« AnteriorContinuar »
residing in this country and bad been received by His Majesty with the accustomed honors of her royal rank.
“That on the said 12th of December the island of Terceira, part of the dominions of the Queen of Portugal, was governed by authorities, civil and legal, in allegiance to Her Majesty.
" That on the said 12th of December instructions were given by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, stating that a considerable number of Portuguese soldiers and other foreigners were about to sail in transports from Plymouth to Falmouth, and it is supposed they intend making an attack on Terceira or other of the Western Isles; and His Majesty having been pleased to command that a naval force should be immediately dispatched to interrupt any such attempt, you are hereby required and directed to take ship and sloop named in the margin under your command and to proceed with all practical expedition to Terceira ; and having ascertained that you have succeeded in reaching
that Island before the transports alluded to, you will remain yourself at Ongra or Praia, or cruising close to the island in the most advisable position for intercepting any vessels arriving off it, and you will detach the other ships as you shall deem best for preventing the aforesaid force from reaching any of the other islands.
“That on the arrival of the naval force sent to Terceira, in pursuance of these instructions, the commanding officer found that island in possession of, and governed by, the authorities above mentioned.
“That in the beginning of January, 1829, a number of Portuguese subjects or soldiers of her said Majesty, voluntarily left this country with a view of repairing to the said island, and that their departure and destination were known to His Majesty's Government; that they appear to have embarked and sailed in unarmed merchantships, to have been unaccompanied by any naval force, and themselves without any arms or ammunition of war.
“That these unarmed merchant-ships and passengers were prevented by His Majesty's naval forces, sent for the purpose, from entering the harbor of Porto Praia ; and that after they had been fired into and blood had been spilled they were compelled, under threat of the further use of force, again to proceed to sea, and warned to quit the neighborhood of Terceira and the rest of the Azores, but that they might proceed wherever else they might think proper.
“That the use of force in intercepting these unarmed vessels, and preventing them anchoring and landing their passengers in the harbor of Porto Praia, was a violation of the sovereignty of the state to which the Island of Terceira belonged ; and that the further interference to compel those merchant-ships or transports to quit the neighborhood of the Azores was an assumption of jurisdiction upon the high seas neither justified by the necessities of the case nor sanctioned by the general law of nations." (Pp. 126, 127).
During the debate Mr. Secretary Peel, speaking against the resolutions, said :
“The next question for consideration was the character of the expedition, and his right honorable friend contended that, going unarmed from our shores, the refugees were not to be considered as a military body, and that their conduct was no breach of our neutrality. Was it then to be contended that no expedition was a military expedition except the tro had their arms on board the same vessels with them? If they were on board one vessel, and their arms in another, did that make any difference ? Was such a pretense to be tolerated by that common sense to which the Honorable Baronet had appealed,” (P. 198.)
He said further: “Arms were already provided for them at Terceira; the men were proceeding thither for the purpose of using the arms, and no person could for one moment doubt what was the real nature and character of the expedition." (P. 198.)
He said further:
" It was not necessary, he believed, further to discuss the question whether the expedition were or not a breach of our neutrality; and conceiving that it was, the next question which required to be settled was, whether or not we were justified, after the expedition had left our ports, in preventing it from reaching the place of its destination. On that point, he thought, a complete answer to the statement of his right honorable friend who opened the debate, had been given by his right honorable friend who sat near him. The Portuguese refugees and their leaders had throughout been guilty of the grossest deception toward the British Government. It had been such as to justly subject them to the treatment they had received." (P.200.)
He said further:
“Were the Government of this country to allow itself to be deceived in the way these refugees had deceived it, the ports of England would be selected by all the discontented people of Europe to fit out and prepare expeditions against their governments; or even expeditions to plunder and devastate other countries. It might be true that we had no right to punish the Portuguese for their fraud, but we had a right to prevent them profiting by their fraud, particularly when doing what might have involved us in a contest with another power on account of the breach of our neutrality committed by these people.” (P. 200.)
He said further:
“ Neutrals shall not suffer themselves or their possessions to be made instrumental in doing injury to other nations. There is no law of nature or of nations-no obligation of justice-which condemn us to be the dupes of those who would lead us into such wrong. That was the doctrine he would apply to the present case—we were not to be made the dupes of these people, to commit wrong against another power. But the consequences, he believed, of such proceedings, did we permit them, would be fatal to ourselves. If we supported or allowed fraud we should have no remedy but to submit to it when our own rights were in question. If we allowed one hostile expedition to be prepared within our territory, ten years would not elapse, to use the remarkable words of Mr. Canning in the debate on the Alien Bill, 'before this country will be made the work-shop of intrigue, and the arsenal of every inalcontent faction in Europe.' Placed, as this country is, on the confines of the Old World and the New, possessing such facilities in her manufactures and in her natural advantages, and above all, in her free institutions, for the purposes of hostility, it becomes her to watch with the narrowest scrutiny that the facilities she affords are not abused to her own injury.” (P. 201.)
He said further:
“He remembered that when he was sitting by the side of Mr. Canning, as his colleague in office, that it was stated by that right honorable Gentleman, shortly before the Alien Act was brought forward, and when Ministers were considering of the propriety of abandoning it altogether, that information had been obtained, and he knew it to be correct, that the Spanish constitutionalists—the martyrs to liberty, as the honorable baronet called them-had resolved to foment internal disorders in the dominions of Spain. Mr. Canning stated in the House that he did not allow a day to elapse, after learning this fact, without notifying to the persons carrying on these intrigues that 'the Government would not allow them to desecrate the asylum they had chosen for their protection,' and at the same time he gave information to the Governor of the Spanish province threatened by these machinations of what was going on. Mr. Canning said that it was ridiculous to suppose that if we authorized such a line of conduct we should not have to pay the penalties of hostility. For the interest and peace of this country-not less than for the interest and peace of other countries—he enforced on all those who resided here the strictest neutrality. “God knew,' he said, “when we should see the end of the prevailing agitation, when the struggle of opinions would terminate; and no man could wish for it more than he did; but be claimed these bills in order that we might not be fooled, gulled, bullied, cheated, or deceived into hostilities into which we never intended to enter."" (P. 201.)
He said further:
“As long as England remained at peace, she might be an asylum to the unfortunate, a refuge to the distressed, and a retreat to those who were weary and heavily laden, where they might lay down their burden and be at rest. But to maintain our independence, to preserve the power of being this place of refuge, it was necessary, to use the words of Mr. Canning, that we should not be fooled, gulled, bullied, cheated, or deceived into hostilities; and in order to prevent such a result, he hoped the house would join with him in rejecting the resolutions which had been proposed, and which were neither more nor less than a severe censure on the conduct of those who had prevented England from being cheated into hostilities.” (P. 202.)
Mr. Huskisson, speaking in favor of the resolution, said:
“But having evaded our laws, we had no right to punish them; we might have some authority over them as long as they were within our jurisdiction, but the complaint made against them proved that they had escaped beyond the limits which the laws of nations recognized as the limits of our power.' (P. 203.)
When the House divided there appeared for the motion 78; against it, 191; majority, 113. (P. 213.)
IV.—THE FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1870. Debates in Parliament on the passage in the House of Commons, 1st, 3d, 4th, and 5th Foreign-enlistment August, 1870. (See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, third series, vol.
cciii, pp. 1365–1381, pp. 1502-1513, pp. 1550-1556, p. 1592.) In the House of Commons, 8th August, 1870. (See ibid., pp. 1676-1680.) On 1st August, 1870, on the order for the second reading of the bill, The Attorney General, Sir R. P. Collier, said : “ I think, however, the house will agree that, upon the breaking out of this unexpected and most calamitous war, Her Majesty's Government would have been very inuch to blame if they had delayed for a single day to introduce this measure.” (P. 1367.)
He said further : “I now come to deal with the question of the equipment and fitting out of vessels,
act of 1870.
with respect to which there has been so much litigation. To this section of the old Act a very important addition has been suggested by the Commissioners, to the effect that it should apply not merely to the arming and equipping, but to the building of a ship. That recommendation was made by all the Commissioners, with the exception of my honorable and learned Friend the Member for Oxford, (Mr. Vernon Harcourt,) for whose authority I have the greatest respect, although I think that be, in the present instance, was wrong, and that the majority of the Commissioners were right. If such a provision were contained in the existing
act, the Alabama could not have escaped and the Alexandra must have been condemned. It obviously is very unsatisfactory for a Government to be aware that a vessel is being built for a belligerent, to know her destination, to have to wait day after day till she is completed, and then one fine morning to find that she is gone. Now, that has more than once occurred, and it is desirable that it should not occur again. There is also a provision in this section which touches the case of the mere dispatches of a vessel, and a clause containing a provision to the effect that if it is shown that a vessel has been ordered to be built for a belligerent, and is supplied to that belligerent and used for warlike purposes, that shall be held to be prima-facie evidence that she was built for the warlike service of the belligerent, unless the innocent destination of the vessel can be established. In a provision of that kind there is, I apprehend, no hardship.” (P. 1368.)
He said further:
“I have now to call attention to a very important power which we propose to give by the bill. It is the power which it confers on the Secretary of State, on his being satisfied that a vessel is being built or equipped for the service of a foreign belligerent, and is about to be dispatched, to issue his Warrant ordering her to be seized and detained, which Warrant is to be laid on the Table of the House." It is further provided that the owner of a vessel may apply to the Court of Admiralty for her release, which he may obtain if he satisfies the Court that her destination was lawful, and not only may be obtain her release but daniages for her retention. In order to prevent any hardship, there is, moreover, a provision that the Admiralty shall release the vessel on a bond being given that she is not to be employed on any illegal adventure. There is another provision in respect to which the Bill, I admit, goes beyond the recommendation of the Commissioners. It gives power to the local authorities named in it to seize a vessel if they have reason to suppose she is about to escape, but then they will have to report immediately the seizure to the secretary of state, who will be empowered at once to release ber should he be of opinion that there were not sufficient grounds for the seizure, and assuming the vessel to have been seized without reasonable cause, and released by the Secretary of State, the owner will be entitled to claim damages for the detention. These are the provisions by which we propose to attain the object which we have in view, and to render extremely difficult, if not almost impracticable, the escape of any such vessel as the Alexandra or the Alabama in future.” (P. 1369.)
Mr. Stavely Hill, supporting the bill, said:
" It was very necessary to prevent the recurrence of what happened during the American War, when this country was made a starting point for a ship of war which, as had been aptly remarked, was an expedition in itself." (P. 1372.)
Mr. Vernon Harcourt, supporting the bill, said:
“The present law for enforcing neutrality was utterly insufficient. No one could dissent from Lord Russell's description of the case of the Alabama-that it was a scandal to the law of this country, and that the persons who were concerned in that disastrous fraud upon the laws of this country committed one of the most unpatriotic acts of which an Englishman had ever been guilty.” (P. 1374.)
He said further :
“But he would venture to say, what he was sure would be confirmed by his honorable and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, (Sir Roundell Palmer,) and by the VicePresident of the Council, both of whom were members of the Commission, that the opinion of that body was that what was required was to extend and enlarge the preventive power of the law rather than to aggravate its punitive provisions. There were two objects—to prevent the offense, and to punish it when committed. The use of punishment was small save so far as it would act as a deterrent.” (P. 1374.)
He said further:
“He regretted that the punitive clauses, which, in certain states of public feeling, could not be carried out, had been multiplied, and that the strength of the Bill had not been thrown into the preventive clauses.” (P. 1375.)
He said further: “The Attorney General had stated that it was his intention to strike out clause 11, which was intended to prevent the hospitality of their ports being extended to vessels that had illegally left that country, on the ground that he thought its object would be better carried out by means of a regulation to be enforced by the Executive. He (Mr. Vernon Harcourt) entirely agreed with the necessity that existed for the enforcement of some such regulation, because he believed that had the Alabama been excluded from our ports after she had escaped from this country the difficulties that had arisen
between this country and America, in reference to that vessel, would have been avoided.” (P. 1378.)
Mr. Rathbone, supporting the bill, said:
“In the name of the mercantile community, he thanked the Government for introducing this Bill, which orly carried out the policy which the ship-owners of Liverpool pressed on the Government of the day very soon after the escape of the Alabama.” (P. 1380.)
Viscount Bury said :
“He could not agree with the honorable Member (Mr. Bourke) in regarding this as an inopportune moment for bringing forward this Bill. The fact that war was raging on the Continent was no reason for not amending our municipal law in points where this was notoriously defective. It was ridiculous to say that a builder did not know that the vessel he was building was for war purposes ; and it was a less evil that the shipbuilding interest should suffer a little than that the whole nation should be involved in difficulties." (P. 1381.)
On 3d of August, 1870, upon the order for committee on the bill, the solicitor-general, Sir J. D. Coleridge, said:
“It would not occur in one case out of a thousand that the builder of a ship would have the smallest difficulty in proving what his contract was and under what circumstances it was undertaken.” (P. 1510.)
He said further:
“The object of the clause was to prevent the escape of suspected ships from the harbors of the kingdom till the secretary of state had been communicated with. The clause gave an ad interim power of seizure.” (P. 1512.)
The Attorney General, Sir R. P. Collier, said:
“ The object was to give power to any officer who saw a ship about to escape to prevent such escape. (P. 1512.)
The Attorney General said further:
“ The officers named would be able to seize a vessel without special instructions, in order that such vessel might not be allowed to escape. It was a most important power but it was only to be used in case of emergency, and if any wrong was done by the seizure there would be compensation.” (P. 1512.)
Mr. Whalley said:
“He wished to ask, was such stringent legislation in practice in any country of the world ?"
The Attorney General said:
“ The clause was copied from the merchant-shipping act, which had been in force for twenty years without any complaint.” (P. 1512.)
On the 4th of August, 1870, the bill being under consideration, the Attorney General, Sir R. P. Collier, said :
“He would propose to omit 'clause 11. This clause provided in effect that no war vessel employed in the military or naval service of any belligerent which should have been built, equipped, fitted out, armed, or dispatched contrary to this enactment should be admitted into any port of Her Majesty's dominions.” (See the Report of the Commission, documents with the United States Case, vol. iv, p. 82.)
Mr. Dickinson said:
“He hoped this would not be done, otherwise vessels corresponding with the Alabama could be succored in cur colonial ports.”
The attorney-general said :
“ He had to explain that, although the royal commissioners made a recommendation to the effect of this clause, they did not intend that it should be embodied in an act of Parliament, but that it should be carried out under the Queen's regulations. The governor of a colony would, under this clause, have to determine whether a ship entering his ports was illegally fitted out or not; and this was enough to show the object the commissioners had in view could not be carried out by an act of Parliament. It was intended, instead, to advise colonial governors of the escape of any illegally-fitted vessel.”
Clause struck out. (P. 1555.)
“He wished to call attention to clause 21. It provided that any custom-house officer might detain a suspected ship, so that the power would be vested in a tide-waiter who received, perhaps, 188. a week. This was an extraordinary power to vest in such hands, and he would propose that the power should be only exercised by the chief officer of customs in any port of the United Kingdom.” The honorable member concluded by moving his amendment. (P. 1555.)
Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 7,“ to leave out the word 'any,' and insert the words “the chief,'' (Mr. Candlish) instead thereof. (P. 1556.)
Mr. Alderman Lusk said :
“He questioned the propriety of giving so much power to custom-house officers of the lower class, as was proposed by this bill to confer on them.”
The attorney-general, Sir R. P. Collier, said :
“ Those officers of customs were, in fact, the police of ports and barbors. No more power was conferred on them by the bill than was already exercised by every parish constable throughout the kingdom. If the power of acting under the bill were confined to the chief officer of customs, as was proposed, it might happen that in a case of emergency that officer would be absent, and serious inconvenience would be the result. The principle of the clause was in operation in the merchant-shipping act and in all the prize acts. He quite admitted that the issue was more important than any that could be raised on the merchant-shipping act, but it was because it was more important that greater restrictions should be used. The great thing was to prevent the departure from our ports of any ships of the Alabama character."
ão Question. That the word 'any'stand part of the bill” put and agreed to. Amendment negatived. (P. 1556.)
On the 8th of August, 1870, the House of Lords, being in committee on the bill, Viscount Halifax said:
“He had refrained from entering into any explanation of the object and provisions of the bill on occasion of the second reading, on account of the small attendance which could be expected at a Saturday sitting, but he would do so very shortly. The bill repealed the existing law, re-enacting it with such improvements as experience had shown to be desirable. It prohibits subjects of Her Majesty, without license from the Crown, from taking any part in hostilities between two countries with which Her Majesty was on friendly terms. He need not adduce arguments to show how unjustifiable and monstrous it would be for British subjects to take part in hostilities, when the avowed policy of the government was that of perfect neutrality; but it was a question not of international, but of municipal law-not between this country and foreign countries, but between the Crown and the subjects of the Crown. A similar law existed in the United States, while, on the continent, governments were able to prevent their subjects from violating neutrality. The principal objects of the bill were to prohibit any subject from enlisting or inducing others to enlist in the service of a belligerent power, and from fitting out, equipping, or arming any vessel for such service. During the American war, the powers of the government in this matter were found to be insufficient. In the case of the Alabama, that vessel left this country before the order of the government, issued as soon as they had sufficient evidence before them, reached the port; she left our port as an unarmed ship, and only received her armament at sea, beyond our jurisdiction, so that no blame could attach to the government; and in the case of the Alexandra and of the rams, proceedings before legal tribunals resulted in a proof that the government had not sufficient power in the matter. They were therefore glad to buy the rams in order to avoid any difficulty. This defect would be removed by the present bill, which was based on the report of a commission presided over by the late Lord Cranworth, and composed of other distinguished men.” (Pp. 1678, 1679.)
He said further:
" The measure gave power to the secretary of state to detain a suspected ship; as also to local officers at the ports, who would report to the secretary of state, so as to cast on bim full responsibility. It embodied all the recommendations of the report, with the exception of that relating to the reception of vessels into British ports, and this object could be accomplished by orders in council.” (P. 1679.)
Lord Redesdale “thought the late introduction of this bill was scusable, as the exigency which called for it had only just arisen.” (P. 1680.)
V.-THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
Treaty of Washington.
In proposing a question in regard to the “ Alabama claims,” in the House of Lords, May 12, 1871—(See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, hird series, pp 698-701) Lord Redesdale said:
“The Southern States built and fitted out the Alabama. They ordered and paid for the ship. Their agents took her out of the Mersey, and equipped her in a foreign port, and the injury to the trade of the North was committed by their officers and the crews under their command.” (P. 698.)
On moving an address to Her Majesty in regard to the Treaty of Washington on the 12th of June, 1871, in the House of Lords—(See Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, third series, vol. ccvi, pp. 1823–1901)Earl Russell said: “ These were my words, in December, 1862:
" With regard to the claim for compensation now put forward by the United States Government, it is, I regret to say, notorious that the Queen's proclaination, of the 13th
I of May, 1861, enjoining neutrality in the unfortunate civil contest in North America, has in several instances been practically set at nanght by parties in this country.'
That, at all events, was a fair principle on which to proceed, and the canze came