HANSARD'S PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, IN THE SEVENTH SESSION OF THE EIGHTEENTH PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, APPOINTED TO MEET 31 MAY 1859, AND FROM THENCE CONTINUED TILL 7 FEBRUARY 1865, IN THE TWENTY-EIGHTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN VICTORIA. FOURTH AND LAST VOLUME OF THE SESSION. HOUSE OF LORDS, Monday, June 12, 1865. MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS-First Reading Wenlock added. Third Reading Inclosure (No. 2) * (154); Lancaster Court of Chancery.* tion 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 B 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 be such signal success will follow a course not dictated by revenge or violence-that they will seek not to exasperate the feelings of their former antagonists, which have been already too much embittered; but will en deavour, 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 dishonoured, 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 them-lieve that the Confederates would be able selves 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 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 offence itself cannot be construed into the crime of piracy. To force an entry 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 authorities at Havannah; and the other, the Shenandoah, had put into various ports in the Australian colonies. Obviously it would | should be arrested while attempting to enter have been an anomaly, when the war in them no Court of the United States can America had entirely ceased, that the find those parties guilty of piracy. We must, Shenandoah should be going about from therefore, presume that it is only intended port to port in the British dominions ob- to hold this threat in terrorem over parties taining coals and provisions under the who might be disposed to make the atQueen's Order of 1861. It was, under tempt. In the letter which I wrote it is these circumstances, the question of put- stated, that within a certain time vessels ing an end to the belligerent rights came sailing under the Confederate flag will be under the consideration of the Cabinet. permitted to enter our ports and disarm. Practically the whole of the American States At the same time Her Majesty's Governwere under the authority of the Government ment do not pretend to in any way interof the United States; the whole of the fron- fere with the legal rights of the United tier is now in the possession of the United States. As to what the noble Earl has States Government. Since then Galverston said, with respect to the action of the has been given up to the United States' American Government, I took occasion, authorities, and General Kirby Smith when addressing your Lordships on the has surrendered; so that there is no mili- assassination of President Lincoln, to extary force whatever under Confederate press my great regret that a man whose authority. Before I wrote the letter to views appeared to be so just, and who had which the noble Earl refers I had an in- so pledged himself to a course of mercy, terview with Mr. Adams, the United should have been taken away at the moStates' Minister in this country, and I ment when he could have put into practice asked him whether his Government were those principles to which he had expressed ready to abandon their belligerent rights. so firm an adherence. I would again exHe said he had no instructions on the point, press my opinion that for the peace of but he was convinced that his Government the United States and of the world it is were prepared to adopt that course. The most desirable there should be no appearcommunication made to the French Governance of passion on the part of those who ment 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 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 despatch 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. LOCOMOTIVES ON ROADS BILL-(No.161.) NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE. THE EARL OF CARNARVON said, that as the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke), who had charge of the Bill, was not prescnt, he would move that the Lords whose names stood on the Orders of the Day be of the Committee, namely— D. Richmond. E. Romney. V. Eversley. L. Silchester. there was something irregular in it. It was explained that it had been done by the noble Earl who moved the second read ing (the Earl of Hardwicke), and he invited the noble Earl who wished to have the Bill referred to a Committee to be present in the House on the Thursday, to communicate with his noble Friend who moved the second reading. The noble Earl said he would be unable to attend; but to his (Lord Kinnaird's) surprise there appeared in the Votes for the Friday another list of names. This, he thought, was an insult to those Peers whose names L. Stanley of Alderley. had been removed without communication LORD KINNAIRD said, he rose to call with them, and was a proceeding not worthy attention to what he thought the very un- of the House. He could not help thinking fair way in which names for the Commit- that such a course of proceeding was extee had been selected. The course pur-tremely unfair, and was not consistent with sued was only calculated to lead to the the mode in which their Lordships' business belief that it was intended to defeat the Bill by a side-wind. He had been requested to move the second reading of the Bill; but he thought it better that it should be undertaken by a noble Lord on the other side. The Earl of Hardwicke agreed to do so; but the impression from his speech was that he was unfavourable to the Bill; and he finally assented to the proposition that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He (Lord Kinnaird) asked the noble Earl to allow him to see the proposed list of the Select Committee, and was referred to the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon), who had moved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. On seeing the list, he found that the majority of Peers on it had either spoken against the Bill or had in private expressed opinions unfavourable to it. He asked the noble Earl to put on other names, and it was agreed that the list should not be handed into the clerk that evening in order that he might have an opportunity of consulting the noble Earl who had charge of the Bill. He waited on the noble Earl at his own house, and represented to him that the Committee would not be considered fair, as having prejudged the case. The noble Earl agreed at once to add other names, and on having a list handed to him of Peers in whom the agricultural interest would have confidence, he said that he would put them all on. That was on the 29th, and on the 30th the names stood on the Orders of the Day. He arrived in the House almost five minutes after the Order came on, and was informed that the noble Earl opposite had complained of the addition, and insinuated that was usually conducted. He had no interest in the matter except as the owner of two traction engines; but in his district he was satisfied that no magistrate could interfere with them. But the case was different in England, where the Home Secretary had issued an order prohibiting the travelling of traction engines upon public roads except at night, the result of which would be to put a stop to the use of those machines. He was surprised to find that the opposition to this Bill should proceed from the party opposite, who called themselves peculiarly the "farmers' friends." That there was a strong feeling among noble Lords upon this subject he knew, because one noble Lord had given notice that any of his tenants who should use an engine near a road should lose his farm; and in the county of Kent the police had given notice that if an engine merely crossed a turnpike road in the daytime a fine would be enforced. He thought the subject had not been properly dealt with, and he should move that the names of Lords Wenlock, Harris, Ducie, and Strathallan, should be added to the proposed Committee. THE EARL OF CARNARVON said, he had expected that the Earl of Hardwicke would have been in his place that evening to move the names of the Members of the Committee; but in his absence he (the Earl of Carnarvon) considered that, as he had originally moved that such a Committee should be appointed, it was only fair he should submit to their Lordships the names of its Members. He should, however, disclaim any responsibility for the selection of those names, and he thought it was not fair to charge him with attempting to pack |