IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

House of Lords.-Monday, February 10.

The Lord Chancellor took his seat on the woolsack at 5 o'clock.

BRITISH SUBJECTS IN AMERICA.

The Earl of Carnarvon said he was anxious to ask a question of some importance of the noble earl the secretary for foreign affairs. The house would remember that on Friday last he made some remarks on the case of an Englishman in America who had been taken into custody and sent to prison under the warrant of Mr. Seward. Since Friday he had received further information in reference to similar cases, but they were, if possible, worse than the one he then mentioned. He understood that at this moment there were no less than three British subjects who had been for four or five months confined in Lafayette prison, and they had been detained there without any charge of any sort or kind having been made against them. There had been no inquiry made into their cases. An inquiry had been asked for, but it had been refused, unless they first consented to take the oath of allegiance to the government of the United States. Now, if that were so, it was clear that those persons had been illegally arrested, illegally imprisoned, and illegally detained, and there ought not to be a moment lost before clearly understanding the present position of affairs. (Hear.) In these American prisons there were confined persons of every rank and means, and intelligence, and many who had been brought up in affluence there were representatives of the liberal professions-of the bar, the press, and the judicature, and many of the best classes of American society. They had been arrested, and dragged from prison to prison, and they had undergone very great hardships. So far as it concerned the American citizens their lordships' house had nothing to do, except in this way, that their position would throw some light upon the manner in which British subjects were treated in prison. The state of this prison was very bad. In it were confined 23 political prisoners, and two-thirds of them were placed in irons. From this prison the light and air were excluded, the ventilation was imperfect, and the atmosphere was oppressive and intolerable. The prisoners were deprived of the decencies of life, and the water supplied to them was foul, and for some purposes it was salt. He had received these facts from an authority which he could not doubt, and he believed in their correctness. The names of the British subjects were Charles Green, formerly a British merchant resident at Savannah. He went from Liverpool, and his connexion with this country had been maintained to the present time, for he had now a son residing at Liverpool. The next person was Andrew Lowe, also a British merchant residing at Savannah, and he had children now at school at Brighton. The other person was an Irish laboring man, who went out to America in October, 1860, in search of a relative resident near Harper's Ferry, and the troops of the federal government having found him there, he was taken into custody, and the oath of allegiance having been tendered to him and refused, he was dragged to to a prison in New York, and had since been confined there. Now, if these persons had broken the laws of the United States, they ought to be brought to trial, and if they were found guilty, then let them be sentenced according as the law directed; but if they had not broken any law, then they ought not to be kept in prison for an indefinite period, and on secret charges. He understood that an inquiry would be directed into the cases of these persons, but Mr. Seward made it a preliminary condition that they should take the oath of allegiance to the government of the United States. Now, the very fact that these persons would not do that served to show that they

were British subjects: He wished to know how far the noble earl had been informed of these things, and what steps or measures he had taken to obtain redress.

Earl Russell said: I conclude that the noble earl has hardly read the papers which have been laid upon the table of the house by command of her Majesty; for the noble earl would there have fouud a correspondence between Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward, and also between her Majesty's government and Lord Lyons, on this subject. The noble earl, in his statement, seems hardly to have taken into account the very critical circumstances in which the government of the United States has been placed. In the spring of last year nine of the States in the scheme of confederation declared war against the government of the United States. In such circumstances as these it is usual for all governments to imprison upon suspicion persons who they consider are taking part in the war against them. In a case which happened not many years ago, viz: 1848, when there was a conspiracy for the purpose of overturning the authority of her Majesty, the secretary of state applied to the other house of Parliament for authority to arrest persons on suspicion, viz: for the suspension of the habeas corpus act, and in the papers presented to Parliament at that date there are two cases in which the lord-lieutenant of Ireland had ordered the arrest of two American persons; a complaint was thereupon made by the American government, and my noble friend, (Lord Palmerston,) at that time at the head of the foreign office, replied that with regard to those persons the lord-lieutenant had due information, upon which he relied, that those persons were engaged in practices tending to subvert the authority of the crown, and were aiding practices which were being pursued in that part of the kingdom. Those persons were never brought to trial, but on that authority they were arrested. After this civil war broke out in America, complaints were made by certain British subjects that they had been arrested upon suspicion. I immediately directed Lord Lyons to complain of that act as an act enforced by the sole authority of the President of the United States, and especially in regard to one of those persons there seemed very light grounds for suspicion, and I said he ought not to be detained. I am not here to vindicate the acts of the American government for one or for any of those cases. Whether they had good grounds for suspicion, or whether they had light grounds for suspicion, it is not for me here to say. If I thought there were light grounds for suspicion, it was my business to represent that to the government of the United States, but it is not my business to undertake their defence in this house. The American minister replied that the President had, by the Constitution, the right, in time of war or rebellien, to arrest persons upon suspicion, and to confine them in prison during his will and pleasure. This question has been much debated in America, and judges of high authority have declared that the writ of habeas corpus could not be suspended except by an act of Congress. But certain lawyers have written on both sides of the question; and I have recently received a pamphlet, in which it is laid down that the meaning of the law of the United States is, that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended on the sole authority of the President of the United States. The question itself was brought before Congress, and a resolution was proposed that there should be no arbitrary arrests except with the sanction of Congress. But it was contended that it was part of the prerogative of the President; and a large majority decided that the question should not be discussed, and thereby left the President to act for himself. So much for the power given by the Constitution of the United States. With regard to the particular acts which the Secretary of State, under the sanction of the President, has authorized as to the arrest of British subjects as well as American subjects, I am not here to defend those arrests, but I certainly do contend that it is an authority

which must belong to some person in the government, if they believe that persons are engaged in treasonable conspiracies in the taking part as spies, or in furnishing arms against the government. I believe that in regard to many of the cases of arbitrary authority that power was abused. I believe that, not only with regard to persons arrested, but in the course pursued, there was unnecessary suspicion; but I do not find that in any case there has been any refusal to allow British consuls at places where convenient to hear the cases of those persons, or when a statement was made by the British minister that Lord Lyons was slow in representing the case to Mr. Seward. Lord Lyons represented to me that these cases took up a very great part of his time, and he was anxious to investigate every one of them. Nor can I say that Mr. Seward has refused at any time to listen to those complaints. He has always stated that he had information upon which he could depend that these persons were engaged in treasonable practices against the government of the United States. That being the question, the noble earl states, upon his own authority, that the arrests are illegal, and that the persons are kept in prison illegally. But that is more than I can venture to say. I can hardly venture to say that the President of the United States has not the power-supposing persons are engaged in treasonable conspiracies against the authority of the government-to keep them in prison without bringing them to trial; and it would require a strong denial of the authority of the law officers of the United States before I could presume to say that the President of the United States had not that power. With regard to the particular cases which the noble earl has referred to, I am unable to say whether or not some of those persons may not have been engaged in these conspiracies. We all know that during the time in which the United States have been divided there has been much sympathy shown in this country on one side and on the other-some have shown a strong sympathy for the north, and some for the south. (Hear, hear.) With regard to some of those cases, I have stated I thought the circumstances were such that it was quite evident that they had not been engaged in any conspiracy. There was one gentleman who happened to be a partner in a firm, and the other partners had great connexions with the south. It was true that the firm had strong southern sympathies, but the gentleman himself was a firm supporter of the government of the Union. It was the mere circumstance of letters being sent to his partner which induced his arrest. I thought that a most arbitrary and unjust proceeding.. (Hear.) Mr. Seward said he thought the circumstances were enough to induce suspicion, but that as soon as it was ascertained that there was no ground for that suspicion that gentleman was released. An innocent person being arrested and confined for several days in prison was undoubtedly a great grievance, and one for which he was entitled to compensation; but beyond the right to complain, and beyond the constant remonstrances of Lord Lyons, the British minister, in every such case, I do not hold that the circumstances warrant further interference. I believe the gentleman to whom I allude had stated that he expected his own friends would procure his release. The noble lord mentioned three cases. I was not aware of the cases the noble earl would mention. But with regard to Mr. Green, this is the statement he made on the fifth of September: "I desire no action to be taken by my friends in England in consequence of my arrest. Lord Lyons has represented my case, and it will receive investigation in due time. Meanwhile I am in the hands of the officers of this fort." There have been other cases of arrest and imprisonment under circumstances involving considerable hardship. There have been many cases of arbitrary imprisonment without trial; and these cases of arbitrary imprisonment have taken place under a government which is engaged in a civil war, perhaps one of the most serious and for

midable in which any country was ever engaged. Right or wrong, it is not for us to decide; but we must admit that all the means that have been used by civilized nations in warfare against each other are open to the Americans in this case. With respect to the particular cases, I believe that to whatever cause it may be owing, whether owing to the novelty of the case in North America, or to the inexperience of persons who are not conversant with the carrying out of affairs, or whether it is this, that arbitrary power can never be safely intrusted to any one without being abused, to whatever cause it is owing, I believe there will ever be many cases of abuse of such power. (Hear, hear.) But in every case where a British subject is arrested, and a reasonable case is made out for him, I shall be ready to instruct Lord Lyons to bring the case under the consideration of the government of the United States. Lord Lyons has never been wanting in his duty. (Hear, hear.) He has, I think, shown himself a vigilant British minister in that respect; and I trust your lordships will not think that these cases have been neglected by the government of this country. (Hear.)

The Earl of Derby. The statement made by my noble friend behind me, and borne out by the noble earl opposite, is one which cannot be listened to without feelings excited in the highest degree in consequence of the treatment to which British subjects have been subjected. I am willing to admit, with the noble earl, that every allowance should be made for the circumstances and the difficulties in which the government of the United States is placed, and the position in which they stand with regard to the civil war in which they are engaged. But I must say that the course they have pursued with respect to British subjects in America, notwithstanding the remonstrances which have been, from time to time, presented to them by Lord Lyons, in the performance of his duty, which he appears to have pursued with great prudence, is most trying to the patience of this nation. I think he was justified in using strong language with regard to the course which has been pursued. That course was anything but in accordance with the "Civis Romanus sum" doctrine of the noble lord at the head of the government. (Laughter.) The noble earl opposite has apparently derived some advantage and instruction from the correspondence in which he was engaged with Mr. Seward, because in an early stage of those proceedings he very properly invoked against those proceedings the protection of the American law. He said that that which the law sanctions with regard to American subjects we could not complain of when applied to British subjects; but the question is this: does the law sanction it? The answer was, that the government did not consider themselves bound to take their view of American law from a British minister. Such was the substance of the courteous reply received by the noble earl. (Hear, hear.) There is one question which I must ask the noble earl to answer. It has already been asked by my noble friend behind me, but very conveniently the noble earl has not thought it necessary to reply to it. He states that the Congress has passed a resolution affirming the power of the President, under the Constitution, to suspend the habeas corpus.

Earl Russell was understood to express dissent.

The Earl of Derby. Virtually, at all events, the noble earl so stated, because that is the only position on which he rests. There is no law shown, and the statement of the noble earl is that the possession of that power by the President has been denied by many of the most learned lawyers. The action of the judges being, under the unusual circumstances of the case, under unusual restrictions, (laughter,) there is, therefore, no appeal to the law of the United States; but the noble earl says that virtually the Congress has affirmed the power of the President under the Constitution to suspend the habeas corpus whenever he thinks fit, without reference to Con

gress or any other authority than his own discretion. America certainly possesses a very free governmeut. (A laugh.) Her institutions are democratic, but I would think it a rather unpleasant state of law, or rather absence of law, to live under, and a strong illustration of the happiness which is, at all events, supposed to be enjoyed by those who are governed by limited monarchies. The noble earl has referred to cases where the right to suspend the habeas corpus by Parliament has been exercised in this country, and he says it has been exercised with respect to American citizens. But when the right to suspend the habeas corpus has been exercised in this country by the authority of the lord-lieutenant, it has been conferred on bim by Parliament. I ask the noble earl when, by British precedent or American law, it has been required as a condition of being brought to trial, that the person to be taken before the authorities should forswear his allegiance to his own country. (Hear, hear.) It is not denied by the noble earl that a British subject has been required, as a condition of his being brought to trial, to take the oath of allegiance to the American government, and that when he replied that he was a British subject, that apology was not deemed sufficient; nor has it been denied that he was thereupon remitted to prison. Now, going the full length of saying that we are not to be the judges of American law, if we are still to admit the doctrine that the President may exercise his own power of imprisonment and suspending the habeas corpus without the sanction of Congress, I think the noble earl will be at a loss to point out law or precedent for requiring a subject of another country to forswear his allegiance as a condition to his being brought to trial. (Hear.)

Earl Russell. With respect to the first point, what I stated, so far as I recollect, was this: that on a motion to the Congress with regard to the suspension of the habeas corpus by the President, the Congress, by passing to the order of the day, or laying the proposition on the table, or whatever their form is, voted by a small majority in favor of the proposition. I do not think we should complain if the President exercises that power, and the Congress does not interfere with it. With regard to the other cases which the noble earl has brought forward, I have no knowledge of them, or I would have taken pains to inquire into each of them. I certainly do not recollect the case of any person being called on to take the oath of allegiance to the United States except one, in which there was some question with Lord Lyons, and that was the case of a gentleman who had given notice of his intention to become a citizen of the United States. Now, a person wishing to become a citizen of the United States gives notice that at a certain timewithin three months-he intends to ask leave to become a citizen of the United States. When the time arrives he must not only take an oath of allegiance to the United States, but he must forswear all other allegiance, more especially to her Majesty Queen Victoria. (Laughter.) This gentleman who was arrested made an appeal to the British government, and the answer of Mr. Seward to the remonstrance addressed to him was, "This gentleman has renounced all allegiance, especially to her Majesty Queen Victoria." The matter was further inquired into, and it was found that Mr. Seward was wrong in his fact-(hear, hear)-that this gentleman had giver notice that he intended to become a citizen of the United States, and to forswear all allegiance to her Majesty, but he still remained a British subject. He had thus placed himself in a position in which he could not claim the protection of either one government or the other. (Laughter.)

The Earl of Donoughmore, without entering on a discussion of the general subject, desired to have an explicit answer to one question, namely, whether the noble earl at the head of foreign affairs approved of the course which had been adopted of tendering the oath of allegiance to a British subject as