The Sun. — London, England, 1862-03-18 00:00:00

Fenton', proclamation. His noble friend did not on that occasi make any attack upon the Piedmontese Govern - -men' except in the hypothetical sense of the p roclamat ion hati ng been issued by the Government. The noble earl eimply asked for information, and where was he to get that information but from her Majesty's Government ? (Hear, hear.) H e a lso had asked for information in very moderate iangrtage. But how was he met ? The Duke of Argyle jumped up—(laughter)—and treated him as a person. v"'no was attacking the Government, who Was asking an imper t' ant question, or who was making a still more imper tinent assumption. The noble duke said to him very much what used to be said to them at school, " Ask no questions," Their lordships knew the end of the adage. (Laughter.) And the noble duke supported the truth of the adage by immediately giving their lord s'uips a piece of false information himself—(renewed laughter)—for he stated that there was no truth in the pro clamation, that it had never been written, and, in fact, that be had been told on good authority that there was not a -word of it true. He regretted very much the spirit which noble lords opposite exhibited, for he was sure that the conduct of the Opposition during the whole of the session should teach the Government not to take every observation that fell from them as spoken in a party spirit. The noble earl had just said, that the English Government could not :be condemned for any acts of cruelty that took place in Italy, whether sanctioned or not by the Piedmontese Go vernment. In that he perfectly agreed; but from the be ginning of their taking office they so far identified them :selves wit'u the prosperity of Italy that they had given all their moral support to the union of the Italian states, and had gone further, and approved of a descent of Garibaldi, first upon Sicily, and subsequently in a much more ques tie,nable attack upon Naples. Therefore the English Go vernment were so far identified with what had passed in Italy, that if events occurred such as would bring disgrace upon the cause they supported they were entitled to bring the weight of their advice and counsel to bear upon the Government of Italy. Although he perfectly agreed with. the noble earl's policy of non-interference in Italy, he 'thought an opportunity of promoting the good of Italy had been lost when the Government did not agree to the French preposition for preventing Garibaldi frOM coming into Na ples. It should be remembered that in the early days of 'ltalian agitation unity was not mentioned. It was merely the dream of a set of pedants, who took the map of Italy and arranged the kingdems as if they were planning it on a dinner-table. That was the way in which the idea first began, and with its introduction the Italians grasped the shadow and for a long time postponed the substance of liberty. It appeared to him that a kingdom might be formed out of the northern provinces, because the people were identical in race ; but the noble earl might depend upon it—and he (Lord Malmesbury) spoke on the best in 'formation—that the Piedmontese were as much hated in Naples as ever the Austrians had been hated in Piedmont 'Mike the ancient Bretons in Brittany, the motto of the Neapolitans was, " Potius mori, quam foodari." He could. not help asking the noble earl whether he was not mis taken in the flout ishing account he had given of the way in which political prisoners were prosecuted and treated in the new kingdom of Italy. He had received an account from a gentleman who had just returned from that country of what was taking place, and he would, with their lord ships' permission, read it to the house. His correspondent maid that after the letters of Messrs. Gladstone and Edwin James —he apologised for coupling the two names—he had been anxious to see how matters were arranged in the prisons under the present regime, and he believed no one in England had any idea of what was going on in the prisons. He had -gene down to see a friend who was confined in the prison of Santa Maria Apparente, and he found there:the Comte di (ristan, who had been five months confined for political , offences. The young man was so highly thought of by his captors that a general's commission had been offered to him, but he had refused it and had now been five inronths in prison, where he could not get a trial, nor even a sight of the documents which were to be used by the prosecution. He (Lord Malmesbury) had risen for the pur pose principally of making this statement,which he had, he could assure the noble earl, from the very best authority. Ile entreated the noble earl, if he was anxious for; the liberty of Italy, to show that he had no sympathy with atro cities such as he had described. Lord WODEHOUSE did not wonder that the noble earl should feel sensitive with respect to the comments which had been made upon his foreign policy. On the Ministerial side of the house, however, there was no disposition to tic • V34:303 him of any partiality. Both Governments had, so far as mere non-intervention went, pursued the same policy to wards Italy ; and the difference between their lines of con duct was this, that the present Government gave to the Italians the amount of their moral support which the Go vernment of the noble earl (Lord Derby's Government) had not done. He fully endorsed all that had been said of the strict impartiality of Lord Derby's Government, but with respect to the noble marquis that was not the case, for he every fort night brought down to the house an amount of details raked together from everyquarter—a complete 011 a Podrida of the faults and failings of free Government, and it was remark able that until lately the Opposition had carefully avoided identifying itself with his views. The noble earl had said that it always has been his desire to see a free Government in Italy, and he drew a distinction between union and con federation, but he overlooked the fact that, connected with the classical association which clung around Rome, was that of a united Italy. The Marquis of CLANRICARE, referring to the assas aination of Colonel Aviti at Parana, a circumstance men tioned by the Marquis of Normanby in his general charge of cruelty against the Piedmontese authorities, denied that it was committed either directly or indirectly by the Italian Government, but was the barbarous act of an infuriated mob. The Marquis of NORMANBY having briefly replied, the motion was agreed to in regard to any papers in the possession of her Majesty's Government, After which their lordships adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTEIIDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four , o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Caledonian Railway (Deviation, &c.) Bill 'a as read a third time and passed. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading : Great Northern Railway (No. 1) Bill, not amended—Great 'Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill—London and Blackwall Railway Bill—Much Wenlock and Severn Junc tion Railway Bill—Tranmere Improvement Bill (changed from Traumere Local Board). PETITIONS. Several petitions were presented against the Revised Cille of Education, in favour of an alteration in the Inter national Maritime Law, in favour of a reduction of the duty on fire insurances, against theopening of publie-houses on Sundays, in favour of an amendment in the Irish poor law, Sce. THE MURDER OF MR. FRAYTER. In reply to Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, Sir G. GREY said that the judge who tried the unfor tunate man who committed the murder in question, was of opinion from his eccentric conduct during the trial, that he - was insane, and communicated this impression to him (Sir G. Grey). He directed an inquiry to be instituted, and from the certificates of four medical men, who visited tho prisoner in Newcastle Gaol, there could be no doubt of his insanity. He had accordingly written to the visiting justices of the gaol, calling their attention to the facts, and reminding them that they were bound to see that the prisoner did not in jure himself or other persons while he was in gaol. PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked the Secretary to the Trea sury whether, in the return No. 402, of session 1861, re lating to public income and expenditure, the public expen diture in each year was stated at the amount estimated im mediately after the close of the year, or at the amount r.scerbtined by actual audited accounts ? Mr. F. PEEL was understood to say that the accounts were not made up in either of the ways alluded to by the hon. member. ARREST OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES AT TANGIER. Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Lieutenant of the Sumter, and t ex-consul of the United States at Cadiz, who were ested on landing from the 'Ville de Malaga steamer by,the Un?ted States Consul at Tangier, were taken by theharbour, and embarked as prisoners 017 the United States frigate the Inn; whethe r th e this prote,clin,loarisii Government did not protest against States Consult and only yielded to the threat of the United it was the pi , n h i at he would strike his flag; and, whether jurisdiction. withu of her Majesty's Government that the treaties, Eeropean w eo hich, by the existing capitulations or men in Mahoroeka neosails were invested over their country men cognizance atam ,..tries, empowers them to take judi other country ; and : i ; tl 7,pelitical offences committed in any would take means t o i o : tee whethe r the British Government Government, from such inf t ,„_ 4l ' faithful ally, the Moorish Mr. LAYARD corrected Mme of its independence ? been betrayed on a former eccasi e errors into which be had information received from Lord c hi consequence of mis authorities at Madrid had been ccautZl3,- Ho said the trustt d that the gentlemen in question ll : 4 o 41'4 with, and he ILLEGITIMATE CHIL DREN x n tube released Sir E. GROGAN askei 4he Chief Secreta r y for or Ireland if he intended to bring forward a bill, during the pre session, for making the reputed fathers of illegiti mate ch e?lt dren in Ireland re s p onsible for tho maintenance of „ll' children ? ?ir R. FEEL said he had given notice for to-morrow al a 1.;, - ,tion for leave to bring in a bill on the subject. CITY 13ENEFICES. Viscount ENFIELD asked the Secretary of State for the flame Department whether the previsions of the Union of the City Benefices Act, passed in the session of 1860, had yet been put into operation; and, if not, inquired the reasons for such delay ? Sir G. GREY said ho could give no specific information on the subject, with which Government had no power at present to interfere. THE BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE AND . BANKEI:S' CLERKS. b Ifqt,ARLI moved toof her Majesty's inquire OriZiattl deciaion any-change- had taken place in Ow "" ) of the Board of Inland Revenue, that voluntary gratuities to bankers' clerks should not be assessed under the income tax act; and the cause of that change, if any ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that this matter had been referred to the Bond of Inland Revenue, who considered that the gratuities alluded, `, 4: , should be subjected to the income-tax. THE BUDGET; In reply to Mr. Mol - Arr, The CHANUELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he would be prepared to make his financial statement on Thursday, the 3d of April. (Hear, hear.) REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE. Col. GREVILLE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention had been called to the state of the Registry of Deeds Office in Dublin; and if Government intended to bring in a bill to carry out the recommendations contained in the report, which had just been printed, of the Council of the Incorporated Society of the Attorneys and Solicitors of Ireland on the subject Sir R. PEEL replied in the affirmative, INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW. Mr. LINDSAY resumed the adjourned debate upon the following motion of Mr. Horsfall : " That the present state of Internatfoilal Maritime Law, as affecting the rights of belligerents and neutrals, is ill-defined and unsatisfactory, and calls for the early attention of her Majesty's Govern ment." He said that his hon. friend (Mr. Cobden) who was to have resumed the debate was unavoidably absent through the state of his health, but he hoped to be able to take some part in the debate. He con tended that the existing state of the law re quired amendment in consequence of our extended and altered commercial relations with other countries. He referred to the opinion of the Merchant Shipping Commit tee to show that the alteration he advocated was ren dered necessary. He pointed out the horrors or War, and the injurious effect it exercised on commerce. He alluded also to the principles lAid deft at the congress of Paris in 1856 in referenee to neutral flags and belligerent States, and argued. that the rights of commerce and the interests of humanity imperatively require,' a change in the law. He urged, at some length, the other arguments in favour of his views, and appealed strongly to the house not to sanction the continuance of the existing system. The LORD-ADVOCATE cautioned the house against adopting any abstract doctrine on this subject, which at the present time might be productive of very serious evils. He believed that any discussion on the subject in that house would lead to no practical effect, though it might give rise to a misunderstanding with friendly Powers. He denied that they could lay down any principle which could possibly be reduced to practice, that in war private rights or private property could be respected. The true humanity in respect to war was, that it should be sharp in order that it might be short, and it was a principle in re gard to war that you were entitled to take property belonging to the enemy wherever you could do so.l !The extent to which private property was to be violated was in the pro portion of the necessities of the warfare, and private rights were inevitably sacrificed. It had been said,correctly, that private debts were not confiscated at the breaking out of war, but there was no argument against his views from that fact, because when debts were contracted in time of peace the faith of the belligerent countries was pledged to their security, but in war there was an end to commerce between the hostile countries. The right hon. and learned gentleman argued at considerable length in support of his views. It was not true that private property was protected on land. More private property was de stroyed in a siege than in a hundred naval captures. Sir S. NORTHCOTE protested against the outcry against the shipping interest on this question as dictated only by self-interest. When the country was in danger the shipping interest was the first to come forward for its de fence. Ho entered largely into the benefits which that in terest conferred upon society, and which demanded consi deration in return. He contended that any conventions on this subject, concluded in time of peace, would be recog nised in time of war. At the same time, he admitted that the time was not come for the adoption of such a resolution as the present, and while he pressed the subject on the at tention of the Government, hoped that the resolution would be withdrawn. Mr. L. GOWER considered the resolutions as utterly uncertain in their tenour, and impossible to be carried out in time of war. Mr. CAVE supported the resolution, commenting on the barbarity of the present mode of ocean warfare. Sir F. GOLDSMID, on legal grounds, opposed the re. solution. Lord H. VANE observed that after the Paris revolution there would be great difficulty in adapting maritime war for merchant vessels. He thought they ought to go fur» ther, and adopt at least the spirit of the motion before the house. Mr. BUXTON argued that our supremacy at sea would be in no way endangered by the adoption of the resolution. We should still retain ample means of offence while we preserved our own shipping interest. Mr. NEWDEGATE contended that the adoption of a commercial treaty which foreign Powers would disregard at the first opportunity, would oaly lead to dangerous delusions. The effect would be to induce a false security, and create a trap to the mercantile marine of England. He would be very sorry to trust the protection of that marine to any treaty. Mr. M ASSEY argued that the resolution was a neces sary corollary of the second article of the Declaration of Paris. In former days we ha pressed hardly on neutrals —at present we were going into the contrary extreme, and throwing all the advantages into their hands. Mr. BENTINCK agreed with Lord Palmerston that the resolution would be an act of political suicide. He con demned the Declaration of Paris, but could not agree to the remedy thus proposed. Mr. BRIGHT observed that there had never been a ques tion brought before the house during the time he had had the honour of a seat, which was more deserving of serious and dispassionate consideration than the one now under discus sion ; and he was bound to say, looking at the course which the debate had taken, that there was no appearance of a partisan or party spirit in the discussion, and that both sides of the house seemed to think that it ought to be discussed with reference to the interests of the country, and the inte rests of humanity at large. (Hear, hear.) The motion was couched in very general terms. It had been stated by one member on the Treasury bench that the object was to get a large acquiescence in the house ; but he believed that the principal object was to get into the hon. gentleman's net the gentlemen on the Treasury bench. The motion was not intended as a hostile manifestation a2;ainst the Govern ment, but it was so drawn that the Government might accept it, because it would not pledge them to any course, bat would rather leave them open to adopt such a course of proceeding as they might think advisable hereafter on this important question, and to give them the opportunity of ascertaining the opinion of the house on the subject. In the year 1858 he believed the Government took a very proper course. From the period of the termination of the last great war until the commencement of the Russian war there passed a period of forty years of wonderful changes, not merely in this country and in Eu ro p e , b ut on the American continent. A great nation had there grown up, with a large mercantile marine—so large as to bo almost equal to the mercantile marine of this country. When the Russian war broke out the Government advised the Queen to issue a proclamation, which did in respect of the time occupied by that war what the declaration of Paris had done for all future time. The Government found it impossible to carry out the old policy any longer. Unless we could blockade every port of Russia it was clear that the American mer cantile ships would have carried on their trade with Russia as they did before the war; and if they had had' Russian cargoes in their ships they would not have permitted with out remonstrance, and probably without resistance, the exercise of the right of search with regard to those ships, and the taking from them of the property of Russia, which was then the enemy of England. If her Majesty's Govern ment had not taken the course which they did in 1856, by issuing that proclamation, most probably in the course of six months they would have been involved in a very serious discussion with the United States Govern ment, which might have been the cause of a calamitous war with the United States in addition to that in which we were then engaged with Russia. (Hear.) Lord Palmer ston was at that time a member of Lord Aberdeen's Go vernment, and, no doubt his opinions had great weight with the Cabinet. They acted wisely on that occasion, and did that which was absolutely necessary. (Hear.) In 1856 Lord Clarendon and other diplomatists mot at Paris. They know the cause of the issuing of the proclamation of 18E4. They knew that in future the same difficulty might meet them, and they mosi wisely agreed to the declaration with which so much fault had b een found by some hon. mem bers, The course taken at Paris was one that could not have been avoided. It was inevitable, and being inevitable then, he believed it to be irrevocable now. (Hear.) What did that Congress do ? It declared that henceforth no war should be made on the trade of a belligerent, with the ex ception of the act of a blockade ; that his exports and his im ports should be free as in times of ;peace, only on one con dition, that they should be carried to neutral ships; that if belligerents, for instance, England and France, were atwar, these belligerents might trade in peace, nut only with each other, but with all neutrals, provided their trade was car ried on in the ships of neutrals, that was to say, if the ene my kept his own ships at home, we undertook to do no harm to his trade at sea. (Hear.) The case of England and France was one that afforded the most obvious illustra tion. France had no great mercantile navy, but she had a largo war navy, and them could not have been the smallest thillealty, under the declaration of Paris, for the trade of • Franc e to have been carried on by neutral ships—say ships of f tine • Umte4 States —assnming, of course, that the ports kell.trance were not blockaded ; and France might have ' ile1 : 1 of lap? ships in harbours had not been transferred to • her • as of France the register of the United States. At the same time, England—the:u would fiance had a great war navy, the ships insist on the same thing as regarded and other nationstcxl w trade with Englatocni, States, the Baltic Ports, Greece, ld furnish ships to carry on the belonging to Englund" the great bulk of the ships (h r ear. ) Th a t was a f,,i t :::: 3 41 be kept in harbour. eantile ships of Eri,._;lait,l the case. The tuer ar betw, : o %than before. The would be driving a trade mere nouriZ t up, :Laver for Sal- and neutrals ;:treEl results wiml,l follow a NV United States. He agreed with the lion THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EYE NINA" MAEOII 18, 1861. ford, that offensive language had been used towards the shipowners. lie was no advocate of protection to the ship- ping interest, but he thought they were entitled to so much consideration as any other great public class, be they cotton sPtilers or landowners. (near) The facts stated in the petition of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce could not be contradicted. We had agreed to make war less burden. some to ourselves and to our enemy, but we had done it in a manner which would inflict serious ir9u . ry . on an important class of the public. He thought that this resolution re commended itself to the country and to the house. He did not ask the hon. member for Liverpool —nor for the inte rest of the cause they had at heart would he adyise him to press this motion to an actual division. (Hear.) He had not brought it forward to emtarrass the Government, or to do anything hostile to them—(hear)—but to afford Parlia- incnt a fair opportunity for free discussion. That discussion had taken place ) and the question had been hsndled with various ability on both sides, but ho must say, with great candour, an all hands. (Hear.) He thought, however, that the noble lord Rt the head of the Government had been precipitate In the expression of the opinion he had declared, and he trusted that before long we should have a Govern ment willing to take this matter into consideration, if foreign nations were willing to do so; and he (Mr. Bright) had •the best reasons for befit:eh:lg that they would be glad to do so. (Oh, oh.) There was no doubt of the United &ates ; of Prussia, he believed there was no doubt ; and, for himself, he had no doubt of France. When the people of this country had made tip their minds, and when Parliament, to enable Government to act, there would be no difficulty with any foreign country. He (Mr. Bright) might be pointed at, as ho had been a thousand times, ae the friend a peace ; but hewould rather be the friend of peace in the humblest position than the friend of war in the highest. (Hear.) If the house would accept freely and frankly the principles submitted to them by the hon. member for Liverpool they would confer on the people of this country a great advantage, and on themselves endless renown. (Cheers.) The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he quite agreed with the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham that the debate on the question before thehouse had been carried on with great fairness and candour, and that the speech which the hon. gentleman had delivered was no exception in this respect. The speech of his hon. friend the member for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), was in favour of the pro posal of the hon. member for Liverpool, but yet his hon. friend seeing the extent to which the principle would lead him, if it were adopted, said he could not bring himself to the determination to vote for it. It appeared to him that the arguments urged in support of the motion of the hon. gent. the member for Liverpool, rested entirely upon the treaty of Paris. The hon. member for Birmingham had quoted the memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool for the purpose of showing that the principle that was applied in the treaty of Paris to goods carried by neutrals, would apple with equal force to the vessels of belligerents, and that the effect of it would be to inflict injury on our shipping in terests. As to the first argument he (the Solicitor-General) justified the waiving of the right to seize neutral goods on the ground that neutrals were entitled to the greater con sideration at our hands, and also that if we enforced our rights with neutrals we might be led into a war with them and draw them into it with us however unwillingly. That was the reason for the declaration on this subject in the Treaty of Paris. The other reason urged in this matter was that in the transfer of our carrying trade to neutral vessels we did so to the prejudice of our own shipping inte rest. He thought that the statement of the evils which had resulted from the declaration of Paris had been exaggerated; and ho would place before the house the other side of the question, showing the difficulties which would arise from the proposition of the hon. gentleman the member for Liver pool. While we gave up certain belligerent rights to neu trals in the declaration of Paris, it was wrong to say that we introduced any new principles on that occasion into the law of nations. One of the most important principles of in ternational law was, that in a state of war the interests of the Government and the people were bound up together. All jurists were agreed that the property of individuals was responsible for the liabilities of the nation. The whole doc trine of reprisals was founde I on that principle ; and on it, no doubt, the law of maritime capture rested. Mr. Justice Story was of this opinion when he said that " all contracts made during war between the subjects of belligerent Powers were void," and that " this doctrine could not be shaken without uprooting the principles of international law." This was not an arbitrary doctrine, but a principle which in volved the highest and most momentous considerations. He dreaded to think what might be the effect in the interests of patriotism, of a political war, and a com mercial peace. (Hear, hear.) If * anything could sap the patriotism of a people it would be that. (Hear, hear.) The earliest writer to advocate the principles of the hon. mem ber for Liverpool was one in the last century, end he said that as a class it was the merchants who had the least patriotism. That, however. was happily not the case with British merchants. (Hear, hear.) But their patriotism had not been evoked by a system of political war and com mercial peace, but by the opposite system under which they suffered with the national eeverses in the time of war, and looked forward to the restoration of peace for a recurrence of their prosperity. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the patriotism of the merchant classes would be placed in dan ger if they did not suffer with the rest in time of war— (hear, hear)—and if they had not an interest in the resto ration of peace. He yielded to no man in his love of peace —not even to the hon. gentleman who had last spoken; and he echoed his sentiment when he said that he would rather be the meanest lover of peace than the most honoured ad vocate of war—(hear, hear)—except when war was under taken for the maintenance of the national honour, or when it was undertaken in self-defence. (Hear, hear.) But the interests of the people in war ought never to be severed from the interests of the Government; for the greatest check upon protracted and unnecessary wars was the burden which they imposed upon the people. (Hear, hear.) If they could get rid of or diminish those burdens upon the people, wars would then go on, and the armies of the enemy might march, as the hon. gentleman had said, as " a peaceful cavalcade," and ships could act for defensive purposes only upon the sea. Merchants might pass and repass between France and England during war, land their cargoes and carry on all the operations of their daily life ; and, if this were the case, could it for a moment be ima gined that they would feel the same interest as now in the prevention of war, or in the restoration of pease. (Hear, hear.) In this country the people had such an influence on the Government as to impose a great and serious check upon unnecessary war; but the interests of large classes of the people in the restoration of peace would be greatly di minished by the plan proposed by the hon. gentleman. Un der such a system the shipowners would not have an in creased interest in the maintenance of peace; and, though he did not believe that the shipowners of this country al lowed their private interest to overpower their tense of public duty, still it would be throwing a great temptetion in their way—(hear)--and it would diminish very much the inducements they now had to range themselves on the side of an honourable peacc—(hear, hear)—if we were to have a political war and a commercial peace. This system would have a still worse effect in other countries where am b'tioua and arbitrary powers cherished designs of aggran disement, on which the interests of the people in the pie servation of peace proved the most powerful check. (Hear.) Wars would become chronic in such cases, the people would become less vigilant, and the taxes on which princes must depend would be more easily supplied by the mere continu ance of trade. (Hear.) It was in the powerof any Government, when it could be done consistently, to relax the severities of war as we had done during the contest in the Crimea; and now that privatering was abolished in maritime war fare, it would be more than ever in the power of the Govern ments to prevent excesses. They were told that what they were now asked to do wai to reduce maritime warfare to the principles on which war was conducted upon land ; but this was not so, for there was nothing in the present mode of conducting war upon land analogous to an abandonment of the power of exercising belligerent rights against merchant ships at sea. They had lately been threatened with the danger of war with a foreign Power not bound by the de claration of Paris, and therefore at liberty to exercise the power of privateers. Was there in this country among our merchants any flinching from the emergency ? (Hear.) The people of England did not look the danger in the face as if they were afraid. (Hear, hear.) The merchants of Liverpool and of other parts of the kingdom uttered no timid accents. We desired peace not because we were afraid of war. (Hear.) We rejoiced that peace was preserved, be cause we were bound to those with whom war threatened by ties the most precious, which we were unwilling to sever; but there was not the least sign of craven apprehension ex hibited, or any dread that the moment we entered upon war with the declaration of Paris about neck our power would be gone.' He believed that the merchants of this country knew perfectly well what were the prospects before them, and they looked those prospects in the face with no less bra very than their forefathers did on other occasions. From these facts he gathered encouragement, and he believed that he was not wrong in placing faith, notwithstanding the de claration of Paris was in as full force as ever, in the patriot ism, the resources, and the elasticity of the country. Mr. WALPOLE felt that a large part of the argument of the Solicitor-General was conclusive upon the topics to which he addressed himself. He should not dwell upon that part of the argument of the hon. member for Birmingham which treated the abolition of the right of capture of private property at sea as a necessary consequence of the Paris treaty. The question was whether they could stand upon the Paris declaration. That declaration had been entered into under circumstances which ought to lead them to be very careful how they laid down abstract principles out of this house which had never been sanctioned by Parliament. It was a declaration suggested originally by the French Minister, and adopted by Lord Clarendon, with the intention and upon the supposition that all nations were to observe it, or, at all events, that a similar declaration was to be laid down for their guidance. The declaration itself pointed to this result, and the inconvenience which would otherwise misc. Before it was made Lord Clarendon stated at the conference that under it privateering was to be abolished by the na tions of the world. This, however, not having been as sented to by other Powers, caused this country now to be piaat i i n considerable difficulty. In the case of a war with the United States, for instance, England would be bound hand and foot by the declaration, and would not be able even to remonstrate with the • United• States if they con tinued their system of privateering. Could such considera tions be allowed to prevail without putting matters on a better footing ? It was with the view, if possible, of better _ _ ing them that ho had risen. All :they could do at present was to protest against a declaration, the making of which exposed this country to extreme danger. He wished to ask the noble viscount at the head of the Government Whether the one-sided declaration of Paris—one-sided as regarded two great maritime powers—should not, if possible, be amended and placed on a better footing,whether that decla ration between nations should not be made applicable to all, and not be divisible and divided, in order that all countries might exercise their powers, of course with humanity and justice, to secure the end, aim, and object of all war. Lord PALMERSTON—It is generally admitted that nothing can be more inconvenient than the proposal to, or the adoption by, this house of a general abstract resolution. and I think the resolution of the hon. member and the debate which has followed amply illustrate the truth of that position. The hon. member has proposed a resolution excessively vague in words, which points to no specific ob- ject, the meaning of which can only be collected from the speeches of awe° Who have supported it in the course of the debate. If such a resolution were passed Ind the Oovernra ent of the day were called on to.act upon it, they could onlyguess as to what course they would have to pursue, and that upon looking at the afgureents of the gentlemen who have taken part in the debate. That et - otild in Metal be a difficult mat ter, but I confess that in the present casd it NV(Aild ptteAle the most sagacious Government to know what course to pursue—(hear)—becauee one-half of those who have sup potted the resolution, arid the hon. gentleman who moved it, have for their object to exempt private property at sea from capture; but the other half concurring have another object—to reverse the declaration of Paris. (Elear.) Those are two objects totally different, indeed diametrically oppo site, and between whieh the Government, if called on to act as they would be by the concluding passages of the re solution, would be utterly at a loss as to which of the two courses the House of Commons wished them to adopt. I think that is of itself a sufficient reason why this resolution should not be affirmed by this house. If this house has de cided upon the line of policy which it wishes to impose on the Government, it ought to embody that line of policy in a resolution with clear, precise, pointed, definite results, and leaving the Government under no embarrassment as to the course which the house wishes them to pursue. Then the Government would have to choose whether it thought fit to adopt the resolution or not; and then, if the Government thought it was against the interests of the country, the course any Government would have to follow is so plain that it needs no explanation. I will deal first with the declara tion of Paris. It has been fully explained that the only new point, as far as we are concerned, in that declaration was that which declared that an enemy's property should be free from capture in a neutral bottom. The other points in the declaration were old-esta blished practice. The declaration as to blockades was only recapitulating Acts well-known and taken as facts. My hon. friend the member for Birmingham has very ably and very fully shown that it was a wise and politic measure on the part of the Government to adopt the principle that a neutral flag should cover enemy's goods. He has sh own that it was the doctrine of every other maritime Power, and that if we had persisted in maintaining the opposite doc trine, and es e had gone to war with any great maritime State, we should inevitably have run the risk of adding to that war' dispute with the other maritime Powers which would have led to another armed neutrality. Th ere i s a principle upon which, as it appears to me , this doctrine must a etnainerthalnVteshhiap at sea is a part of our territory, that l a t e ly maintained, at the risk of war, that that territory cannot be violated with impunity, that, therefore, individuals cannot be taken out of a merchant man belonging to a neutral country. The Berne principle may be said to apply to goods as well as men, and if it be granted, as we do grant, that a belligerent has no right to take out of a neutral ship persons who are enemies, so also it follows that the neutral must always be respected, and in the case even of enemy's property on board, ought not to be violated. But the ground upon which the Government assen ted to that declaration was, as has been well stated by the hon. member for Birmingham, that in the altered state of things and in the present relative positions of the great maritime Powers of the world, they felt that persisting to maintain a doctrine which no other nation maintained, would incur the risk of involving this country in hostilities with more than one Power if we came in conflict with any one Power. The right hon. gentleman who has just sat down said, if we were involved in a war with the United States the Declaration of Paris would place us in an em barrassing difficulty, because the United States did not happen to agree to them. One of the conditions of the De • claration of Paris was that they should apply only to the States which became parties to them, and therefore, in so far as the United States were not parties to the Declaration of Paris they would not apply to any parties who engaged in war with the United States. But, with regard to the 2d Article, which said that the flag should cover the goods, that has always been the principle which the United States has maintained, and, therefore, no difficulty arises between England and the United States upon that article. It requires no additional declaration to bind them to an observance of that article, because that has always been their doctrine, and the fact that it was their doctrine led us to think that it was more prudent and wise to adopt, in common with other parties, the declaration of Paris. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that to go back to the parties who assembled at Paris and to ask them to rescind those resolutions, is a course which no gentleman can seriously think the Government is likely to adopt, or that, if adopted, the Government is likely to get the other parties to agree to it. Then we come to the other subject, namely, the proposition which is made by the hon, member for Liverpool, that we should agree that pri• vete property by sea shall be exempt from capture. It is said that it is a logical deduction from the declaration of Paris. I deny that proposition. The declaration of Paris re lated entirely to the relations between belligerents and neu trals. The proposition of the hon. member relates to the re lations of belligerents to each other. It is a matter totally distinct, resting totally on different grounds, and I cannot see any logical connection between them. The hon. member for Birmingham has been kind enough to attach some value to opinions which I expressed some years ago at Liverpool. The attention which he has been pleased to pay, and the which he has been pleased to give, to my opinion, induces me to hope that he will with me alter the opinion which was then expressed. (Laughter.) The passage quoted as having been part of what I said at Liverpool related to two matters. First of all, to the exemption of private property at sea from capture ; and, secondly, to the assi milation of the principles of war at sea to the practice of war on lend. lam perfectly ready to admit that I have entirely altered my opinion on the first point. (Hear.) Further reflection and deeper thinking has satisfied me that what at first sight is plausible, and 1 admit that it is plausible on the surface, is a most dangerous doctrine, and I hope that the hon. member will be kind enough to give weight to my thoughts and also come round to those second thoughts, which are proverbially the best. (Cheers and laughter.) With regard to the assimilation of war by sea to the practice of war by land, I think that, as far as it was in the power of the Government by arrangement with other Powers, we have accomplished it. For what is the main diffe,rence between the practice of war by sea and by land? It is said that the practice of war by land is to respect pri vate property. Everyone who holds that doctrine must for get everything which has passed within his memory, and everything which he has read. It is well known that when armies are in an enemy's country they take everything which they want, and very often destroy what they do not want, for the mere purpose of destruction: Not only do they de. strop what they do not want and take what they do want, but they go further and levy heavy contributions upon the places which they occupy. I will relate two instances at different periods of time, which shows the continuity of the practice. In 1807 when the French army besieged Dantzic, then a Prussian town, France being at war with Prussia, after along siege Dantzic surrendered. The French destroyed in the first place all the suburbs. They took a great many things which they wanted for their own purposes, requisites of clothing, and so forth, and then they levied on the town a contribution of 30,000,000 f. Was that respect for private property ? Who were to pay those 30,000,000 f. except the inhabitants, and how were they to pay it except out of their private property. That is one example of many showing that it is not the practice in war by land to respect private property. Take another instance at a much more recent period— in the year 1850 or 1851. There was a contest then in the Electorate of Hesse Cassell between different German Powers. What was the state to which they reduced that unhappy country ? I will, if the house permit me, read ex tracts from letters addressed to me at that time by a diplo matic officer, who went to look at the country at the period and after that contest—a contest which did not last long, and between German armies, not animated by hereditary animosity or difference of race, but acting simply in the ordinary operations of war upon the theatre of hostilities. This is what he stated on the 17th of November, 1850 : " It is deplorable to consider the inevitable consequences of this immense concentration of foreign troops in Hesse, of which your lordship no doubt is already informed, but the sufferings of the poor inhabitants is likely to exceed any thing which can be imagined. Their provisions for the winter already setting in, have been consumed by the troops quartered on them. Sickness and disease are begin ning to appear, and I believe, although the report is en deavoured to be put down, that the cholera has appeared in several.places." That was the condition in November. In the following March he says :- 4, The country (that is Hesse) continues in a deplorable condition. There is no commerce of any kind, and eonse quently no money. lam assured that in that part of it occupied in the beginning of the winter by the Federal and Prussian troops, everything is destroyed, and that there aro some thousands of persons in a complete state of destitm tion. Not only were their cattle and stores all consumed, but their horses even taken, so that the ground cannot be tilled, and in the interior of the houses and cottages the furniture of all sorts was used for firewood." c li ne d towards th e El ec t or an d hi s G o vernment, and who given to mo by a person who is well in aTdhdiesda that n i t t would w part of the electorate to its former condition. (Hear , h ear, ) e a u s require at least 10 years to restor e that That is just a single specimen of the result of war by land, and then gentlemen ran away with the notion that in war by land private property is respected. Why, it is perfectly well known that it is taken whenever it is wanted, that it is destroyed frequently out of wantonness, that it is always destroyed in the ueeessery operations of war, and that in those cases compensation is not given by those who destroy it. Dy sea it is said private property is taken, but it is taken in a different Manner and with more order and regularity. Private property by sea is not made prize until it is adjudi- cated by a competent tribunal as a legal and proper capture: By land it is taken at the moment ;hen it 19 wanted, and as it may be wanted. I was about to say that we have assimilated, er endeavoured at least to assimilate, the prac tice of wat by sea to the practice of war by land. What was the main difference Of the two? Not that private pro perty was not taken by land as it was taken by sea, but that by sea it was taken by a different set of people ftom those who were author iced to take it by land. By laqd no indi- . _ vidual was allowed to make war unless he belonged to a regularly organised army, and was in the service of a state. If people made war on their own account on land, they were taken and shot as banditti. Nothing, was more common in Spain than for the French to take the peasants and shoot them without the slightest hesitation if they were not embodied as military. It is a well known fact that to carry on a war by land the people must be in the service of an established authority. Not so by sea. Pri vate war on the ocean was a permitted and acknowledged practice. We agreed at last to the proposal that pri vateering by sea should no longer be a legitimate mode of carrying on war, and that future wars should be carried on only by regularly organised forces acting under the authority and corn: dnd of a responsible Government. That part of the arrangemeht fees so far been carried out that privateering—as regards those titiiiieic who acceded to the beclaration—has been, and will be discottfindedi But these Declaratiete do not apply to the States which did not accede to them. The "United Rates of America have not acceded to the abolition of privateering, and, undoubtedly, if we had the misfortune, as was not unlikely a rbo't time ago, to be engaged in war with the United States, we should not be bound to abstain from privateering unless the United States should also enter into a similar and corresponding en gagement. (Hear, hear.) Much criticism hae s been passed upon a remark of my right hon. friend the Sscretary for War, that war puts an end to treaties. Undoubtedly war does put an end to treaties, and even to declarations of this sort---(hear, hear)—and in the event of war you would have to rest upon the honour and good feeling of the parties who had agreed to them in time of peace. We have had a recent instance to show that that principle is admitted and acted upon, and that such declarations are not always likely to be observed by Governments; because the President of the United States, maintaining, as he did ; that the capture of those two gentlemen on board the Trent was at variance with the unvariable and acknowledged principles of the United States, and allowing that it was therefore his duty to give them up, yet declared that if it had been for the in terest of his country—departing trot/ his own principles and from the admitted doctrine of the United States —he should have felt it his duty not to give them up. (Laughter.) My right hon. friend is quite right in saying that you have net that security from belligerents that in time of war they will observe the conditions laid down in peace which you have from neutrals. IV hen you make an engagement pith a neutral, if it is not kept by him you have the resource of war, but when you are at war you heere shot your bolt, and you can do nothing more. It must rest oh the honour of the belligerent, and on hs respect for public opinion, though you have always this remedy—that you may say you will not conclude a peace with him unless you have ample re dress and restoration for the injury done in the war in con travention of the principles previously establ;s hed. It is said that the principles laid down at Paris would be fatal to our commerce and to the shipping interests; but the very arguments used by hon. gentlemen who take that view ne gative the first part of the assertion, because they say our commerce would go on without any interruption whatever, and all that would happen would be that the channel through which it flowed would be changed, and that commerce would be carried on through the neutrals with much greater safety than in our own ships. If that be so, so far as our commerce is concerned, there is no ground for complaint. (Hear, hear.) It must be admitted that that principle would increase the inconveniences which the shipowners would feel when war broke out. But, unfortunately, it is of the nature of war that it cannot be carried on without embar rassment, suffering, and loss to all parties concerned. If you make war without any suffering and any loss to any party whatever, it would become mere child's play, and it might last for ever without coming to any result. (Hear.) It is said that all our commerce would immediately be car ried on by neutrals, but how is that made out ? I presume it may be asserted that the commerce of the world is carried on by the ships of the world, and I believe our commercial ships form a large proportion of the ships which carry on that commerce. Suppose that our ships were thrown out of employment, where will you find ships to take their place ? Ships are not things which can be created on a sudden ; it takes time to create a mercantile marine. I forget how many millions of tons we have in our merchant shipping, but supposing the whole of them were all at once confined to our harbours, where will you find neutral ships to take their place, and to carry on the commerce which they now carry on ? We are, I hope, the most powerful naval State, and we have, I hope, a fleet which in the event of war would be superior to any adversary with whom we might be engaged. (Hear, bear.) The ships of that ad versary would either in a very short time be confined to their ports, or they would come out and suffer de feat; and when we had established our maritime supre macy at sea, then the danger to our merchant service would in such proportion be diminished. (Hear, hear.) This really is only another instance of an attempt to set up the assumed interest of one class of persons against the general interests of the country. We have had a great many examples of that in years past, and in all those cases the persons who objected to a particular arrangement on the ground that they imagined that it was injurious to their interests found afterwards in the end that they were mis taken, and they have actually shared in the general good which resulted from that arrangement. When free trade in corn was established, the agricultural interest contended that they would be ruined, and great efforts were made to prevent the adoption of that measure ; but the agricultural interest has since found that it prospered with the pros per ity which that change produced. Our manufacturing interests also contended that by admitting foreign manu factures our manufacturers would be ruined, but instead of that our manufactures have increased in the very propor tion that we have admitted foreign manufactures. This very interest—the shipping interest—is also an instance. They contended most elaborately and eloquently that the change in the Navigation Laws would be their ruin, but the contrary has been the fact, and our shipping has in creased ever since by reason of that change. The shipping interest now ask for the establishment of the principle con tained in the resolution of the hon. member for Liverpool, because they imagine that it would relieve them of the pressure of war; but in the same way it can be shown that the remedy which they seek will, in fact, be detrimental to the general interests of the country, and that they would share in the injury which the country would sustain if that were granted to them which a short-sighted view of their own interests induces them to think of impor tance. An island like this, with an army which is not large enough to be sent to a distance across the sea for any great operations of war, must mainly rest for re dress upon its naval power being exerted in destroying the commerce and commercial ships of its antagonists, and in taking their crews prisoners. Gentlemen have argued this question as if it were simply a matter of ships and goods ; but they forget that when you take an enemy's merchant ship you take not only the vessel and cargo, but also the sailors onboard— (hear, hear)—who, if they aro al lowed to return safely to their own ports, are an additional source of strength to your enemy. Suppose—what I hope may be far distant—that we were at war with France. That country sends annually some 15,000 or 20,000 sailors to the different fisheries as nurseries for her war navy. Suppose we were blockading Brest, Toulon. Cherbourg, or L'Orient, if the principle of the hon. member for Liverpool were adopted, we should have to allow the fleet of 20,000 sailors to pass with impunity through our blockading squa dron to man the enemy ships lying in the port before us. (Hear, hear.) Therefore it is not simply the injury done to the enemy by the capture of his property and vessels which you have to consider, it is the injury you can do him by thus crippling his war navy, and depriving him of a certain number of men who would otherwise man that navy, and enable it to come out and give you battle. (Hear, hear.) My opinion, therefore, distinctly is, that if you give up that power which you possess, and which all maritime States possess and have exercised—of taking the ships, the pro perty, and the crews of the nation with whom you may happen to be at war—you would be crippling the right arm of our strength. You would be inflicting a blow upon our naval power, and you would be guilty of an act of political suicide. (Hear, hear.) If you allow the cargo to go free, you must allow the men also to go free. Suppose you were at war with France, you could not stop a merchant ship and take the men out of her while you let the vessel and cargo go. You could not say, "We will respect the cargo and respect the vessel, but you haue sailors, and as the mercantile marine is that w hi c h f ee d s th e war navy, sailors aro part of the enemy's • power, and, there fore, gentlemen, we cannot let you go into port—we must take possession of you, and allow the ship and cargo to get home as they b es t can ." (L aug ht er .) Th er efore, according to the principle of the honourable gentleman, you would be compelled to let any number of sailors pass into a harbour, to man a fleet there, that might come out to encounter yours, and offer it battle. (Hear, hear.) With this principle you would really almost reduce war to an exchange of diplomatic notes. (Hear, hear.) If you admit the principle that private property must bo respected at sea, you cannot maintain a blockade. You enfore a blockade by confiscating the ships that break it; how can you do that if you assert that private property at sea is to be respected ? You may say that ships shall only be taken in case they break the blockade. But what is it? That is not a ques tion so clear that an infinite number of questions may not arise upon it, It may be alleged that a ship has not broken the blockade; it may be a question how far she was from the port, and in what degree her approach to it proved an intention of breaking the blockade. Many "pa'aits of this sort would arise, excee dingly difficult to establish; and you would get into insuperable difficulties if you went the length of s a ying that private property is to be respected at sea, and only to be taken In the case of breaking a blockade. I repeat, if you adopt the principle of the hon. gentleman you will cripple the main arm of your strength for all pur poses of war. (Hear, hear.) We ere all agreed that war is a thing to be avoided, I hope that this country will never be engaged in any unjust war. But as long as human nature is human nature; as long as mankind are ambitious tyrannical, and oppressive, especially if they believe the may be so with impunity or without suffering for it, so lone will a nation like this, whose subjects are scattered aver the lace of the globe living in aryl engaged in com merce with every communily of the world, and relying on the f ith of treaties with their Governments, so long wi tl this country be liable to causes of just quarrel from time to time with foreign nations. And the more remote the nation the mato likely it is such causes of quarrel will arise. In su6. cases the navy is the only arm by which you can estTeort redrew. You cannot send out military expeditjdns to conquer the country that has done you wrong. You can only obtain redress by means of your navy. It may be said you may bombard a city or a town. But that is not a practice that anyone can re commend you to adopt. Thet is worse than taking private property on the sea, for you destroy the property of people who have had nothing whatever to do with the cause of quarrel between the two countries. You have no iesource in cases of this sort but the power of your navy. Then, what class of persons in this country have most interest in maintaining the power of obtaining redress for an injury ? The shipping and commercial interests, who have the most numerous transactiima with foreign countries, and who are more likely than any others to be objects of injury and wrong ; they are the classes for whom this country is most likely to be called on to demand and obtain redress. (Hear.) Under these circumstances, I should hope the hon. gentle man will be satisfied with the debate that has arisen on his motion, and with the very conflicting and contradictory support it has received from the house. (Laughter.) I think the hon. gotitieman himself must be at a loss to know what is the sense his resolution is understood to bear. (Laueeh tor.) I should hope he Will be content with the mysterious vagueness in which it has been enveloped and the doubtful result of the opinions elicited in the debate that has arisen on it. (Hear.) I hope he will be satisfied with the discus sion ; he has made a very sensible speech, barring some of its opinions and arguments—(laughter)—a speech to which I listened with very great pleasure. I hope the hon. gentle man will be Content with the discussion he has raised on the question, and withdraw his resolution. (Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI said, 'whatever variety of opinion exists with regard to the motion, there cannot be two opinions as to the importance of the subject. (Hear, hear.) In my mind it is the moat important subject that can engage our attention. In importance I put it far beyond the question , of Parliamentary Reform, even when that question was a reality. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) That question referred to the disposition of political power in England ; the pre ' sent question affects our national power throughout Europe and the world. (Hear, hear.) Now, how has this question arisen ? No doubt it is raised by the Declaration of Paris in 1856. The Solicitor-General says that when an appre • hension of war arose, he did not seo that any fear was ex pressed by the merchants of this country of the conse - quences of the changes that have been made in our maritime law ; that they were ready, with inherent and hereditary courage, to meet the emergency before them. I cannot agree with the hon. and learned gentleman, except in giving credit to the merchants and shipowners for their courage. I think it is in consequence of the apprehension of war with a powerful State, that it is in consequence of that panic, this discussion has arisen., By the declaration of Paris, wehave given up the cardinal principle of our maritime power. (Hear, hear.) I do not think the noble lord has been suc cessful in imputing to the shipowners that this is a discus sion got up merely about their individual interests. I am sure that is not the case. There is a general impression that the great change made in the maritime code may be, perhaps must be, the cause of serious results to the mari time power of this country. (Hear.) It is not at all a ques tion of the shipping interest only ; it concerns the whole maritime strength of this country, if it is true that we have acknowledged the principle that the flag of a neutral covers the cargo. This must divert the commerce of the country in time of war into neutral bottoms ; and that I believe will have dealt a serious blow to our maritime strength. Our maritime strength will follow the carrying trade. If the carrying trade leaves the shores of this country, the mari time population will go with it ; and if we have not a pre ponderance of the maritime population we cannot have the preponderance of naval power. (Hear.) The noblelord says we have got the ships, and as ships are not built in a day how can any other nation obtain the carrying trade ? But these ships, if not used by us, will not be locked up in decks and harbours. No doubt, where the profits are good and the risk nil, the ships will find new masters. I have not heard any argument in the debate that has met this point of the case, though it is a most important consideration. Did you take any step, by the Declaration of Paris, relinquishing a cardinal principle and impairing our maritime strength ? That is the real question. It is on interests superior to that of the ship owners that we are now discussing the subject. The noble lord has treated this question in an extraordinary manner. He first gave certain abstract reasons in favour of the change. It is very surprising that so experienced a states man, born and bred in the school of politics that attached so much importance to this point of our maritime cede, the school of Liverpool and Canning, should suddenly find there are abstract arguments against its existence. I must do the noble lord the justice to say that he did not dwell much on that point. He admitted that the real causes of the change have been placed more clearly before the house by the hon. member for Birmingham. It was because, on the eve of a war with Russia, we feared the assertion of the principle that a neutral flag does not cever the cargo might involve us in embarrassments with the United States. (Hear, hear,) The noble lord recognised the accuracy of that de scription. If that be a sufficient reason for the course taken, see how it has operated with regard to the very Power for which the sacrifice was made. As the house has been re - minded, we might be at war with the United States, and the United Stateasnight at the same time, by virtue of the principle that the flag covers the cargo, carry on the whole of their trade in neutral vessels, while they poured forth thousands of privateers to prey upon our merchant shipping. (Hear, hear.) In giving up this cardinal point, therefore, for a, to a certain degree, visionary apprehension, which could not bo put to a practical test, we have, without having effected our object, placed ourselves absolutely at the mercy of the United States, if, which God forbid I a war should ever take place between the two countries. That being the position of affairs, we have now before us a motion which has been described as the natural consequence of our relinquishment of this cardinal principle of our maritime policy in the Declaration of Paris. The noble lord denies that it is a natural con sequence; but he forgot that he was the first great autho rity to announce that it was so. (Hear, hear.) Why, when the Declaration of Paris was signed and peace proclaimed, the noble lord travelled 200 miles to a considerable city, and was the first person who called the attention of the country to the inevitable connexion between this renunciation of our old principle of maritime policy, and the policy recom mended by the hon. member for Liverpool. The noble lord now says, " I have changed my opinion. I cannot deny that when peace was proclaimed I went down to Liverpool to receive the congratulations of my friends and stimulate the spirit of may party, not by a hurried but by a well-con sidered and mature manifesto, and that I said that the prin ciples which were adopted at the Paris Conference might perhaps be still further extended, and that in the course of time those principles of war wh ich were a pp lied to hostili ties by land might be extended to hostilities by sea, so that private property might no longer bo the object of aggression on either side." Now, I want to know what more the hon. member for Liverpool has said ? (Cheers.) These opinions, indeed, exceed anything which the hon. gentleman has re commended. The hon. gentleman has not dared to put in a resolution that which the Prime Minister of England an nounced in a speech. " But," says the noble lord, " I have changed my opinion." Well, a man has a perfect right to change his opinion. We do not grudge the noble lord his change of opinion on these vital subjects, but then the noble lord's opinion upon any subject can hardly be such a leading authority as it was before. (Hear, and laugh ter.) Hero is the noble lord, 20 years Secretary-at-War, 15 years Foreigri Secretary, and at the time when lee made this declaration Prime Minister. For 40 years he must have been meditating and manipulating kindred sub jects to this. (Hear, hear.) Whether the flag should cover the cargo, every question affecting privateering, every form which a diplomatic declaration can assume must have constantly occupied the mind and meditation of the noble lord. Yet, upon the most important of these subjects the noble lord, holding a most responsible situation and making a well-considered speech, which, from the manner and the time of its delivery, was more im portant even than a debate in this house, because it was a declaration to a nation—the noble lord comes to the same conclusion as the hon. member, and yet tells us now that he has entirely changed his opinion. Yes, the noble lord may change his opinion ; but let me tell him that when he rises again, and when questions o f this high importance are brought under the consideration of the House of Commons, and ho warns the house that they are asked to adopt " a suicidal policy," ho will not exercise that influence upon public opinion which he possessed before the hasty expres sions that he has now recalled. What ? " A suicidal policy I" Is that the policy recommended by the hon. mem ber for Liverpool ? Why, it is the policy which the noble lord himself completely planned and partially perpetrated. (Cheers and laughter.) I deeply regret this, because I know that there have been and may again be occasions of national difficulty when the warning voice of an experienced statesman, of the talents, popularity, and auth or it y o f th e noble lord would sink deep into the publi c mind, and would exercise a great and salutary influence upon public opini o n. But, alas I that is all over. (Cheers and laughter.) How ever ruinous the proposition, however revolutionary the schemes, however vast the danger that may assail the St a te, though the noble lord may be deeply impressed with all these perils, though ho may feel deeply and t hi n k deeply, and though th ere may b e no r i s k of his changing his opinions, the world will remember that he went dowa to Liverpool to recommend a " suicidal policy," h an is d w th or eT is w m il i l gh er t y ha " v l e Vo s l a f v , e m d - ol t f ile w c ol a f p l; t ' l w . h e ( n ch otherwise laughter.) Now, what are we to do in our present position ? The noble lord says we have two alternatives. I will take first the proposal made by the hon. member which the noble lord at Liverpool advocated with so much eloquence. (Laughter.) 'e o at appears to me a visionary Lproposition. (Hear.) I cannot myself dissociate the interests of nations and of Governments. I t seems to ine dangerous to do so. It may make rich societies, but will surely make weak States. (Hear,) cannot believe that armies and navies can flour I ish when they are no longer bound up with the interests and passions of the commun it, V. If a sonic ty founded on such principles were lo n•g Pe rsi'sted in I see the pos sibilit y of immense corruption, nd I can hardly doubt that the end , would be that in sohie part .f ate world some .man fore: —some conqueror, with sou tt3 new system of tactics or news kind of artillery—would tak "-.advantage of such a flourish-. Vs ing but dead community, wh. would then vanish with a se to conceive, and give place ra pidity which it is difficult no to a society established on vei Y different principles from those which have now the ascent Itsncy in the excellent town of Liverpool. (Cheers and laug 1.• ter.) But, viewing the you concede the m atter in the most practical I cannot see how you can maintain your system of blocskali es.if p r i nc iple which the hon. member rea amends, and which the noble lord a few years ba ck so warmly supported. tr system of block (Laughter.) If you cannot maintain ym. wer must cease to .. ades it seems inevitable that you r n aval p o st for defensive be an aggressive power, and must only e,. objects. (Hear.) Then, what is the posit-ie•/1 of a country l ik' o England in the event of war with a great p osse ? possessing great armaments if her flee ts can s only a tt on the dOfensive ? Why we should sink into utter insignifi cance. (Ciseers.) We should have no power t`o assert our authority. A Ithough we might be carrying on a thriving trade, we might all this time be working only for others; and while we were sacrificing everything to the accuroula tion of treasure we m,lst ultimately be the victims of soma strong Power influenced by different principles from those which governed our cyst, mn. I cannot, therefore, support the views of the hon. membeir and those heretofore advocat rd by the noble lord. Thoseview 's are, as I think, most danger ous. I do not want to see the co.vanunity entirely severed in: sentiment from those who govern it. Patriotism depends as much on mutual suffering as on success, and it is by that ex pe:ience of all fortunes and all feelings that a great nation al character is created. Although I am still willing to ad mit the Laconveniences, the difficulties, and dangers that beset our position, especially from the unfortunate loss of the cardinal priluciple of our maritime code at Paris, yet I rest my confidence' on the patriotism of my countrymen and the good fortune of ss country that I believe to be destined to remain great. (M - Aar, hear.) Although, therefore, Ido not attempt to obtain by the first alternative that relief from the difficulty which the treaty has entailed upon us, yet I cannot agree with the noble lord in treating with the derision he has done the sugy,ostion that the treaty of Paris is one that is never to be chan,g ed. (Hear.) The observa tion of the Secretary of State for War as to the consequessec of war upon the treaty appears to me to be perfectly just, although it has the recommendatfot"t of having been long . accepted. No one doubts that war terminates a treaty between belligerents, although this is a treaty that contem plates the action of war between belligeren ts. But there iss one point which the right hon. gentleman eutirely omitted. It is true that war terminates a treaty between belligerents, but only belligerents. (Hear, hear.) If we went to war with Russia, both Powers being parties to the declaration, the treaty of Paris is not terminated, because there are ether parties to this arrangement besides Vussia and Englassel. Therefore the war would not relieve us' from the declaration of the treaty of Paris, because the rights of all the other signatures to the treaty would continue to exist. They' may assert their claims on us, and make tilose claims the foundation of a declaration of war. (Hex?, hear.) The right hon, gentleman was too quick in assumii.'g that there. was a chance of getting rid of this precious bafgain. (A. laugh.) He has no longer to supply the funds fox a war, and wo remember how he supplied us with funds during the Russian war, (A laugh.) Of course, the Govern ment might, as part of the pfogramme of the year, declare war, in order to relieve us from the treaty. But there are wiser and milder means by which the country may obtain relief and the shipowner redress from the mistakes and improvidence of the statesmen whcp have been entrusted with this affair. I know that the noble lord will treat any suggestion with derision that proceeds from these benches. But I have an authority w.hicit ought to weigh with him, and which he ought to follow, s:or no one was more impressed with the mischievous and imps,ovident character—the alarming character, of the declarah: 97l of Paris, especially the principle that the flag covers the ctusgs, than the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Cheers.) The noble lord is a practical man, and when U , gives an opinion he is generally prepared with a measure to carry it into effect. (A, laugh.) This highly-esteemed nobleman thus expressed himself in regard to the declara tion of Paris :—" I cannot but think (he said) that, in point of principle, the declarations of the treaty of Paris ought to be altered. (Cheers.) The whole matter is most unsat isfac • tory, and has a most grave bearing on our national suyre macy." (Cheers.) If that were the opinion only of Lord Russell, who has so long served his Sovereign , who ha s 0.11 so many years in her councils, and has led this house with so much ability, it would be highly valuable and ought to influence an assembly like this. But the house will remem ber that the nobleman who expressed thisopinion is aMini ster of the Crown, and who as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would be entrusted with the management of till° business in any negotiations that miglst take place. (Cheers.) Ido not know what the present o ccupations sf the Cabinet may be, or whether they are so mu ltifarious an those of the House of Commons, but if they ar e not more employed than we are—(a laugh) — l would suggest to her Majesty's Ministers for their next subject of meeting t il° consideration of the means , t o use the langua g e Of the Secretary of State, how the declara tions of the trea.ly of Paris may be altered. (Cheers.) Mr. HORSFALL made a few observations in reply, a' expressed himself satisfied with the course the discusssz had taken. He then, in deference t o the su gg es done ma from both sides of the house, withdrew t h e motion. Tho report of supply was brought. up and read. a the The other orders of the day were d is p osed of, an house adjourned at a quarter to 2 o'cloc2r. COUN7RI 111A1EL• iS• 1• , COLCHESTER—MARCH 15. To-day a better supply of wheat, but trade rath.ersloy l i and late prices barely made. Fine barley price, but is getting scarcer. Beans and maintains , t,.! peas were po t ' at late rates. Wheat, white. 54s 68s Beans,Mazagan..36s 40 0 red 46s 64s middle & small.4oB 40 Barley Oats • --s —s gray 38s 425 CHELMSFORD—MARcs 14. A fair supply of wheat to••clay, with a dull market agaio• Prices may be quoted at is to 2s under last week's rate' Spring corn at late rates, and very dull. Wheat, old white 27s 58s t eas, Partridge-...37s 410 new 468 65s White 39s 4 6 old red... , 26s 50 s Boiling .. 41s 4786' new 51s 61s Dun 36s 400 Batley 308 398 Ditto new ......--s .--° Chevalier 3os 42s Beans, Tick, old ..35s 410 Grinding 24s 328 , now.. 35s 4 1 ° Malt 6ls 678 narrow Ticks ..37s 430 Chevalier . 64s 698 new..37s teff Oats 23s 30s Mazagan ..... .. 32s 358 GLO UTE STE R--MAncg 15. A good supply of English wheat, which met a fair sale at a decline of is per qr. Foreign sold slowly at is down' Oats in limited demand, and prices nominal. Barley and buns easier to purchase. KIRKCALDY GRAIN—MARCH 15. We had fair supplies to day of wheat and oats, bil ,t t small of barley. of best wheat and oats at previoa prices ; inferior is cheaper. Barley unaltered in price. Wheat. Barley. Oats. First. 42s Od 2240 d 20s Od Second.. 48s Od 29s 6d. I 22s Gd Third...6Bs Od 33s Od 20s Od COAL DI (Macs of Coal per Ton at s. (1. :ARKET. t the close of the market Byass's Bebside West Hartley ...15 3 Wylam l4 6 Hastings Hartley l5 3 Holywell 14 6 Tanfield Moor Butes —l2 0 Hartlepool West Hart ley Howard's West Hart ley ....15 0 Walker Primrose 11 6 Grey's West Hartley-14 0 Carway and Duffryn Malting 23 6 Do. Anthracite 21 0 N or th Pelton 12 0 Cowpen Hartley 15 3 West Hartley l5 3 Walls:End. s. a.. Eden l5 u,., Acorn Close ..16 u Tursdale. . 12 0 South Kelloe.. ........ 15 6 Hunwick 0 Framwellgate 15 15 6 Cassop ......... S. Durham 14 0 Tunstall Eouth Hetton 16 „ 6 Whitworth 14 6 u ' Hetton .• l6 i , Caradoc South Hart1ep001......15 ~; Keiper Grange... 15 `` . .. ITaswell l6 6 , Peases West .1 4 u n Ridde11....., Wharricliffe l3 ' Heugh Hall 1 5 ° K elloe Walls End. Brsddyn's Hetton 15 6 Trimdon Hartlepool ..16 0 BIRTHS. BAILEY. —On the 16th inst. , at Glanusk-park, the wife off Sir Joseph Russell Bailey, Bart., of a daughter. DUNCOMBE.—On the 15th inst., at Camelford House, the Hon. Mrs. Cecil Duncombe, of a son. HALL.—On the 15th inst., at Falmouth, the wife of Cal% W. King Hall, C. 8., of her Majesty's ship Russell , son. MARRIAGES. HOLLANDS—NOY.—On the 15th inst., at Ardingly paro church, Sussex, Joseph, son of the late John H011 11 0, 5 ' of Ardingly, to Sarah Elizabeth, daughter of the late -P. H. Noy, of Betchworth, Surrey. TnnILL—HAILVEY.—On the 15th inst., at St. Gil o3 ' s i Camberwell, John Traill, Esq., of Orkney, second soil the late William Traill, Esq., of Woodwick, to Sa rah Ellen, fourth surviving daughter of the late James 1 01° ' vey, Esq. DEATHS. FREAKES.—On the 16th inst., suddenly, at his residence' St. Catherine's, Guildford, Thomas T. Freakes, DO."' aged 41. lIENDERSON.—On the 12th inst., at lleidelberg, very snd" denly, Majer• General Robert Henderson, late of Madras Engineers, ROBINSON.—On the 15th inst , Charles Burt Robinson, Esq., the Shrubbery, .Leicester, aged 65. SHAW.—On the 16th inst. , at his residence, 7, London road, Brighton, Mr. Thomas Shaw, of St. Margaret's hill, Borough, Southwark, aged 76. WlLLouGHny.—On the 16th inst., at Waltharustow, Rachel, widow of H ans William WilloughVy , 1718(19 aged 97. LONDON : Printed and Published by JOHN CHAPLIN , of No. 112 , Strand, Printer, at THE SUN Mee , No. 112, Strand, in the Precin c t o f t h e S avo y, in the Count)? ° i 111iddleaez,—Tuesday, March 18, 1862.