The Press. — London, England, 1854-04-22 00:00:00

362 right of seizing an enemy's goods in a neutral ship has been invariably maintained by this country, at least, since the time of the first EDWARD, although the law and practice of nations upon this point may be traced to a much earlier period. And the reasons which have led to the establishment of this rule are sufficiently clear. One of the main objects in warfare—and espe cially in modern warfare—is to weaken the resources of the enemy by injuring or cutting off his foreign commerce ; and this can only be effectually done by intercepting it, even although protected by a neutral flag, the neutral ship being in such case entitled by the law of nations to the full freight of the cargo or goods so seized. That there is here a • conflict of rights and interests is very evident. If the neutral flag is permitted to protect enemy's property, a most important belligerent right is defeated. If, on the other hand, the latter right is exercised, the privi lege of the neutral to carry on his accustomed trade is violated. It is clear that these two rights cannot coexist. The one must of ne cessity give way to the other; and the ques tion for practical solution is, which of the two, according to the principles of justice and the general interest of nations, ought to prevail ? The laws and practice of war have hitherto decided in favour of the belligerent right as the more important of the two. It is true that the neutral may suffer both inconvenience and loss through the interruption of his usual trade; but, on the other hand, the sus pension of the belligerent right may enable the enemy to carry on his entire commerce under the protection of a friendly flag, and by this means a contest between two naval Powers might be indefinitely prolonged, to the general disturbance of the great society of nations. Such have been the reasons, political and moral, which have been generally advanced in favour of the rule hitherto maintained in England; and not in England alone, for it is equally observed in the United States, which, of all countries, is perhaps the most interested in its abolition. The decisions of the Ame rican Courts upon this point have been no less uniform than our own, and it reflects high credit on the former that, notwithstand ing the advantageous position occupied by the States for carrying on a neutral trade between hostile European Powers, the law of nations has been inflexibly maintained. " During the whole course of the wars," says Mr. Chancellor KENT, " growing out of the " French Revolution, the Government of the " United States admitted the English rule to " be valid, as the true and settled doctrine of " international law; and that enemy's pro- 1 " perty was liable to seizure on board of " neutral ships, and to be confiscated as prize "of war." We can quote no higher American authority than this distinguished judge. The new doctrine of free ships, free goods, so recently announced, comes in fact, not from America, but from Russia. It was first for mally promulgated by CATHERINE the Second, when she placed herself at the head of the armed neutrality in 1780. What were the objects of that celebrated league? Osten sibly to secure the freedom and security of commerce ; in reality to weaken and destroy the maritime power of England. Frustrated at that time by the firm attitude of the British Ministry, this great confederacy again reappeared in 1800, under the auspices of the Emperor PAUL; but his sudden death, and the victory of Copenhagen in the following year, speedily dissolved the compact. A convention was afterwards entered into with Russia, in which the contested point respecting neutral ships was expressly given up by that Power. Lord Nm.soN, so rarely heard in the Senate, the occasion of - 11) being Id the fol- Leration of After ex terms of the had put an , ured to be in 1780, Northern free goods — itself, so con injurious made a short speech on the occ this treaty (13th of November, 180, conclpplip . avywukil recommenc lowi , • .• ,• •le thBcareful consith her vixens. A pr , . ;neral tern ..4 co u- • 9 1 , 1 ' "It had " • 7 1. 6 , 0i rr - deavoure , " e s .,•"j - neutrality " a , T..r.:1• .ittation of the: "P. • :(,s4l4lrps make free " a , laibitstrous in itsel " trary to the law of nations, and so THE PRESS. "to the maritime interests of this country, " that, if it had been persisted in, we ought " not to have concluded the war with those " Powers while a single man, a single shilling, " or even a single drop of blood remained in " the country." We may be told that NELSON knew nothing of political economy and progress, and so forth. Possibly not ; but he could by the intuitive aid of genius detect at a glance the designs of the enemies of his country, and he knew, moreover, how to defeat them. But the order of the 15th inst. goes further, and makes a concession which in NELSON'S day was never dreamt of. It is, of course, a necessary incident of war that all trading with the public enemy is forbidden. And this prohibition has been uniformly held to extend to indirect as well as to direct trading. In ac cordance with this well-known rule, Lord CLARENDON, on the 12th of this month, in reply to certain queries addressed to him by one HENRY WESTON ELDER (a dealer in Russian bristles we believe), stated officially through his secretary, " that Russian produce " brought overland into Prussia, and shipped " at a Prussian port for this country, would " be liable to seizure, unless it should be bond " fide neutral property." The letter further distinctly stated that a British subject could not trade with an enemy through a neutral, or make a neutral his agent for such purpose. What, then, must have been Mr. ELDER'S astonishment when, within three days of the date of this letter, an order in Council was issued reversing in toto the propositions so clearly laid down by the noble Foreign Secre tary? By this order it was announced that " all vessels under a neutral or friendly flag, " being neutral or friendly property, shall be " permitted to import into any port or place ." in her Majesty's dominions all goods and " merchandise whatsoever, to whomsoever the " same may belong, &c." The prohibition against indirect trading with the enemy is therefore at an end; and Russian produce, the property of Russians, may now be freely imported in neutral bottoms into the United Kingdom. No reasons are given for this sudden change of policy ; but, had the order of the 15th come from St. Petersburg instead of Windsor, it could not have more directly and materially served the interests of the Russian Em peror. We brought the war with his father to a close in the space of a few months by simply cutting off the foreign commerce of the country, upon which the revenues of the upper classes in Russia chiefly depend. By the extravagant concessions which the Aberdeen Ministry have made to his son—in the name, too, of humanity—they have de liberately placed in his hands the means of indefinitely prolonging and extending the sanguinary struggle his ambition has forced upon us. THE DAY OF HUMILIATION. As Wednesday next is specially set apart for humbling ourselves before MAC,* HTY Gon, for imploring a blessing en our arms, and suppli cating the restoration of peace, we trust that the country may be led seriously to consider the motives which should actuate it in prose outing the war, and the ends it should pro pose to accomplish. The proclamation itself, we imagine, will meet with general approval ; but it is unlucky that it should have been pre ceded by the banquet at the Reform Club, or that some of her MAjesty's Ministers should have thought the sailing of the Baltic fleet afforded a fitting opportunity for mirthful speeches and jubilant cheering. As yet we fear that the bulk of our people very imperfectly apprehend the magnitude of the contest into which we have entered, or the calamities which war must inevitably bring in its train. Political feeling has more to do with the shouts which have greeted the depar ture of our fleets and troops than we care to acknowledge. Instead of deploring the war as a dreadful necessity, there is a party amongst us disposed to hail it as a crusade against that despotic form of government which they hold in special abhorrence. We do not often agree with Mr. Balm, but there are passages in his SATURDAY, Manchester letter very applicable to some of his constituents :—" The people, or a por " tion of them, are drunk with a confused no " Lion of fighting with Russia. They confound " the blowing up of ships and the slaughter of " thousands with the cause of freedom." Such sentiment is the natural offspring of democratic passion in all ages ; but we hope that, in the present instance, it will meet with no kind of encouragement. It is not as Refor mers, in spite of the hint of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that NAPIER and DIINDAB have been entrusted with the command of our fleets. We have no quarrel with the political system of Russia, we quarrel only with her aggressive acts ; and we are persuaded that we may most rationally expect a divine blessing on our arms by entering on this contest with a single minded desire to secure the triumph of right, apart from all political feeling, and with a fer vent hope for the speedy conclusion of such a just and honourable peace as shall long secure the tranquillity of Europe, aria deci sively terminate those pretensions to exclu sive dominion in the East which it has heretofore been the object of our antagonist to establish. TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL. WE can only acount for the indifference with which the bill for transferring the testa mentary business of the country to the Court of Chancery has been regarded in the House of Lords by supposing that the lay peers were ignorant of its nature. Twelve peers were present on the occasion of its third read ing; and it was passed, after a short conver sation, by a majority of two. That the testamentary jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts has prescription and extreme antiquity in its favour is, of course, with philosophic Liberals, a prima facie reason why it should be destroyed ; but machinery which annually passes twelve thousand pro bates, conveying about fifty millions of person alty, without fraud or error, if it be old, is not effete. But the business thus quietly and efficiently conducted Lord CIUNWORTH proposes—and, so far as he has hitherto gone, successfully pro poses—to transfer to the Court of Chancery. Perhaps, owing to the recent reforms, that Court may be able to perform this work as well as the Prerogative Court ; but. if that be so, then it is obvious that the staff of the Court of Chancery was unnecessarily large before ; and, knowing the influence of class interests and class associations over the strong est minds, we question whether a jury of Lord Chancellors was not open to challenge when the question they had to decide was whether or not the business and profits of another court should be transferred to their own. It may be, and no doubt is, perfectly true that the annual fees received by the registrars amounted occasionally to preposterous sums. That a gentleman should receive for mere routine work in one year more than the Lord Chancellor of England is manifestly absurd, and this has happened in one diocese. Yet the registrars have been " to the manner born," and to deprive them of their position suddenly is cruel and unjust, and it is possible to re move blemishes without exterminating a sys • tern To cure a wart on the face it is not necessary to cut off the head. The fees re ceivable by these gentlemen might have been commuted for reasonable salaries. But the present bill will inflict utter ruin on thousands, whilst the only persons to whom compensa tion is specifically awarded are the chief of the sinecurist sinners, viz., Mr. Moons and the reversioner of his office. We are not defending the existing system. Many vivid images recur to our recollection of wills mustily mouldering in damp dungeons, or soaring on high in a jackdaw's beak to the summit of a church tower, to strengthen and increase the comfort of the abode of that ecclesiastical bird, or descending into the depths of a sewer in the jaws of a hungry rat, and we doubt not it is susceptible of many improvements ; but before we adopt changes let us, at least, be sure they are for the better. As in the local registries wills have been neg-