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 gov ernment 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 time— within 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 fors wear 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 for swear 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

a condition to his being brought to trial? He was of opinion that no greater insult could be offered to any man than to be first arrested by a foreign government, and then be required by that government to forswear allegiance to his own and allegiance to theirs before the charge against him could be investigated. He trusted that a distinct answer to that question would be given by the noble earl.

Earl Russell. The answer is, that so far as I know the American government never tendered the oath of allegiance to a British subject knowing him to be a British subject. When informed by Lord Lyons that a person arrested was a British subject, Mr. Seward once or twice replied that he was not aware of the fact, and that he would take care that the oath should not be tendered to a British subject.

The Earl of Derby. Then it just comes to this, that he had no means of escaping from prison except by taking the oath.

THE BLOCKADE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTS.

The Earl of Malmesbury asked the noble earl at the head of foreign affairs whether, amongst the papers he had received from admirals on the American station and consuls in America, he had found any account of the actual condition of the blockade of the Confederate States. He did not ask the question in any spirit of cavilling with the course which the government had pursued, and he was the more anxious not to be misunderstood not only by their lordships but by the public, from the circumstance that in a most strange and unaccountable manner the noble earl near him (the Earl of Derby) had been extremely misunderstood and misrepresented by a morning journal (the Times) both to-day and last week. Although the noble earl gave that journal an opportunity of stating what he really said on Thursday relative to the blockade, he observed this morning an article in the same paper warning the public against the advice given by his noble friend on that occasion. Now, the noble earl never used a single argument in favor of breaking the blockade, nor would it be consistent with his (the Earl of Malmesbury's) opinion as to public policy to say one word to induce the government to adopt that course. That must be a question of time. No person on that side of the house wished to press the government to take any course but that which they had adopted. But, although these were his views with respect to the policy hitherto pursued by the government, he wished to know what the real truth and facts of the case were with respect to the blockade, because, perhaps, a great deal of exaggeration had been made use of in describing it. He was told that Mr. Mason, who came over here, as they all knew, to represent the case of the southern States, openly declared that no less than six or seven hundred ships had broken the blockade and passed in and out of the southern ports. It was, therefore, very desirable that the government should be prepared to form some judgment upon the matter. It must be a question on the part of the government as to the time in which they would vindicate international law. Under the particular circumstances of the case it would, he was aware, be very impolitic to take hasty measures with respect to the blockade; but after the opinion which, he believed, had been given by every great power in Europe, that though legal according to international law, it would be impossible after a time, and if the statement of Mr. Mason, to which he referred, proved true, for the whole world to continue to suffer the inconvenience arising from the blockade. (Hear, hear.) Much had been said with respect to the declaration of Paris in 1856. He was sorry that his noble friend (the Earl of Clarendon) was not present, as he did not like to speak on a subject of this nature in the absence of one whom he believed to be the originator of that

declaration. At that time he expressed an opinion that should a great war take place the declaration of Paris would cease to be regarded. We could not lay down a strict rule with respect to blockades, nor did he believe we should be able to carry out a declaration prohibiting privateering. If two great nations like England and France were unhappily at war, as they had been so often, would it be believed that a warlike people, brought to bay, a portion of their fleet destroyed, and the remaining portion blockaded, would not have recourse to all means to repel the opposing power? They would do so, of course, and one way of doing so to which they would resort would be to issue letters of marque, authorizing privateers to destroy the commerce of the enemy. He wished further to know whether the noble earl was in a position to give any information respecting the assassination of Dr. McCarthy at Pisa, who was stabbed in his own house by an Italian corsair, and who had escaped in consequence of the gross neglect and indifference of the Italian authorities?

Earl Russell said her Majesty's government felt sensible of the support given by the noble earl opposite (Earl Derby) on the first night of the session to them respecting their conduct with regard to America. It gave great force to the government when they found that all parties agreed in the line of policy they adopted, and the nation derived great confidence from knowing that they were all united on that subject. With regard to the question of the blockade, it was one of very great importance. He could not presume to enter upon the discussion of it at that moment. He had given orders to Admiral Milne at a very early period, and also to the consuls, to afford her Majesty's government every information possible. When the blockade was first mentioned by Mr. Adams, he stated the difficulty which he saw would exist in blockading 3,000 miles of coast. To this Mr. Adams replied that there were only seven ports which it would be necessary to blockade, so that the difficulty was not so great as appeared at first sight. With regard to the allegation that 500 ships had broken the blockade, he had himself made inquiry of Mr. Mason. He asked Mr. Mason what was the tonnage of the vessels to which allusion had been made, and to that question Mr. Mason was unable to give him any answer. That was a matter, however, of great importance in the question, because the seven ports were connected with several other smaller ports, and it was possible that vessels carrying small cargoes might run from one to the other; but these could hardly be called vessels running or breaking the blockade. Before the meeting of Parliament the had given instructions to have all the papers on this subject put together. That was being done, and they would be laid shortly before their lordships. He hoped that any judgment upon this ques tion, which was one of very great importance, would be postponed till all the information was before the house. It was an evil on the one hand if the blockade was ineffective, and therefore invalid; and on the other hand, if they were to run the risk of a dispute with the United States without having strong ground for it, it would be a great evil. With regard to the dreadful murder to which the noble earl referred, it was quite true that the British residents in Tuscany made representations as to the inefficiency of the authorities and the means of punishing and detecting crime. That representation was sent to Turin, and a hope expressed that measures would be devised to make the police more effective in that part of the country. With regard to the arrest of the assassin and the bringing him to justice, the report made by the consul was that the proceedings were more than usually speedy. But it appeared that these quarters were inhabited by an undisciplined and savage kind of men, and crimes were frequent amongst them. It appeared that the British residents of Florence complained that there was a want of some regular tariff of charges. He hoped that some

rules would be laid down which would prevent the occurrence of such crimes in future.

Earl Granville said he could not allow the remarks of the noble earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) to pass without observation. The noble earl stated his conviction that the force of circumstances would oblige this government, in case of war, to disregard the obligations of the treaty of Paris. This declaration, as it appeared to him, would have so injurious an effect on foreign powers, coming as it did from one who had filled the office of secretary of state for foreign affairs, that he put it to him whether he had not, in the heat of debate, somewhat overstated the matter?

The Earl of Malmesbury said, what he intended to say was this: that supposing a great country like this or France, after a desperate war, driven to the last extremity, and struggling with other powers for its very existence, he did not believe that an impatient military people like the French, or a people having the spirit of the people of this country, would bear to be guided by the paper declaration of 1856, but that the law of self-preservation would overrule all other feelings, and under it that they would take any steps they thought proper to save themselves and the country from the extreme dangers in which they were placed. (Hear, hear.)

Earl Granville said he did not expect that anything of the kind was likely to happen, and he hoped the country would never be brought to such an extremity as to break the treaty obligations into which it had entered to secure some secondary object.

Earl Russell said he certainly had given expression to an opinion that was not in favor of the treaty of Paris in some respects, but said that having been made it must be maintained.

The subject then dropped.

No. 182.]

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, February 13, 1862.

SIR: Westerly winds have hindered the steamers so that it is only after a period of twenty days that I now receive your despatch of the 24th of January, No. 105.

It affords me pleasure to know that the inhibition against the exportation of saltpetre, which was so unnecessary, has been rescinded.

It has been only European sympathies and European aid that have enabled our disloyal citizens to prolong the civil war. The commercial advantages which Great Britain derives from her present policy are, a trade with the insurgents in articles contraband of war, and in less illegitimate merchandise introduced into the disloyal States in contravention of a vigorous blockade. Besides this commercial advantage, Great Britain gains the security of an acknowledgment of her immunity as a neutral by the pirates who are engaged in destroying our commerce. But the pirates are outlaws, having the control of not one port in our own country. On the other hand, what inconveniences do not result to Great Britain herself from her unnecessary and undeserved concessions to the insurgents? Alarms, apprehensions, and preparations for war with that one of all the nations whose constitution and habits most incline it to peace, and which, if left in the enjoy ment of peace, is always at once the most liberal in its supplies of material and provisions to the British manufacturers, and the most liberal consumer of their fabrics.