The last
European papers contain some interesting intelligence, from which we make some selections:
Lord Russell's Speech on the Detention of the Confederate rams.
In the House of Commons, on the 25th ult., the
Earl of
Derby stated that the
Government had promised to lay before the
House the correspondence with the
Federal Government relative to the seizure of
Laird's rams, but had failed to do so.--He asked the reason of this discrepancy:
Earl Russell--The statement of the noble
Earl would be very striking if he had correctly remembered the facts of the discussion to which he alludes.
The noble
Earl has represented the case as if I had stated that the production of the correspondence to which he now alludes between
Mr. Adams and me was dangerous to the public service, and as if I had been supported in that opinion by the
Attorney General and the law officers of the Crown.
As I recollect it, my statement was not that the production of the correspondence as relating to the
United States and this country would be dangerous, but that the
Attorney-General was of opinion that its production would lead to incomplete discussion in the House of Commons upon partial information, and therefore would be injurious to the cause of the Crown in a case which is coming on in a court of law. [Hear, hear.] As
Secretary of State I did not feel authorized in giving papers to Parliament when the principal law officer of the Crown told me their production would be injurious to the cause of the Crown in a case to be tried in a court of law. That is an entirely different statement from that which the noble
Earl represents me as making — that I thought there would be some public danger in the production of those papers.
The change which has taken place has taken place with the person who objected to their production.
[Derisive cheers from the opposition.]
It was not I who made the objection, but my honorable and learned friend the
Attorney-General.
On reconsidering the matter he told me he had come to the opinion that the papers could be produced not entirely without mischief, but without all the mischief which he apprehended.
The objective of the
Attorney-General being waived, my objection is waived too, because I have no other
objection than that which he stated.
At the same time I think it very probable that the production of those papers will have some mischievous and bad consequences attached to it, because now it seems to be thought, although I do not remember any former time when it has been thought, that nothing can be so proper, so becoming, so Parliamentary, as to endeavor to get out the whole case of the Crown, and thereby to damage the cause of the Crown in a case which they have pending in a court of law. [Hear.] With regard to the other papers referred to by the noble
Earl the case is not quite what he imagines it to be — that papers moved for and refused in the House of Commons were at once granted in this
House — The fact is that when my noble friend moved for a general account of the number of cases between the
United States and this country, I did object, and I said that there were twenty volumes of papers already bound, and matter for twenty volumes more, the production of which would be very in convenient.
The noble
Earl explained to me that he did not require all the papers — that he wished to have, in fact, a list of the cases upon which claims had been founded, whether for personal injury or loss of property, and I thought there might be some convenience, and, at all events, no objection, in having such a list made out. I have inquired how soon it can be done, and I find the making out of the list will take about two months or upwards.
I do not propose to give more than that list.
I do not propose to give the dispatches, which were moved for in the House of Commons, except in one particular case, with regard to which the noble
Earl threw some doubt on the conduct of the
Government.
The case is that of a mate of a merchant vessel who was killed, where it has been imputed that the
Government did not show proper earnestness in requiring the accused person to be brought to trial.
I thought there ought to be no doubt in such a case, and that if the
Government have done wrong it should be known, and that if the
Government have shown proper activity it should also be made clear.
The course taken in the House of Commons is therefore not contradictory to the course which I have taken with regard to those papers.
Neither is there any difference between the
Attorney General and myself, because the objection to the other papers being produced was made on account of the
Attorney General, and not on account of the foreign affairs of the country.--[Hear, hear.]
The
Earl of
Carnarvon.--I wish to call your lordships attention to a matter which I think is not of that infinitesimally small character.
It relates to a promise which I understood the noble
Earl to have given in this
House about a week since in reference to a motion which I then made.
My motion contained three points.
The first was a return of claims made on the
American Government by British subjects; and I certainly was astonished to hear that it would take two months to draw up, inasmuch as I believed that it would be contained in one or two sheets of foolscap.
The second part of the motion referred to the correspondence in the case of the
Saxon, and that the noble
Earl agreed to. That correspondence had been previously asked for and refused in the other House.
Therefore, my noble friend was perfectly accurate in stating that papers refused in the House of Commons had been granted here.
[Hear, hear] I also asked for a copy of the instructions in the case of the
Tuscaloosa.
I hope there will be no delay in the production of these papers.
Earl Russell--I said there was one case in which the noble
Earl imputed to the
Government that they had not shown proper anxiety to obtain redress for injuries done to a British subject and it was right, therefore, that when such a doubt was started that the papers should be produced.
Diplomacy in the Chesapeake case.
There has been some discussion in the British Parliament concerning the violation of British sovereignty in the pursuit of the
Chesapeake pirates into a British Colonial harbor by an American gunboat
Mr. Layard, in behalf of Her Majesty's Government, produced a letter addressed to Lord Lyons by
Secretary Seward, as soon as the facts had reached him, and long before the demand of the
British Government for recross had reached this country.
Mr. Seward acknowledges that there was a "direct violation of the sovereignty of Her Majesty," in the case referred to, by the officers of the gunboat
Ella & Annie, which acts "the
President disapproves and regrets," and though "the
President has reason to believe that the proceedings thus disapproved were taken by the officers concerned under the influence of a patriotic and commendable zeal, yet he has "directed that they shall be censured for this violation, and he will take such other means as may be necessary to prevent a recurrence of the grievance complained of."
Mr. Seward closes by announcing that he is "fully determined to make all the amends that are due to
Great Britain in the premises. "
To these statements Earl Russell promptly responded that "her Majesty's Government accept that apology in the same spirit in which it has been offered, and are truly glad that the matter has been settled in a manner honorable to both parties, and calculated to improve the friendly relations which her Majesty's Government are always anxious to main with the
Government of the
United States."
Mr. Layard, in reply to
Sir R. Clifton, stated that it was true that her Majesty's Government, on the application of the
French Austrian Governments, had consented that those Governments should pass a quantity of tobacco through the blockade, with the approval of the
American Government.
The tobacco was the property of the Austrian and French Governments, and was in
Richmond when the civil war broke out. Her Majesty's Government had not made a similar application for the passing of cotton for the benefit of the distressed operatives of
Lancashire.
The case of cotton was altogether different, as it was not held by the
Government, but by private individuals.
