SEIZURE OF TWO CONFEDERATE OFFICERS AT TANGIER.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 159, 20 May 1862, Page 5

SEIZURE OF TWO CONFEDERATE OFFICERS AT TANGIER.

The Gibraltar Chrinicle describes the seizure of the lieutenant of-the Sumter, and late American consul of Cadiz at Tangier, and their removal on board the United States war-steamer Ino. The whole affair seems -to hive becnofamost scandalous and outrageous character—every principle of international law and human right being set at defiance in order to secure the prisoners. They were kept in custody of the American consul at Tangier, and but feeble effort for their restoration to liberty seems to have been made by the Moorish authorities. Tho European populace, with a finer sense of justice and civilization than the Moors, armed themselves, closed the gates leading to the port, and went in a body to the American Consulate, to demand the release • of the men. But for the interference of the British Minister, the prisoners would no doubt have been restored to the liberty of which they were so unrighteously deprived. The armed American parly who took the men'to the Ino, were obliged to be protected from the fury of the Europeans by ah escort of 'Moorish Boldiers. The matter Jias been brought' under the notice of the English Parliament. In answer to Mr. Griffith, Mr. Layard said that two officers of the Confederate vessel Sumter,1 having landed at Tangier, were arrested by the American consul, and heavily ironed and imprisoned. The captain of the Sumter wrote to the English consul, asking him to deliver a letter to the Moorish authorities, and to interfere in the matter, which latter our consul declined. A Federal ship of war arrived at Tangier, an.l, having landed an armed force, demanded the prisoners. The Moorish authorities resisted, on the ground that by existing treaties between Morocco and the United States they were not bound to deliver up political prisoners, • but the Federal consul threatened to strike his flag, and to declare war against Morocco. He (Mr. Layard) had stated on a former occasion that the* prisoners had been released, but that proved not to be the case, but they had been transferred from the Federal ship of war to a merchant ship at sea, and transmitted to America. FRANCE. Tho main political topics in Franco during the past month have related to the Parliamentary debutes on I the address to the imperial speech, a conflict between I the emperor and the Legislative Body on the subject , of a money-bill, the attitude of the government on the Itomau question, and a rather romaikablo auti-impc-rial agitation which sprang up a couple of weeks buck in the " Students' quarter" in Paris, and spren/l to the Faubuurg St. Anloinc. The chiuf interest of the debate in the Senate lay in that poitiou of it which treated of the Roman question. I'rince" Napoleon spoke on tho Ist of .March, and argued for the immediate evacuation of Itoiae. Ho quoted decrees issued by Napoleon 1., separating the religious and temporal power, and argued that the agitation 'in Italy was produced solely by France, and would, it" it reached a certain height, oitl-r one of •' two alternatives; either France roust send another army across the Alps, or she must suffer Austria to have lier own way. me latter solution several senators declared lobe inadmissible. The debate was clooed on the 3rd of Marcu by a speech from M. Billault, who exposed, in the name of the emperor, the dangers which would attenu an evacuation of Romo, and declared that the cardinals and prelates around the Pope were the " enemies of France," but that the imperial government still desired the independence of Italy, and of the P°P?The whole addrc=s was adopted in the Senate by IM to (5. In the Legislative Body the debate commenced on the (ith March and was continued till the 20th, when the Address was carried entire by 244 to 9 votes, in the course of tbia debate several of the deputio* ventured upon very plain-spoken comments on the imperial policy. Mr. Jules Favie above all distinguished himself by the eloquence with which he advocated the extension of the freedom of the press, the evacuation of Rome, and other measures winch the Liberal party in Franco are resolved not to abandon without ii severe struggle. The practical result of the discussion was insignificant. Iv proof of this we need only mention the fact that the amendment condemning the further occupation of Rome by the trench army was supported by only five votes. # Towards the end of last month a serious conflict arose between tho emperor and the Corns Legislatit. The emperor hud created General Montauban, who commanded the late expedition to Ci^/C^nt dp Palikao an.l a senator, with a salary of £1200 a yeai. He had also recommended him for a pension of £4)00. , This proposal was received by the deputies with a I storm of disapproval/ Matters were beginning to look •threatening when the emperor, with his city, witlKtlcw the bill. Immediately, - ho»«v«, Uw JUTonitcHr published the outline of a new bill which was to be brought forward instead of it. By this b H it was to be provided that an annual sum should be set aoart to form a fund out of which the Emperor 'hould decree pensions and rewards to sincere for d.stimriiislied services. It is obvious that tins second onTfflntHl eve? more objectionable features than the first, as it gavetlie Emperor the meausoi creating a rcßulnr military aristocracy. Before it was- ready tobffiXn/to the Chamber twos so strongly opposed in the Council of State that tfce Emperor found himself ultimately coastMuasd to drey it altogether.

The anti-imperial agitation in the Quartier Latin and the Faubourg St. Antoine above referred to, appears to have entirely subsided for the present. The nature and extent of the nmvrinrni it is impo'sible 'definitely to ascertain, as thu Paris journalsliayenot ix?en permitted to publi>h a.- y news eoiiceTiiingTTt*" It is known, however, t!i;tt a 'great number of nrreats hiive been inn'K'.