I have the honor to transmit a copy of the Times of the 8th of March,
containing a report of some remarks in Parliament the evening before, on
certain topics connected with rebel operations on the ocean. * * * *
Hon. William H. Seward,
Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[From the
London Times, March 8,
1864.]
[Untitled]
“THE CONFEDERATE NAVY.
“House of Commons, March
7.
“Mr. Long asked whether a ship belonging to
the confederate navy would have the same right to search and make
prize of an English vessel carrying
[Page 311]
contraband of war to a federal port that a
federal war vessel would exercise in the case of a British ship
carrying contraband of war to a confederate port; and, if not,
whether such partiality in favor of one of two belligerent powers
was reconcilable with the ‘strict neutrality’ professed by her
Majesty’s government.
“The Attorney General said there could be
no doubt whatever that a confederate vessel would have exactly the
same right to visit, search, and capture a British vessel carrying
contraband of war to a federal port as a federal vessel would to act
in like manner to a British vessel carrying contraband to a
confederate port, [hear;] but it should always be remembered that
neither was entitled to make any such capture except for the purpose
of taking such ship for adjudication before a competent prize court.
[Hear, hear.]
“THE PAMPERO CASE.
“Mr. Dalglish asked the under-secretary for
foreign affairs whether the government were prepared to accept from
the owners of the Pampero and other steamers seized by the
government, on the plea that these vessels were intended for the
confederate States of America, a similar assurance to that which the
government have declared themselves satisfied with when given by the
Danish ambassador. He wished to say, in addition, that the contract
for the building of the Pampero had been cancelled before the
seizure, and that she had since been offered for sale to her
Majesty’s government.
“Mr. Layard said the house would see that
the cases were very different. The Danish minister, before
proceedings were commenced, and wishing to spare the executive
trouble, came forward and gave the fullest information with respect
to the vessel which was being constructed for his government. In the
case of the confederate vessels, subterfuge, not to use a stronger
word, [hear, hear,] and every means of evading the law, were had
recourse to, and now, as a last resource, her Majesty’s government
were asked to enter into an arrangement similar to that which had
been accepted in the case of the Danish government. [Hear.] Under
all the circumstances, her Majesty’s government might fairly
decline. Moreover, the word of the Danish minister amounted to a
diplomatic guarantee, on which her Majesty’s government had the
utmost reliance. On the other side, he doubted whether any such
engagement, upon which her Majesty’s government could place similar
reliance, could be given.”
