country from which they come, and those who send them do not themselves perform any act of hostility. Such munitions may, indeed, after reaching a belligerent, be then applied for purposes of hostility; but it is a very different thing if you have men either enlisted or arrayed in this country for the purpose of hostilities against any power with which her Majesty is at peace, or if you have a ship sent out from your shores for the purpose of hostilities against such a State. If the ship went, as some of the American judges have in certain cases found was the fact, merely with a crew sufficient to take the vessel into the port of a belligerent, that might be a case somewhat analogous to the carrying of cannon and muskets. But when the vessel and crew go forth already equipped from the coast of the neutral, and with a sufficient crew to commit hostilities directly they get to sea against the State in amity with her Majesty, it is evident that that is quite a different proceeding from carrying muskets over from your own coast to a belligerent's coast as merchandise. Take the case which occurred two hundred years ago when 10,000 men were sent to take part in the civil war in Portugal. If you have 10,000 men arrayed and sent from your shores to take part in a civil war, the government are properly responsible for that. But with a confusion of ideas on the part of my noble friend, which is hardly excusable The MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE. There is no confusion in what I said. What I said, or intended to say, was that one of the objections to the foreign enlistment act was that it did not meet the contingency which has arisen. I found fault, not with the government, but with the act. EARL RUSSELL. I am aware of that, but my noble friend did not appear to see the reason of the act, and a very sound and sufficient reason it is, namely, that if you send cannon or muskets they are articles of merchandise, but if you send men armed with muskets and formed into regiments to be employed against a state in amity with her Majesty you are clearly taking part in the war. It is on that principle that we have not allowed ships to go from this country armed and ready to commence hostilities, if we could prevent it. We have so acted, believing not only that it is the law, but that the law is based on a sound principle. My noble friend went on to complain of what has been done in Ireland; and certainly I am ready to complain of that as much as he is. But, when we come to investigate the circumstances, the question is whether the government or those who execute the law in Ireland are to blame for anything which has occurred there. It appears that a person named Finney, representing himself as a merchant, who had lived twelve or thirteen years in the United States, engaged in a speculation with another person named Kidder to induce men to go from Ireland tó America, in order to obtain the $600 or $700 per head bounty money on their entering the army there. These speculators put the greater part of that money in their own pocket, and defrauded the honest, but I must say credulous, countrymen of my noble friend. My noble friend says that when these advertisements appeared, holding out the hope of high wages to these poor people by working on railways and canals in America, he is at a loss to conceive how any of them should have allowed themselves to be so duped. Well, if he is at a loss to conceive how that could be, certainly I must be much more so; but I am afraid that such credulity is characteristic of his countrymen. But how is the government to blame in the matter? If a man comes to this country and says to laboring men already earning tolerable wages: "If you will go and work in Germany or in America, or wherever it may be, I will take care that you shall get very high wages, and if people are simple enough to yield to that temptation, how can the government be blamed for their imprudence or folly? It must be a very singular government indeed which should undertake that no man shall do anything improvident or foolish. Well, about one hundred of these men went from Ireland to Boston and Portland. My noble friend has truly described the nefarious treatinent they met with in those places. I cannot but think that the United States police acted a very unworthy part, as well as those who were immediately concerned in inveigling these persons. But the police and the recruiting officers declared before a committee of inquiry which the American government instituted that when the men engaged to enlist they were perfectly sober, and that, however drunk they were the evening before, they were sober at the time they enlisted. Well, Lord Lyons said, and I think very justly, that the men themselves should have been examined as to the treatment they received and the state in which they were when they enlisted. Instead of that, several of them were carried off as recruits and immediately sent to join the United States army. One of them, named Sullivan, was afterward taken to hospital; and he subsequently told his story to Lord Lyons, explaining the way he had been coerced, and how he had escaped. I have said before that I think it highly discreditable to the United States government, to their civil as well as their military authorities, that they did not immediately make an investigation into the facts stated to them by Lord Lyons; that they did not bring all these men to Washington, and, unless they were found to have enlisted in a perfectly voluntary manner, discharge them. Lord Lyons has remonstrated against the inaction of the United States government and their want of attention. But my noble friend requires more than this; he seems to think we should have intimated that if our remonstrances were neglected we would go to war. He says that if ever there was a case for war this is that case; and he asks, "If remonstrances of this kind are not attended to, when will you go to war?" Undoubtedly, these acts of injustice are the sort of acts which are frequently calculated, unless they are redressed, to lead to war, and it is the bounden duty of the American government to attend to remonstrances so well grounded as those which we have addressed to them. The conduct of the American government in 1812 is held up by the noble marquis as an example for imitation. I cannot think that this is the case; for if the complaints of the American government had been well founded, if they had waited a few months they would have seen the effect of the eloquence of my noble and learned friend, (Lord Brougham.) But it is to be recollected that the American government at that time had to complain of what I think was a very great' abuse, the arbitrary and lawless power exercised by our officers, who had seized men, and, without any proof of their being British subjects, pressed them into our navy. Americans have told me how strong was the feeling which that caused. I have been told that it frequently happened that the sons of farmers in the New England States who had gone on board merchant ships for a year or two, were seized and made to serve on board our ships of war as if they were British subjects, and no redress could be obtained. Of course, that conduct rankled in the minds of the Americans, but still some years elapsed before they proceeded so far as to make it a casus belli against this country. Your lordships must bear in mind, too, that if we were to resort to extremities we should have considerable difficulty in determining what course to pursue, for the Confederate States are in the constant habit of ordering conscriptions and forcing British subjects to serve under their standard. When our consuls have remonstrated, they have been told, in the first place, that the men might apply to the courts of justice, and then, when they repeated their remonstrances, the consuls themselves were sent away altogether. If, therefore, we have to complain of great injuries on the part of the federal States, we have no less reason to complain of the conduct of the Confederate States, and if war is our only remedy we must go to war with both belligerents. The noble marquess seems to have an appetite for war, and perhaps he would be better pleased to go to war with both parties than with one only. All, however, I can say at present is that our remonstrances shall be continued, and that we shall continue to warn, as we have heretofore endeavored to warn, the subjects of her Majesty in Ireland against embarking in these plans which pretend to be plans for obtaining their labor at high wages in America, but which are really intended to entrap them to serving in the armies of the federal government, and to secure the fraudulent gains which the concoctors of these schemes hope to make in the shape of bounties for enlistment. I agree with the noble and learned lord (Lord Brougham) who has just spoken that this is a most horrible war. There appears to be such hatred and animosity between great hosts of men, who were lately united under one government, that no consideration seems powerful enough to induce them to put an end to their fratricidal strife, and it is difficult to deal with them on those ordinary principles which have hitherto governed the conduct of civilized mankind. It is to be hoped that these hostilities may cease, but I am afraid it is not to be reckoned on that any interference of ours would tend to conduce to that end; because, among the other feelings of violence and animosity which prevail in America, there is a strong feeling against any of the nations of Europe, but especially any of the monarchical nations, pretending to meddle with the civil war now raging in that country. I am afraid, therefore, that we shall not be able by any of the means suggested to put an end to this war. Still, it is dreadful to think that hundreds of thousands of men are being slaughtered for the purpose of preventing the southern States from acting on those very principles of independence which in 1776 were asserted by the whole of America against this country. Only a few years ago the Americans were in the habit, on the 4th of July, of celebrating the promulgation of the declaration of independence, and some eminent friends of mine never failed to make eloquent and stirring orations on those occasions. I wish, while they kept up a useless ceremony-for the present generation of Englishmen are not responsible for the war of independence-that they had inculcated upon their own minds that they should not go to war with four millions, five millions, or six millions of their fellow-countrymen who want to put the principles of 1776 into operation as regards themselves. With respect to the motion of the noble marquess I shall produce whatever papers we have got. Those papers, I think, tell a story very discreditable to the American republic. All I can say is that we shall continue to remonstrate in the strongest terms, not to save the unfortunate men who have already enlisted, and many of whom have already fallen in the field, but with a view to prevent similar practices in future. The MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE said he did not want the government to take any steps for the protection of persons who had voluntarily separated from their allegiance to the Queen and taken part with the federal or Confederate States. But there were others who had been entrapped into the American service, and he was sorry to hear that the noble lord intended to do no more than continue his remonstrances, which, up to the present moment, had proved quite ineffectual. If the noble earl inquired of the secretary of war, he would learn that about five thousand men, chiefly bachelors, were now embarking every week at Cork for America, that they were provided with free 1 passages paid for in greenbacks, and that as soon as they landed they were either put on board American ships of war or sent to one or other of the American armies. While all this was going on the noble lord would also learn that we could get no recruits in Ireland for our own regiments, and that the military authorities were actually going to reduce the recruiting depot at Cork. EARL RUSSELL said that if the noble marquess would furnish him with reliable evidence of illegal transactions at Cork or elsewhere he would at once order the parties to be prosecuted. The motion agreed to. APPENDIX No. XVIII. REPORT OF THE CASE OF THE ORETO OR FLORIDA IN ALEXANDRA CASE.* THE CASE OF THE ORETO. In the Vice-Admiralty Court of the Bahamas. OUR SOVEREIGN LADY THE QUEEN vs. THE BRITISH STEAMSHIP ORETO, her tackle, &c., seized by Commander Henry Dennis Hickley, esq., commanding her Majesty's ship Greyhound, for an alleged breach of foreign enlistment act. Decree of his honor the judge, pronounced in the above case on the 2d day of August, A. D. 1862, The British steamship Oreto has been seized by the commander of her Majesty's ship Greyhound on the alleged ground, as appears by the libel, that James Alexander Duguid, now or lately master of the said ship, and others exercising authority over her, have, without leave of her Majesty the Queen, and within the jurisdiction of the Bahamas, attempted to equip, furnish, and fit out the said steamship Oreto, with intent that she should be employed in the service of certain persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in certain States claiming to be designated and known as the Confederate States of America, to cruise and commit hostilities against the citizens of the United States of America, her Majesty the Queen being at the time at peace with the said United States, and have thereby acted in violation of the act 59 Geo. 3, c. 69, commonly known as the foreign enlistment act. Now, to support the libel it is necessary that proof should be given-1st, that the aforesaid parties, having charge of the Oreto while the vessel was within the jurisdiction of the Vice-Admiralty Court of the Bahamas, attempted to equip, furnish, and fit her out as a vessel of war; 2d, that such attempt was made with the intent that she should be employed in the service of the Confederate States of America; and, 3d, that such service was to cruise and commit hostilities against the citizens of the United States of America. Witnesses have accordingly been produced to prove that the Oreto is constructed for and fitted as a war vessel; that acts have been done in her, since she came to Nassau, which constitutes an attempt to equip, fit, and arm her as a vessel of war. That from certain conversations which were overheard between the master of the vessel and a person who came out passenger in her, and from certain acts done by this person, there is proof that she was intended for the service of the Confederate States of America, and to cruise against the citizens of the United States. It has been contended by the proctor for the respondents that proof ought also to have been given that her Majesty the Queen was at peace with the United States of America, as the court cannot take judicial notice of that fact. That it ought to have been proved that there is such a place as the Confederate States of America, and that proof should have been given that no leave had been obtained to fit the Oreto as a vessel of war. Without entering further into the subject, I will dismiss these points by stating my opinion, that the court is bound to take judicial notice of her Majesty's proclamations, and that in the proclamation of the 13th of May, 1862, the Confederate States of America are named, and it is also alleged that her Majesty is at peace with the United States of America, and that as the allegation in the libel, that there was no license from her Majesty to fit the Oreto as a vessel of war, has not been traversed, the court has a right to assume that it is admitted. *Particularly referred to on pages 606 and 612 of vol. II, and in Parliamentary and Judicial Appendix, No. 15, page 290. A responsive plea has been put in by the defendants. 1st. Denying that there was any agent of the owners or persons interested in the Oreto of the name of John Lowe, on board of her, as affirmed in the libel; that the said Lowe was merely a passenger and never exercised any power or control over the vessel. 2d. Denying that James Alexander Duguid, the captain, or any person exercising authority over the said steamship, attempted to equip, furnish, or fit out the said ship with intent that she should be employed in the service of the Confederate States of America, to cruise and commit hostilities against the citizens of the United States. 3d. That while the Oreto lay in the river Mersey, immediately previous to her sailing for this port, British men-of-war frequently passed and repassed her, and that she was at all times in a conspicuous and public position without having been seized or arrested, or subjected to detention, and that she quitted Liverpool in the open day without any manner of haste or secrecy; that the master, while she was so lying in the Mersey waiting instructions from the owner, directed the mate to employ the crew during their leisure hours in doing ordinary ship's work, fitting gear, stropping blocks, &c., during which time, as well as after she sailed, certain spare blocks which were then on board, and which were intended solely for the use of the ship as part and parcel of her rigging, and not in any way whatever as blocks for gun tackles, or as part of the furniture of guns, were stropped by the said crew, and the said blocks were never known or called as gun-tackle blocks, until a certain Edward Jones, a man of infamous and abandoned character, who had been shipped on board in the capacity of boatswain, called them gun-tackle blocks. That neither the said Alexander Duguid, nor any person whatsoever, having authority over the said steamship during the time she was at the port of Nassau, ever gave any orders or directions to strop blocks as gun-tackle blocks, or to strop any blocks whatever. But any blocks which may have been stropped on board the said ship was done by the seamen of the Oreto in their ordinary avocations, and is always done on board merchant ships in order that they might have employment on board, and not for the purpose of fitting the Oreto as a vessel of war. 4th. That no faith or credit ought to be given to the depositions of Charles Ward, a witness for the party proponent, that he is a man of abandoned character, and is actuated by malicious and vindictive feelings against the said James Alexander Duguid, and has sworn falsely for the purpose of carrying out an avowed intention of doing an injury to the said J. A. Duguid. On the evidence given in support of this plea I shall remark as I proceed. The evidence which has been produced in support of the prosecution may be classed into two parts: 1st. That which relates to circumstances which occurred before the vessel arrived within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court of this colony. 2d. That which applies to facts done subsequently to such arrival. To the first division belong the construction and fitting of the vessel before she left England, the flags or other materials which she had on board when she sailed, and the conversations or remarks of the parties in charge of her while on her passage from England. To the second division belong the proceedings on board the vessel after her arrival within the jurisdiction of the Bahamas Vice-Admiralty Court. From the evidence appertaining to the first division I abstract the following, which is all that I think in any degree material: Mr. Wynne Fitzjames Duggan, the chief mate of the Oreto, says, "I am chief officer of the Oreto. The number of men, all told, on board was fifty-two or fifty-three. I believe that was an ordinary crew. We had not too many. We had no cargo. The Oreto was fitted (when she left England) as she is now. All vessels are not fitted alike. I have seen some ships fitted with regard to bolts in ports as she is. I have seen vessels intended to carry cargo fitted as she is. Some of Green's and Wigram's ships are so fitted. There was a passenger on board whose name was Lowe. He did not, to my knowledge, exercise any authority over the ship." In the cross-examination, Mr. Duggan says, "I had access to every part of the Oreto. I have gone right through the vessel. I have never seen any implements of war or any. ammunition on board of her. The shot boxes were full of cabbages, turnips, and potatoes." William Porter, a seaman of the Oreto, deposes that the vessel had no stowage room for cargo. She was not fitted as merchant vessels usually are. She had a magazine. He says, I believe there were shell rooms. I was in a room where shells were stowed. She had light rooms. They are not usual in merchant vessels. She had boxes for shot. She had two gigs, a life-boat, pinnace and dingey. I took her to be a gun-boat. "We had a passenger named Lowe on board. As far as I could see, Mr. Lowe had a little authority on board. On one of the mess kids being broken, I heard Mr. Lowe say to Captain Duguid, he ought to take better care of the things. Mr. Lowe has given me different orders, and told me to steer different courses when I was at the helm." |