HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVIII, Issue 1889, 2 July 1863, Page 3

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

THE PETERHOFF,

Mr S. Fitzgerald [April 3], in calling attention to the recent capture of the British steamship Peterhoff, gave the particulars of the capture in question, for which, he maintained, there was no ground whatever, the voyage .being a bona fide and straightforward commercial transaction, the cargo containing nothing of the nature of contraband. Nevertheless, the vessel had j been seized, violently and illegally, as he I contended, by Admiral Wilkes, whose name was well known in connexion with the outrage upon the Trent. After adverting to the proceedings in the American Prize Courts, he referred to an arrangement with the American j government of which Parliament had been left in i ignorance, and which, he observed, had a bearing | upon this transaction. Mr Crawford added a few facts to those stated by Air Fitzgerald to show that the voyage of the Peterhoff was bona fide, that there was nothing contraband in her cargo, and that she was proceeding to a legal port. Mr Layard, with reference to the case of the Peterhoff, said that the facts submitted to the Government were furnished by the owners, and they could not take immediate action upon this statement, which had been laid before the law officers of the Crown. He defended the Government" against the strictures of Mr Fitzgerald with reference to the supposed arrangement with the American government. THE GOVERNMENT AND THE) CONFEDERATES. Lord R. Cecil [April 16] asked the Home, Secretary whether there was any truth in the report, 1 that, upon his authority, spies had been employed in Liverpool to attend on the persons of those who | were supposed to be Confederate agents, and also to watch the private dockyards of the country for the purpose of ascertaining whether any material could be collected for the B'ederal ambassador. Sir George Grey — In reply to the question of the noble lord, I beg to say that no spies have been employed at Liverpool. Thefactß are these: I received an official letter from the noble lord the Secretary of State of the Foreign-office not long ago, transmitting the copy of one which had been addressed to him by the United States Minister in this country, alleging that certain vessels which he named were fitting out aQd being equippedat Liverpool, in violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act. The Secretary of State re. quested immediate enquiry to be made into the truth of the allegati6n. Accordingly I transmitted a copy of the noble lord's letter to the Mayor of Liverpool, together with copies of one or two letters which I had received since from the Foreign-office, with similar instructions, and requested him to cause enquiries to be made according to the terms of the Foreign Enlistment Act, whether these vessels bo named were being equipped, furnished, fitted out or armed, and with a view of being employed in the war service of the so-called Confederate States. I prescribed no particular mode in which that inquiry should be instituted. It U not for the Home-office to do so. The Mayor of Liverpool informed me that he had placed the matter in the hands of the head constable at Liverpool, and that the head constable had employed certain members of the detective police of Liverpool to inquire into the alleged violation of the law. I do not know any reason why the detective police should not be employed in investigating breaches of the Foreign Enlistment Ac);, as much as in other matters. There is not, in my opinion, the slightest reason to suppose that (he statement which the noble i lord has shown to me in a private letter, of bribery having been resorted to by the police in order to obtain information, is correct.