yond the directions that they have received; it may be that they have seized vessels that were really going to Matamoras or some neutral port without sufficient evidence that the cargo was of a contraband character; but it does seem to me, in spite of what my noble Friend says, that the Government of this country is bound to take a calm view of these matters, to represent them fairly to the United States Government, and not to presume that the Government of the United States would fail in their duty to a friendly Power, or that they would countenance outrages which are against the law of nations. These representations will be made, and I expect, that if they are just, reparation will not be refused. I have already said that what took place at the interview which I had with the shipowners has not been fully given. One mistake has certainly been made. It is said that I expressed surprise at the information that certain British subjects had been made prisoners, and detained in a place of confinement by the authorities of the United States. I certainly did not express any such surprise, for I had been reading that very morning the representations not only of our Consuls, but of those British subjects themselves who had been so detained, and detained apparently with great and unnecessary harshness, the object being merely to detain them in order that they might give evidence in the prize court. It cannot be doubted that there are precedents showing, that when a case is brought before the prize court, the master of the vessel may give evidence of the real character of the cargo and the destination of the vessel, and that he may be detained for that purpose. But it seems to me that the United States authorities have gone beyond what they fairly had a right to do. When we were belligerents, many cases involving belligerent and neutral rights were brought before a very eminent Judge, whose decisions are generally and universally respected; and though I believe he carried the principle favourable to captors to perhaps rather a severe length, beyond doubt they were in conformity with the law of nations. I allude to Lord Stowell. We were the belligerents; we are now neutrals. But, as I have already said, I think it would not become the character of this nation, because we had changed our position, to invoke another law, and an other measure; to declare that those decisions of Lord Stowell, which were advan

tageous to us when we were belligerents, should be thrown aside and rejected by us when we became neutrals. Accordingly, those persons who think, that whatever may be the destination of a ship, and whatever papers she may have on board showing that she is about to break the blockade, or to carry arms to some one of the Confederate States now in hostility with the United States, they are to be protected by the power of the British nation in contradiction to all our own decisions, and in contradiction to the declared law of nations, will, I hope, know that the British Government never will place itself in that position. Let us look impartially at these cases which have occurred. It may be that we have suffered grievous wrong; it may be that we have a right to considerable reparation; but let the two Governments treat the cases fairly. We have on this side of the Atlantic the decisions of a great Judge; in America they have the views laid down by 'Judge Story and by such a writer as Mr. Wheaton. With these authorities to guide us, let us see who is in the right and who is in the wrong. But let us discuss the circumstances with a wish to do justice to each other. Do not let us be led by passion into anything which is not founded on justice, and which cannot afterwards be justified in the face of the world.

THE EARL OF CARNARVON said, he was anxious to obtain from his noble Friend an explanation of one part of the observations he had addressed to their Lordships. In recapitulating the circumstances connected with the Sea Queen, his noble Friend stated that the owners of the vessel complained of the difficulty in which they were placed by the apprehension that they might ultimately be compromised by the supposed contents of the mail-bags, which might induce American cruisers to commit acts of aggression. The terms of that answer appeared to imply a certain doubt or confusion in the mind of his noble Friend with regard to the supposed right of the American Government to arrest any ship, to open any mail-bags, or to take from them treasonable correspondence which they might contain. He spoke under the correction of noble and learned Lords present, when he ventured to say that no amount of treasonable correspondence within those bags, once they were sealed with the broad seal of England, would warrant the officers of any foreign Power in stopping the vessels which conveyed those bags, iu breaking the seals, and in taking from

are bound to protect our commerce in the instance of those vessels. Of this I amı quite sure-that if those vessels had been captured, whatever might be the result of the investigation, this country would never have submitted quietly to acts affording so serious a ground for complaint against the American Government.

EARL RUSSELL: I did not for a moment suppose that a naval officer of the United States would have a right to open these mail-bags. But as the members of the deputation said such a thing might happen, however contrary to law and justice, I thought it was my duty to relieve them from a fear of that possible contingency. Mr. Seward had, in fact, admitted, as my noble Friend has said, that such a proceeding would not be regular, and has given orders to stop it.

THE EARL OF DERBY: But the admission made by the Foreign Secretary that there is reason to suppose the United States officers might commit an illegal act-an admission which is involved in their relieving these vessels from the necessity of carrying the mail-bags-does imply a sort of contemplation on their part of the probability of that illegal act, without any accompanying declaration that such an act, if attempted, must call for the intervention and very serious notice of Her Majesty's Government. I think the noble Earl was quite right in refusing to put a mail agent on board vessels carry. ing mail bags, because he could not appoint one to a particular ship without likewise sending out agents in all the others, or without exposing those which had not an agent on board to still greater risks than they at present incur. But I think he was to blame in admitting as a ground of exemption from the duty of carrying the mail-bags, and that a practical and serious injury was done to British commerce in admitting, that there was a risk of officers of the American Government so misconducting themselves as to take these vessels, and to break open the mail-bags on board. I think he ought to have held this language-that shipowners are bound to carry the mails, and that we

EARL RUSSELL: No doubt there would be a serious ground of complaint, and I will not suppose that the United

such proceeding on the part of their officers. But we have seen, both in the case of the Tuscarora and in that which happened the other day, that naval officers have acted in entire contravention of Mr. Seward's instructions; and therefore I certainly did suppose it possible that some United States officer might in this respect likewise violate the general rules and directions of the American Secretary of State. No doubt, we might have insisted on the shipowners taking the mail-bags and exposing themselves to the risk; but I think it would have been very harsh to put in force against gentlemen who made these representations to us the compulsory powers as regards the carriage of mails which the law places in the hands of the Government.

THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Earl says he does not mean to contend that the United States Government would have sanctioned such a proceeding, but he does think it possible that without the sanction of that Government some indiscreet officer might adopt this unwarrantable course. Evidently the danger which was apprehended from the breaking open the mail-bags was that letters would be discovered leading to the condemnation of the vessel. [Earl RusSELL: I did not say the condemnation.] Well, if not exposed to condemnation, what was the injury done by having the letterbags on board? If the vessel was subjected to no greater inconvenience from carrying the letter-bags than she would have been if she carried no mails at all, I do not see what was the ground for exempting her from liability to perform this duty. But I understand the case to be argued on the ground of the risk which it is supposed would be incurred if an officer of the United States navy by an illegal act obtained possession of traitorous correspondence on board a British ship. Does the noble Lord mean to admit, that if such a course were pursued, this country would recognise the right of the United States to coudemn the

vessel on evidence so procured, which could not be legally brought into court? Would he not be bound to protest against the use of information acquired in such a manner, as well as against the original act of illegality itself?

EARL RUSSELL: There can be no doubt that we should have a very good ground of complaint, and that we should have a right to redress, which, no doubt, would be afforded. Still, I think it would be a very serious injury to the owners of a vessel to insist on a course which would expose her to the danger of her being taken first to Key West, and afterwards to some other port, possibly to Boston or New York.

66

EARL GREY: My Lords, I think it is greatly to be regretted that my noble Friend, in stating the course he meant to pursue, did not explain himself more clearly to the parties concerned. The noble Earl should have said, If you carry these bags, you will incur no danger, because, if they are opened, the officer who opens them will commit an offence against this country, which we shall be bound to notice, and to obtain for you ample pecuniary compensation for any damage or loss which you may sustain. It further appears to me, that the parties interested in these vessels might very fairly and reasonably desire to carry these letter-bags; because, if I am not mistaken, by shipping mails to a neutral port they come under a contract with the British Government to go to that port. They are bound to deliver the bags which they receive from the British Post Office at the neutral port to which they are consigned, and I presume, that if they failed to do so, they would incur the penalties attaching to a breach of contract with Her Majesty's Post Office. It might, therefore, be of importance to them to have the bags on board, as affording presumptive evidence that they were bound to Matamoras, and not to one of the Confederate ports, and I do not think that it is just or reasonable that British owners who are trading to a really neutral port, and who, as long as their destination is that port, are at liberty to carry contraband of war-I do not see any reason why they should be deprived of any security which may be afforded to them by the presumption which might arise from the carrying of letters. The only fault I have to find with the Government, is that they omitted to explain this more fully to the merchants concerned. With regard to the other

vessels, I cannot doubt that they will pursue a right course. Whatever ground there may be for fearing that the American Government will not act fairly by us, we are at present bound to assume that they will do so. Unless there is a denial of justice, we have no right to make a quarrel with them upon the subject. I hope and trust that the prize courts, before which the vessels are brought, will do their duty honestly and fairly; and if the facts are as alleged, will award proper pecuniary compensation to the owners of the vessels.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, the noble Earl (Earl Grey) was under a misapprehension as to the obligation owners of vessels entered into when they carried letters. There was a great distinction between an ordinary ship taking letters and a packet which took them under contract. In the former case there was no contract either expressed or implied between the captain or owner of the ship and the Post Office, the authorities of which had no means of controlling the voyage of the ship. There was nothing in the engagement to prevent such a ship deviating from her course-as, for instance, calling at a Confederate port before she went to Matamoras. It would therefore be no advantage to the owner of a ship to have letters on board. On the contrary, it was considered an onerous obligation, as was proved by the imposition of a penalty of £200, imposed by a recent Act, for a refusal to take letters. It was of this that the shipowners complained in their interview with his noble Friend. They said

"It is hard that we should be liable to a pe nalty for not taking letters which may render us liable to condemnation or interference by American cruisers, because it is possible that ship let

ters may be written by friends of the Federals to compromise us and our interests."

It was no answer to say that the American captain would be doing an illegal act if he opened the letters, because, although redress might ultimately be obtained from the Government at Washington, the ship would be subjected to great delay and loss, which might make shipowners unwilling to incur the risk, and induced them to ask to be released from the obligation. He did not see what remedy for the immediate in. convenience his noble Friend could have given them except to recommend that the right of the Post Office to put these letters on board all ships should not be insisted upon, and that they should, at their own

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Thursday, April 23, 1863.

MINUTES. NEW WRIT ISSUED-For Ilalifax v. James Stansfeld, esquire, Commissioner of the Admiralty. NEW MEMBER SWORN Fitzroy, for Thetford. SUPPLY-considered in Committee. WAYS AND MEANS-considered in Committee.

- Lord Frederick John

PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading-Poisoned Grain Prohibition [Bill 90].

Second Reading-Stock Certificates to Bearer [Bill 76]; Vaccination (Ireland) [Bill 70]; Local Government Supplemental [Bill 69]; Land Drainage (Provisional Orders) [Bill 85]. Committee Bakehouses Regulation [Bill 54);

Telegraphs [Bill 78]. Report-Bakehouses Regulation [Bill 54]; Telegraphs [Bill 78].

HIGHWAYS ACT.-QUESTION.

MR. HUNT said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is competent for a Highway Board, constituted under the Highways Act (1862). to transact the business of the Board, after the first meet ing of such Board, first, at any place out of the district; secondly, at any place situate within the limits of the district, but not being a constituent part of the district for the purposes of the Act?

SIR GEORGE GREY said, in reply, that there was no express provision in the Act with regard to the places at which the meetings of the District Board were to be held after the first meeting; but he apprehended that according to the usual practice as to meetings of Local Boards, it would not be right, even if it were within the letter of the law, that the meetings of the Highway Board should be held in places quite apart from the district in which it exercised its functions. The latter part of the Question of the hon. Member referred, he understood, to meetings held in places geographically within the highway district, and yet not actually constituting a part of it. It was quite clear it would be for the convenience of the Boards that meetings should be held in those places where the public business of the district was ordinarily transacted. There was no provision in the Act against that, but the subject was under consideration with a view to remove any doubt.

COLLECTION OF THE INCOME TAX. QUESTION.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the

Exchequer, Whether there is any intention of altering the existing machinery by which the assessment for the Income Tax is imposed; and, if not, whether that assessment will in future be made under all the Schedules by the local authorities?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, in reply, that he understood the Question of the hon. Baronet referred principally, if not entirely, to Scotland. There were certain portions of Schedules C, D, and E in which the assessment was made by Special Commissioners and not by the Local Commissioners. There was no intention of making any alteration in the machinery by which the assessment was made. If at any time he brought forward any Motion for the alteration of the machinery as to England and Scotland, he would take care that full notice was given, and he should not wish to give such a notice except with the moral assurance of its meeting with general approval.

SIR JAMES FERGUSSON said, he

wished to know whether the assessment under Schedules A and B, which used to be made in Scotland by the local assessors, was to be restored to them?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE

QUER: There is no intention of making any change as to the present procedure.

HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.-QUESTION. COLONEL DUNNE said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, When the Returns ordered as to the Holyhead Packet Station, and Correspondence with the Dublin Steam Packet Company, will be laid upon the table. of the House; and whether anything will be done, and when, to carry out the promised alterations in Holyhead Pier, for the purpose of securing the safety of the Mail Packets and the passengers landing from them?

MR. MILNER GIBSON said, that the control of Holyhead Harbour having been transferred by an Act of last Session from the Admiralty to the Board of Trade, it devolved upon him to answer the hon. and gallant Member. The correspondence in question was being prepared, and would soon be laid on the table. As to the promised alterations at the Pier, he was informed that the piles connecting the wooden jetty were completed. The structure which had been contemplated on the jetty was not being proceeded with, but some substitute for it was under consideration.