The Press. — London, England, 1856-08-23 00:00:00

AUGUST 23, 1856. the representatives of the foreign powers sent to the coro nation of the Czar, M. de Morny is, therefore, the one that has been received first by the Emperor. Count Eater• hazy was desirous, no doubt, of being received the first, that he might have the right of occupying the first rank during the ceremonies of the coronation, for you cannot but be aware that on such an occurrence the places are given• according to the priority of the several receptions. A bit of Court scandal is rather amusing, and shows the inestimable advantages possessed by a despotic sovereign : The Governor of Moscow is Count —. His daugh ter was united in marriage to Count Nesselrode, junior, and is separated from him in divorce. The mother, Countess —, is not received ut Court. Were she at Moscow during the coronation, how could the wife of the Governor remain uninvited? The scandal would be great; the case was delicate. How is it arranged? Why, a decree of the Emperor unexpectedly appears, stating that as Countess —is most anxious to travel abroad, his Majesty graciously permits her to do s•o forthwith. She thanks his Majesty, choking with rage ; and her friends choke with regret or laughter as they wish her good bye. I believe the permission extends to the daughter.—Post cor., Aug. 16. The exodus from the Continent to St. Petersburg is remarkable. Among late arrivals was General Mouravieff : Only an hour since the Stettin boat arrived deep in the water with her human freight General Mouravieff yips on board. The portraits of Mouravieff which I have seen in England do him gross injustice. There was one I espe• cially remember, representing him as a portly, heavy faced, stupid•looking man of sixty. He appears about forty-eight—is small, active, sprightly, with such a good natured and good-humoured expression of countenance as to prevent your remarking at a first glance its unquestion• able keenness and intelligence. Some of the princes and heroes who came with him were in uniform, and covered with orders. He wore plain clothes—not even a ribbon— and, instead of a military hat, a little black cap—looking altogether like a sensible traveller used to the sea. It is not a tine thing to see a man who glitters with stars, crosses, and badges, seasick !—Post cor. The official programme of the coronation is pub lished. M. FARINI'S LETTER TO MR. GLADSTONE, just pub lished at Turin, forms a pamphlet of a few pages. Having depicted the political condition of each Italian state, the distinguished writer insists on the necessity of reform, and of putting an end to foreign occupation. The following passage will be read with interest : Judging by the past (says M. Farini) and from the de clarations made by Count Buol at the Congress of Paris, Austria means to maintain the prerogative of armed inter vention in each Italian state, whenever she may be invited so to do by the legitimate princes; in other words, by her own very near relatives, or by her most devoted prefects. She has no right to act in this way; and it is quite clear that she does not so act for the purpose of securing the existence of the thrones or altars, but of strengthening her own governmental influence and her own usurpation. It is consequently evident that Piedmont, in her capacity as an Italian state equal to the state possessed in Italy by Austria, and in her capacity as a European power, can also intervene. I say that she ought to do so, and that in forming her resolutions she ought to take counsel of her interests and dignity. If Europe is apprehensive that a Piedmontese intervention in the other States of Italy may disturb the peace, she must put an end to the Austrian occupation, and find the means of not seeing it renewed. M. Farini is a member of the majority in the elec tive chamber, and is one of the most devoted as well as most intellectual supporters of the policy pursued by the Sardinian Cabinet. THE RIFF PIRATES, Off the Morocco coast, are awkward customers to deal with. His Royal High ness Prince Adalbert, Lord High Admiral of the Prussian Navy, was attacked, wounded, and very nearly made prisoner by them the week befcre last. It appears that the prince, anxious to inspect personally the ecene, on the Riff coast, of an outrage some time since on a Prussian ship, whose crew had been massacred by the pirates, proceeded in his barge to the spot a few days antece dent to the 10th inst., when his landing was not only opposed by the Riffraff, but he was tired upon. This roused the spirit of the prince, who returned to his sloop Dantzig, manned and armed her boats, and pulled on shore. By this time vast numbers of the pirates had collected and made a formidable demonstration; but the prince, nothing daunted, dashed ashore, end charged the Ruffians sword in hand. The Riflians, however, were not to be put to flight by a prince, though he was High Admiral of Prussia, and backed by some fifty men. They stood their ground, poured in a steady fire, struck down the prince with a ball in his thigh, mortally wounded his aide-decamp (flag-lieutenant), shot the mate of the party in the arm, killed seven, and wounded seven teen men. In fact, the whole of the prince's party was nearly cut off. The survivors were ultimately got on board the sloop, and carried to Gibraltsr. The killed were interred with full military honours, and the prince admiral's wound is doing well. THE PRESS. THE UNITED STATES AND THE CONGRESS OF PARIS. Mn. MARCY, in a despatch to the Count de Sartiges (28th July, 1856), has put forth the views of the United States' Government upon "the declaration concerning maritime law" adopted on the 16th April by the plenipotentiaries then assembled at Paris.* The second and third principles set forth in the declaration Mr. Marcy considers identical with certain propositions submitted two years since by the Presi dent to the maritime nations of Europe. The fourth he considers a mere reiteration of an acknowledged fact. To these three propositions the Government of the United States is disposed to agree. To the first principle, "the abolition of privateering," Mr. Marcy objects, and enters at length into the question of the right of a belligerent to employ privateers, which he considers " a well-settled principle of in ternational law ": The right to resort to privateers (he observes) is as clear as the right to use public armed ships, and as incon testable as any other right appertaining to belligerents The policy of that law has been occasionally questioned, not, however, by the best authorities; but the law itself has been universally admitted, and most nations have not hesitated to avail themselves of it; it is as well sustained by practice and public opinion as any other to be found in the maritime code. He quotes numerous authorities upon the subject of letters of marque in support of this view, but, presuming that the strong desire to ameliorate the severe usages of war, by exempting private pro. perty from hostile seizure, was the chief inducement which led to "the declaration" by the Congress at Paris, that " privateering is, and remains, abolished," declares that to this principle of exempting private property upon the ocean, as well as upon the land, applied without restriction, the President yields a most ready and willing assent, and in support of this view quotes a passage from the Message of Decem 4, 1854: — The proposition to enter into engagements to forgo a resort to privateers, in case this country should be forced into a war with a great naval power, is not entitled to more favorable con sideration than would be a proposition to agree not to accept the services of volunteers for operations on land. When the honour or rights of our country require it to assume a hostile attitude, it confidently relies upon the patriotism of its citizens, not ordinarily devoted to the military profession, to augment the army and navy, so as to make them fully adlguate to the emergency which calls them into action. The prßposal to sur render the right to employ volunteers is professedly founded upon the principle that private property of unoffending non combatants, though enemies, should be exempt from the ravages of war; but the proposed surrender goes but little way in cat ry ing out that principle, which equally requires that such private property should not be seized or molested by national ships of war. Should the leading powers of Europe concur in proposing, as a rule of international law, to exempt private property, upon the ocean, from seizure by public armed cruisers as well as by privateers, the United States will readily meet them upon that broad ground. Mr. Marcy then proceeds : If the principle of capturing private property on the ocean, and condemning it as prize of war, be given up, that property would, and of right ought to be, as secure from molestation by public armed vessels as by privateers ; but if that principle be adhered to, it would be worse than useless to attempt to confine the exercise of the right of capture to any particular description of the public force of the belligerents. He then shows the importance of privateers to a maritime nation without a large standing navy, and remarks upon the danger of such a nation agreeing to the proposition of the Congress, and specially alludes to the state of the question at issue, as affect ing England and America : It certainly ought not to excite the least surprise that strong naval powers should be willing to forego the prac tice, comparatively useless to them, of employing priva teers, upon condition that weaker powers agree to part with their most effective means of defending their maritime rights. It is, in the opinion of this Government. to he • (Translation.) ANNEX TO Parrrocni. No. 23.—Di:cum:mos. (Extract.) That the plenipotentiaries assembled in Congress at Paris cannot better respond to the intentions by which their Govern ments are animated than by seeking to introduce into interna tional relations fixed principles in this respect. The above•mentioned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorised, resolved to concert among themselves as to the means of attain ing this object, and having come to au agreement, have adopted the following solemn declaration:- 1. l'rivateering is, and remains, abolished ; 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war; 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's Bag. 4. Blockades in order to be binding must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. (Translation.) PROTOCOL NO. 114.—SITTINo OF APRIL 16, 1836. (Extract.) (in the proposition of Count Walewski, and recognising that it is for the general interest to maintain the indd.isibility of the four principles in the declaration signed this day, the plenipo' tentiaries agree that the powers which shall have required, or which shall have acceded to it, cannot hereafter enter into any arrangement in regard to the application of the right of neutrals in time of war, which does not at the same time rest on the four principles which are the object of the said declaration. Upon an observation made by the plenipotentiaries of Russia, the Congress admits that, as the present resolution cannot have any retroactive effect, it cannot invalidate antecedent convention. 799 seriously apprehended that if the use of privateers be &tan. doped, the dominion over the seas will be rendered to those powers which adopt the policy and have the means of keeping up large navies. The one which has a decided naval superiority would be potentially the mistress of the ocean, and by the abolition of privateering that domination -would be more firmly secured. Such a power engaged in a war with a nation inferior in naval strength would have nothing to do for the security and protection of its com merce but to look after the ships of the regular navy of its enemy. These might be held in check by one-half, or less, of its naval force, and the other might sweep the com merce of its enemy from the ocean. Nor would the inju rious effects of a vast naval superiority to weaker States be much diminished if that superiority was shared among three or four great powers. It is unquesticnably the inte rest of such weaker States to discountenance and resist a measure which fosters the growth of regular naval estab lishments. In discussing the effect of the proposed measure—the abolition of privsteering—a reference to the existing con dition of nations is almost unavoidable. An instance will at once present itself in regard to two nations where the commerce of each is about equal, and about equally wide spread over the world. As commercial powers there is great disparity between them. The regular navy of one vastly exceeds that of the other. In case of war between them, only an inconsiderable part of the navy of the one would be required to prevent that of the other from being used for defence or aggression, while the remainder would be devoted to the unembarrassed employment of destroying the commerce of the weaker in naval strength. The fatal consequencesof this great inequality of naval force between two such belligerents would be in part remedied by the use of privateers ; in that case, while either might assail the commerce of the other in every sea, they would be obliged to distribute and employ their respective navies in the work of protection. This state.nent only illustrates what would be the case, with some modification, in every war where there may be considerable disparity in the naval strength of the belligerents. Finally, Mr. Marcy makes a strcng appeal in fa vour of the exclusion of private property from seizure, and proposes the addition to the first proposition of the following words : And that the private property of the subjects or citizens of a belligerent on the high seas shall be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the other belligerent, except it be contraband. And observes : The amendment is commended by so many powerful considerations, and the principle which calls for it has so long had the emphatic sanction of all enlightened nations in military operations on land, that the President is re luctant to believe it will meet with any serious opposition. Without the proposed modification of the first principle he cannot convince himself that it would be wise or safe to change the existing law in regard to the right of privateering. If the amendment should not be adopted, it will be proper for the United States to have some understanding in regard to the treatment of their privateers when they shall have occasion to visit the ports of those powers which are or may become parties to the declaration of the Congress of Paris. The United States will, upon the ground of right and comity, claim far them the same con sideration to which they are entitled, and which was ex tended to them, under the law of nations, before the at tempted modification of it by that Congress. Mr. Marcy concludes with a remark upon the position of neutrals in relation to the law of contraband trade and the right of search by bellige rents : Nations which preserve the relations of pence should not be injuriously affected in their commercial intercom se by those which chose to involve themselv, s in war, provided the citizens of such peaceful natitns do not compromise their character as neutrals by a direct inter ference with the military operations of the belligerents. The laws of siege and blockade, it is believed, afford all the remedies against neutrals that the parties to the war can justly claim. Those laws interdict all trade with the he. sieged or blockaded places. A further interference with the ordimtry pursuits of neutrals, in nowise to blame for an existing state of hostilities, is contrary to the obvious dic• tates of justice. If this view of the subject could be adopted, and practically observed by all civilised nations, the right )f search, which has been the source of so much annoyance and of at, many injuries to neutral commerce, would be restricted to such cases only as justified a sus picion of an attempt to trade with places actually in a state of siege or blockade. Stn CHARLES NAPIER, during his late visit to St. Petersburg, was treated with much condescension by the Grand Duke Constantine, and was invited to a naval review, but he departed suddenly on the re ceipt of letters from England. Many characteristic anecdotes are told of him, especially as to the way in which he parried some good-humoured jests re specting his celebrated boast about the capture of Cronstadt—a boast which, by the way, he never made. It is said that when an illustrious personage asked him, " Why he didn't come in to Cronstadt ?" the retort courteous of the old " Salt" was, " Why didn't you come out?" On another day he visited a Greek convent, where he was introduced as " Mr. Napier." One of the young lady pupils, hearing the name, timidly inquired whether be was any re lative of the terrible admiral who was to have taken Cronstadt, and his answer was, " No relation at all, miss, I am the man himself."