority. What you cannot do is to prevent individuals from going to a foreign country, as the Earl of Dundonald did, and engaging in the service of a belligerent. So likewise with regard to vessels. If a vessel is being armed, or fitted as a vessel of war, in one of your ports, you may give power-and I should be very glad to see such power given-to the Executive Government to detain that vessel upon the order of the Judge of the Admiralty Court, or of some competent authority, unless the Government is fully satisfied that the vessel is not intended for use against any State friendly to Her Majesty. That you can do. But, suppose that a vessel is simply a merchant vessel, that you have no information of the purpose for which she is destined, that no one has told you that the owner has got a secret engagement, how can you prevent that vessel from going to some far distant neutral port, and there being armed against some Power in amity with Her Majesty? I will put a case that might occur in the future, and that might have occurred some months ago. There was an apprehension at one time, and a very natural apprehension, that, on account of Luxemburg or some other cause, France and Prussia would engage in war. It was well known that the. French naval forces were vastly superior to those of Prussia, and it was be lieved that, in a short time, the ports of Prussia and her allies would be blockaded. But what was to prevent the Prussian Government from entering into contract with a merchant at Amsterdam for the building of steam vessels of speed and strength in English ports on the Thames, the Clyde, and the Mersey, those steamers afterwards going to certain neutral ports without arms in order to meet other vessels furnished with arms and equipment? I submit to your Lordships and to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who is a Member of the Commission on the Neutrality Laws, that it would be carrying our neutral obligations to a very dangerous length if we were to say that, where an unarmed merchant vessel sailed to a foreign port and was there armed, the Power in whose ports she was built became responsible for any of her subsequent acts. I own it seems to me that we have already in spirit gone far enough in our Neutrality Laws. It would be a wise precaution to give greater power to the Executive Government over armed vessels, or vessels fitted out as vessels of war, attempting to leave our coast for THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall endeavour, in the first place, to answer the Question which the noble Earl has put to me. This time last year, as the noble Earl has stated, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into and consider the character, working, and effect of the Laws of this Realm available for the enforcement of Neutrality during the existence of hostilities in other States with whom Her Majesty is at peace; and further to report what, if any, change ought to be made to give them increased efficiency and bring them into full conformity with Her Majesty's International obligations. That Commission was composed, among others, of a Member of your Lordships' House-Lord Houghton; Dr. Lushington (the late Judge of the Admiralty Court); Sir William Erle, Mr. Baron Bramwell, Sir R. Phillimore, Sir Roundell Palmer, the present Queen's Advocate, Sir Travers Twiss; Mr. Vernon Harcourt, Mr. Baring, Mr. Gregory, and Mr. Forster. I also had the honour of serving upon it, and we had the great advantage of being presided over in our deliberations by the sagacity and experience of another Member of your Lordships' House-Lord Cranworth. I think your Lordships will be of opinion that this Commission has not lost any time. It was appointed just a year ago; and it was composed of members whose occupations in other respects were very |