The Sun. — London, England, 1862-03-12 00:00:00

iMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at five o'clock. THE REVISED CODE. The Duke of MARLBOROUGH presented petitions against the Revised Code. The Bishop of WORCESTER presented similar peti- tions. Lord ST. LEONARDS gave notice that on a future day he should call attention to certain parts of the Revised Code as related to the grouping of children according to age. The Earl of DERBY presented petitions against the Revised Code. Lord REDESDALE also presented petitions to the same effect from Northumberland and Cornwall. CATHOLIC CHILDREN IN WORKHOUSES. The Earl of WICKLOW presented a petition from a Roman Catholic clergyman at Portobello complaining that certain Roman Catholic children in the workhouse there had been taken from thence and sent to Protestant schools for education. The petition prayed for inquiry into the circumstances. LAW OF LUNACY BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the second reading of this bill. Lord CHELMSFORD said, no doubt the proceedings connected with the late extraordinary trial had led to the introduction of this bill, because up to that period there had been no complaint against the manner in which such inquiries had been conducted. The bill introduced by tho noble lord on the woolsack proposed that in all jury trials one of the judges of the superior courts should supersede or preside in place of the Master in Lunacy. He had great doubts as to the practicability of such a course. He could not un derstand how such a provision had been made, because during the late trial, and since its termination, not one person had found fault with the manner in which his learned friend the Master in Lunacy had conducted those proceedings. Assuming for a moment that a judge was to take the place of the Master in Lunacy, there might perhaps be an advantage in cases which were taken in the metropolis, but they must be aware that the greater part of these cases occurred in the country, and that would greatly add to the inconvenience of making it imperative that a judge of the superior court should invariably pre side. If the Master in Lunacy was to be superseded he should like to know why the Lord Chancellor or the Lords Justices should not conduct the inquiry because they issued tho commission, and therefore, were the best parties to continue the inquiry. IHe was of opinion thatthe present law worked well, and there was no necessity for the change which this bill proposed. Since the year 1853 there had been no less than 561 commissions of lunacy issued, and out of that large number only 20 had been tried by a jury, and that fact strengthened the opinion that he entertained, viz., that it would be injudicious to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Masters in Lunacy. He strongly de precated the clauses by which the examination of the al leged lunatics, at their own request, were to be conducted in public, and passed some stringent remarks on the pro visions for excluding medical testimony. Entering into the various details of the bill, he protested against this thorough - alteration of a system which, in spite of one acknowledged evil, had many silent advantages. Lord SHAFTESBURY defended the bill, and was con vinced that the provision directing the alleged lunatic to be examined by the judge and jury previous to the recep- ' tion of any evidence, and the clause deciding that no evi dence extending over more than two years should be re ceived, would save a vast amount of time and money. The LORD CHANCELLOR repelled the attacks of Lord Chelmsford, and charged him with short memory in forgetting that the proposal to transfer these inquiries from the Masters to the superior Judges was embodied in the bill of 1858, introduced by Sir H. Cairns and Mr. S. Est court, under a Conservative Government, and when Lord Chelmsford was Lord Chancellor. He defended the trans fer of the examination from the Masters to a superior Judge, contended that the public examination of the lunatic was only in accordance with the principles of our law, and showed that the evils conjured up by Lord Chelmsford by the alteration of the present system were entirely illusory. He repeated at some length the reasons by which he had been induced to dispense, under certain circumstances, with medical testimony—a testimony, "owing to the peculiar diagnoses of insanity laid down by "mad" doctors (some of which he read to the house), of a most dangerous nature. Lord Erskine called attention to the matter so long ago as 1806, saying, " I think there ought to be an Act of Parlia ment to give protection to those parties who from age or from bodily disease may have fallen into a state of imbecility of mind, which ought not to be characterised by the name of lunacy, but for which there is no protection or power of in terference except through the medium of a commission of lunacy." He might refer to the well known case of Lord Somers, and to other illustrious men in our history. s' From Marlborough's eyes the tears of dotage flow, And Swift expires a driveller and a show." In extreme old age, reduced to a species of imbecility by senility and loss of bodily power, persons so suffering re quired protection ; but their friends and relatives shrank with horror from stamping them with the stigma of in sansity. Lord Erskine dwelt upon this, and said, "It is an anomaly to put them upon the footing of a lunatic, and if a commission issues in the ordinary course it may affect the families of such persons in future times." And he continued—" Why should not a man be protected in his second stage of infancy as well as in the first 2" He (the Lord Chancellor) should not shrink from proposing to the house to invest the Lord Chancellor with the jurisdiction of providing for the care of persons in this second state of childhood without the issuing of a commission of lunacy. It was his intention to persevere with the bill now before the house ; and while he would cheerfully accept every suggestion for amendment, in doing so the cardinal points of this measure for the amendment of the law he would not give up in any important particular ; and therefore, if his noble and learned friend persevered in proposing such amendments he would have the opportu nity of doing his best to throw out the bill, and would thus, in his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion, do a great deal of harm. The Earl of DERBY could assure their lordship' that he had not the presumption to enter into any of the details of this most important bill which had been introduced by the Lord Chancellor, nor was he disposed to enter upon the discussion at that time of that provision not at present in the bill, but which the noble and learned lord ea o d his intention of introducing. He would only say tha t it appeared to him that that was a provision in extension of the existing power, which required most serious and deli berate consideration, and one which ought not to be intro duced and decided upon without most careful inquiry. But be should not for a single moment have ventured to trespass upon their lordships if there had not been a direct appeal to him and to his noble and learned friend (Lord Chelmsford) In reference to matters particularly concerning themselves. He had listened with surprise to find that an accidental cheer of his to an observation of his noble and learned friend should have brought down on him an attack by the noble lord, charging him and also his noble and learned friend with shortness of memory and inconsistency in objecting to the bill, because it con tained a similar provision to that contained in a measure brought by the Solicitor General of a Government of which they had the honour to be members. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack did not trust to his me mory, but he had referred to a copy of the bill, and ho (Lord Derby) had, in consequence of that statement, thought it right also to refer to a copy of the bill, and examine its provisions. The objection which his noble and learned friend (Lord Chelmsford) had taken to this bill was the disadvantage of substituting the judges of the superior court for a master in lunacy in all cases. There had been cases in which that course might be impracticable, and his noble and learned lord on the woolsack had said that he had bor rowed the provision from a bill which was introduced by Sir Hugh Cairns when a member of his (Lord Derby's) Government. Now, as the noble and learned lord had a copy of that bill in his hand he could not understand how h . ir e could have fallen into such an error. The clause in Sir Cairns's bill provided that in certain cases a com mission.,. in the nature of an inquiry de lunatico enquirendo illtbe issued, addressed to one or more judges of her Majesty's Court of Queen's Bench. That was with a view of saving expe Now, the noble and learned lord on the woolsack told them ' one which requiteded that that provision was identical with that every case should be referred to a superior court , and transferred c from the master. (Hear.) The LORD CHA NCELLOR said the noble earl did not seem to be aware th at no jury could take place unless th e alleged lunatic demande d he e t. The Earl of DERBY caw, could not understand how the words " shall in all could he be equivalent to the wor ds " m ay in certain cases." T for the Court ef Ch bill rendered it im perative Ch ancery to send every case be fore the judges of the superior court, and the bi ll . of Sir H. C a i rns provided that where it w as , ded it might in particular cases b e lawful. was .d Lord ST. LEON ARD S objected to the Prop mea sure, as he considere d that the present law as vine suffi cient for its purpose. Lor 1 CRANNY ORTII believed that it was d esirable to h a ve lunacy inquiries held before a judge, but it was not expedient to insist upon h avin g a jury in all cases. I n his opinion, it was not possible to shorten the proceedings by laying down limitations of evidence, and it was absurd to exclude medical testimony in great eases When it was the basis of the first proceedings in minor ones. The bill was then read a second time, and their lordships adjourned at five minutes past eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—YESTEIWAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. • PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Alford Railway Bill and the Caledonian Railway Deviations, to., Bill were considered and ordered for third reading. PETITIONS. Several pellitiong were presented in favour of the rejec tion or modification of the Revised Code of Education, &c. NEW WRIT. On tho motion of Mr, BRAND, a new writ was ordered to Wm for the el qehou of a member; for the borough of Chipping Wycombe, in the room of Sir G. H. Dashwood, deceased. LEAVE OF ABSENCE. On the motion of Col. WILSON PATTEN, leave of absence was granted to Mr. Leigh for three eeks, on the ground of illness in his family. ORDNANCE SURVEYS. j On the motion of Mr. E. ELLICE, an address for an account of the sums expended on the ordnance surveys of England, Ireland, and Scotland respectively, up to the 31st March, 1856, and a similar account for each subsequent year to the 31st March, 1862, with total results, was ordered. INCOME TAX, Mr. HUBBARD gave notice that ho would move that there should be an amendment in the mode of levying the income-tax, and that he would bring the subject before the house. SOUTHERN AND WESTERN ITALY. Sir G. BOWYER gave notice that on the motion for going into committee of supply on a future evening he would draw the attention of the house to the state of Cen tral and South Italy. THE REVISED CODE. Lord R. CECIL asked the Vice President of the Com mittee of Council, if it is intended, under the revised edition of the revised code, to abolish any of the lectureships in the training colleges ; and, if so, when that abolition is to take effect. Mr. LOWE replied in the negative. SHANGHAI. Col. SYKES asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in the anticipated attack of the city of Shanghai by the Taipings, it was intended to preserve a strict neutrality between the Imperialists and the Taipings, due provision being made for the safety of the foreign set tlements in the neighbourhood of Shanghai; and whether there was any foundation for a statement in a Paris paper that the French representatives at Shanghai have invited the English authorities to join in military operations for the recapture of Ningpo from the Taipings. Mr. LAYARD said that the Government, considering the value of the property belonging to British subjects at Shanghai, had adopted means to secure the preservation of that property. With respect to the second question, he begged to say that there was no information received at the Foreign. office in reference to the matter to which it related. DEFENCE OF THE PORT OF GREAT YAR MOUTH. Sir H. STRACEY asked the Secretary of State for War if it was the intention of the Government to carry out the purport of a correspondence between the Mayor of Yar mouth and the Secretary of State for War, in 1859, rela tive to rendering the port of Great Yarmouth in a proper state of defence ? Sir G. C. LEWIS said that it was not considered neces sary by Government to adopt any means to render the port of Great Yarmouth in any more defensive position than it occupied at present. PUBLIC MONEYS. Lord R. MONTAGU moved that, in order to strengthen the check upon the Government in regard to issues of money for any public service whatever in excess of the sums veted by Parliament, as well as to secure the just appropriation of every payment voted to its proper account, a committee be appointed, to be annually nominated by Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of revising all estimates or accounts laid before Parliament ; and that it be an instruction to the committee to report in what way the present duties and powers of the Board of Audit should be extended or changed, with a view to render such board responsible to Parliament alone, and the head of it not second in rank to any of the perma manent officers presiding over other departments, and also to make the present system of audit available for the purposes of the public service; and that it be a further in struction to such committee to report to this house the exact period of the financial year when it would be desir able that the annual estimates should be presented to Par liament, so as to enable the necessary examination of such estimates or accounts to be completed and reported upon by such committee before this house proceeds to sanction such estimates or accounts by a vote of payment in supply. The hon. member referred to the authority of Mr. Laing and Sir J. Graham on the subject in support of his motion. He contended that the mode in which public money was voted and expended was most disgraceful to the financial administration of the country, and was far inferior in prin cii,le and practice to the system adopted in private places of business. The noble lord referred to the time of William 111. to show that public money had been improperly applied, and that legislation was rendered necessary to remedy the evil. He said that the fact was that a certain amount might be voted for a: particular department of the public service, and that was supposed to re present the wishes of Parliament. But what was the reality ? Why, assuredly in the existing sys tem a vote might be granted by Parliament for a specific object, and yet the money might be applied to an entirely different object. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord cited the authority of different distinguished persons, examined before a committee appointed to inquire into the manner in which the public accounts were audited to show that the Treasury entirely disregarded the views of Parliament in reference to a specific application of votes of money. The noble lord illustrated his position by reference to various items of public expen diture in which certain votes of money had been diverted to objects different to those for which they were granted, He quoted extracts from the committee appointed to inquire into the subject in 1854, in support of what he asserted, and contended that a practice had grown up in regard to Parliamentary votes by which the constitutional authority of the house was certainly super seded. He quoted also the authority of M. Fould in regard to the functions of a legislative assembly as related to the grants of, and control over, public money. (Hoar, hear.) He cited resolutions of the house which denoted its jealousy in regard to the appropriation of public money to the purposes for which it had been voted, and appealed to the confession of official witnesses that the whole public expenditure did not go through the Audit-office, insisting, therefore, that the Audit Board was a mere illusion and sham. The remedy was to be found in the recommendation of the Public Moneys Committee, which were embodied in hie resolution. Sir F. BARING said the house should consider whether the proposal of Lord Robert was likely to produce the effects he expected. He (Sir Francis) tho ught it would tend rather to throw difficulties in the way of improvement. Lord Robert had forgotten that every one of the points he had adverted to had been considered by the Public Moneys Com mittee ; that the Committee had recommended remedies for the faults in the system ; that some of those remedies had been adopted, and that others could be carried out. The house had, therefore, all it wanted, and if the resolution were assented to every step in improvement would be stopped till the proposed committee was appointed. Sir G. BOWYER considered the control of Parliament imperfect, that the remedy must be found in a system of audit, and that the audit by the Board was unsatisfactory and inefficient. Mr. PEEL observed that most of the recommendations of the Public Moneys Committee had been carried into effect, either by the Government or by Act of Parliament. But it would be difficult for the committee to recognise their recommendations in the resolution before the house ; for, though the words were the same, the sense was diffe rent, the resolution being made up of separate parts and passages, with a total disregard of the sense. It had no claim, therefore, to the favour of the house on the ground of authority, but must stand upon its own merits alone. He replied to the objections offered by Lord B. Montagu to the system under which the public expenditure was controlled, remarking that the largest portion of the public accounts was audited by the Board, and there were reasons why the other portion could be more effectually audited than by the Board. If the resolution were adopted and the committee appointed, the effect must be to supersede the house and the Government in their respective constitutional functions Mr. J. `MITE thought the inordinate growth of the expenditure was owing to the gross neglect of Parliament itself. Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the resolution, the adop tion of which, he said, would only be reverting to the old system of Parliamentary control over the public expendi ture. Though the resolution might not be in exact accord ance with the recommendations of the committee, it would hasten the amendments they recommended. Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH likewise supported the reso lution. He believed, he said, that the appointment of such a committee as it proposed afforded the only chance of a useful examination of the estimates. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed that the resolution embraced matters so complicated that they ought to form subjects of separate debate.: A part of the matters had been disposed of already ; 1 of others the Government had declared their intention td dispose, and the resolution would obstruct the work of im-, provement by shutting out the Government from proceed- , ing in it. He thought the recommendations of the Public', Moneys Committee would be the best guide to the Govern ment and the house. Sir S. NORTHCOTE suggested that, after what had, been said in the debate, it would be better not to press the motion to a division. At the same time he did-not see howl the resolution would interrupt the Government in the work of improvement. He hoped they would introduce a Bill! to define the powers of the Board of Audit. After a few remarks by Mr. W. WILLIAms, Lord R. MONTAGU replied, vindicating himself from} the charge made by Mr. Peel of employing the words La committee in such a manner as to convoy by their die location a different sense from that intended by the corn-I mittee. Tho hotr_ then pm :7 ll divided, when there appeared— Against it' 41°n 96 a' • Mr. HORSFALL .. —65 INTERN AT rY my MARITIME LAW. of international maritime br,,, tose to move— ligerents and neutrals is ilt.d " That the present stat as affecting the rights of be of and unsatisfactory, an calls for the early attention to osithtter to the difficulty o Ho trusted he was not insensible Majesty's Government.' the responsibility of submitting horse at the presen mom ent the motion that stood in his name, and duty and he should h a ve rejoiced on many accounts if the du u pon the hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. C obden),r a. ho at an early period of the session had given notice of a THE SUN, LONDON, motion. But the hon. gentleman, as soon as he became aware that he (Mr. Horsfall) bad signified his in tention to renew his motion of last year, with the greatest courtesy waived his own right, stating his readiness to second the present motion. It would be in the recollection of lion. members who took an interest in the subject of international maritime law that when he (Mr. Horsfall) first gave notice of this motion last session the present unhappy state of things in America did not exist, and he could not, therefore, have contemplated then any more than he contemplated now, provoking a discussion upon the merits of American union or of Southern independ ence. (Hear, hear.) He was glad to have that opportunity not of speaking his own sentiments only but the sentiments of a large majority of those whom he had the honour to re present, when he said that he most cordially approved of the strict line of neutrality which had been taken by her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) His object in mooting this question at all was to show to the house the very un satisfactory state in which our international mercantile law at present was. Early last session he put a question to the noble lord the Foreign Secretary, who was then in that house, as to what steps her Majesty's Government had taken with the view of carrying out the recommendations of the shipping committee of the preceding year upon this subject. The noble lord replied with great frankness that her Ma jesty's Government had done nothing ; and from the tone of the reply the inference was naturally drawn that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to do nothing. It ' would be readily supposed that such an answer as that was anything but satisfactory to those who had taken a deep interest in this question, and who felt that the unani mous recommendation of a committee of that house, which had sat during a whole session of Parliament, and which was presided over by the President of the Board of Trade, deserved greater consideration than appeared to have been given to it. (Hear, hear.) He would not weary the house by taking it back into the past history of our varying international law : his object was to call the atten tion of the house to the practical bearing of the law as it at present existed. But he must remind the house that ante cedent to the year 1854 there could be no question of the fact that privateering was recognised as a principle of inter. national law ; there could be no question of the fact that neutral goods on board a belligerent vessel were liable to capture, and there could be no question that goods the pro perty of a subject of a belligerent power on board a neutral vessel were also liable to capture. (Hear, hear.) This was felt to be a great hardship, and in that year his right hon. friend now the President of the Board of Trade, but who was then unfettered by office, brought forward a motion with the view of committing the house and the Government to the principle that from that time forward a neutral flag should make neutral goods. His right hon. friend did him the honour to ask him to second his motion, and he had great pleasure in doing so, and took occasion to urge upon the attention of the Government the necessity of at the same time putting an end to privateering. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the Foreign Secretary stated that documents would be issued declaring the views of her Majesty's Government upon the subject, and in a fortnight from that time the Pre sident of the Board of Trade had the satisfaction of seeing an order in council issued, in which it was declared that— " To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all necessary obstructions, her Majesty is willing for the future to waive a part of the belligerent rights appertaining to her by the law of nations. It is impossible for her Majesty to forego the exercise of her right to seize articles contraband of war, and of preventing neutrals from bearing the enemy's despatches, and she must maintain the right of a bellige rent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade which may be established with an adequate force against the enemy's forts, harbours, or coasts. But her Majesty will waive the right of seizing enemy's property taken on board a neutral vessel, unless it be contraband of war. It is not her Majesty's intention to claim the confiscation of neutral property, not being contraband of war, found on board enemy's ships; and her Majesty further declares, that being anxious as much as possible to lessen the evils of war, and to restrict its operations to the regularly organised forces of the country, it is not her present intention to issue letters of marque for the commissioning of privateers." That was the first step in the cause Of liberal legislation with regard to our international maritime law ; but two years after that, in 1856, the conference took place at Paris. The parties to that conference were England, France, Prussia, Russia, Austria, Sardinia, and Turkey, and the conclusions which were come to were these :—" Privateering is and remains abolished. A neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of contraband of war. Neutral goods, except contraband of war, not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. Block ades, to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, main tained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. the present declaration shall not be binding except upon those powers that have acceded or shall accede to it." Subsequently almost every other power ex cept America gave in its adhesion to those principles. Assuming, then, that that was the acknowledged maritime international law, the questions which naturally presented themselves to their notice were these—what will be the effect of this declaration in the event of war? and what has been its effect in the time of peace ? Those who know any thing of the shippers of goods from this country, and of the importers of produce, knew at least that they were men of common sense, and that they would not ship a single package of goods in a vessel liable to seizure if they had the opportunity of shipping it in one which was not liable to seizure. (Hear.) The operation of this law in the event of war—say with France—would be that every British ship must be laid by in British ports—no shipper of goods would ship in the vessel of a belligerent when he had the power of shipping in a neutral vessel ; neutral ves sels would get greatly enhanced freights, and what was worse still, our British seamen would be drafted from the British ships lying by, not into her Majesty's navy, but into the neutral vessels which could and would afford to pay a much higher rate of wages than ever had been or ever would be paid in the Royal Navy. (Hear, hear.) Such would be the result of the present law in the event of war, and it was a most serious matter for the shipowner, the manufacturer, and the country. But what had been the effect already in time of peace ? Those who were acquainted with the shipping interest of this country knew full well the effect of a mere rumour of war, as was the case a very short time age, when it was supposed that we might have been involved in the difficulties then existing between France, Austria, and Italy. Supposing a rumour of the kind, however improbable, reached a distant port, say Can ton or Calcutta, and that there was a first class British ship and a second class American vessel lying there, the effect would be that the American vessel would get 50 per cent. more freight than the first class British ship. (Hear, hear.) This was a most important point, and he was anxious to refer, in justification of what he had said, to the evidence of competent authorities taken before the shipping commit tee. Mr. Allan Gilmour, one of the largest shipowners in the world, said the principle that the flag under which a 1 ship sailed should exempt the goods she carried from cap ture would operate very prejudicially to British shipping in the event of a war in which Great Britain was engaged, and that even now it was very prejudicial to the British shipowner, because the very rumour of war or difficulty so enhanced the rate of insurance of British ships that Ame rican and other foreign ships had a decided preference. The witness was asked whether he could suggest a remedy, and his reply was, " The only remedy is to have an inter national law to do away with captures entirely. Ido not know of anything else." (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Or, in other words, to place the ship upon the same footing as the goods. Mr. Beasley, of Liverpool, in his evidence, confirmed these opinions, and, as an instance of the effect of the existing law, mentioned that last May he had a ship in China which was built at great expense, the order to the builder being merely, " Build me a ship to beat any mortal thing afloat"—(a laugh)—to bring the first cargo of the season. But at that time the Italian difficulty arose, and in the fear of England becoming involved, the mer chants of China determined to ship in American ships, and paid t. higher freight than they would have had to pay in first-class British ships. Two American ships obtained £2 a ton more than Mr. Beasley's. The evidence of Mr. Greaves, formerly ehairn:an of the Shipowners' Associa tion, confirmed the statements of the other two witnesses as to the injurious effect which the declaration of Paris must have upon British commerce in the event of a war, or a rumour of war, in which this country might be en gaged. This question was in fact one of great national importance, affecting not merely shipowners and manufac turers, but the whole country. It was also a question of finance. They knew that in war times merchant ships re quired convoy, and he asked whether the men-of war would not be much better employed in fighting the enemy. Ho would not look upon it as a question of humanity, al though a good deal might be said upon that score. Some people said, " Make war as bad as possible, and every one will be glad to have it over." But that was not the gene ral feeling of the country, nor was it the feeling of her Majesty, when in her order in council she declined to issue letters of marque in order to restrict the miseries of war as much as possible. Neither was it the feeling of the noble lord, who on his visit to Liverpool stated to the assembled merchants that the Government were not inattentive to other interests besides the grand transactions of war. It was satisfactory, his lordship said, that at the com mencement of the Russian war we made arrangements which,witheut diminishing our force against our opponents, yet tended very much to diminish the pressure of the war upon the mercantile community. His lordship also ex pressed a hope that these relaxations might bo still further extended, and that private property would no longer be ex posed to oppression on either side. (Hear.) If, his lordship added, we looked to the example of former periods,we found that no powerful country was ever vanquished by losses in flicted on individuals, as it was always the fleets and armies that decided the great question. He (Mr. Horsfall) desired no better testimony to the truth of his position than the Queen's order in Council and the admirable speech of the noble lord. (Hear.) They were told that naval officers would object to being deprived of their prize money ; he would not insult the naval officers by entertaining such a supposition for a moment. He believed they were actuated by far more patriotic motives. They were told, further, that treaties were broken when war commenced, but this was based on the declaration of Paris. On the subject of blockade he felt bound to say that the sentiments of those he had the honour to represent were in favour of respecting the block ade. He knew there was great difference of opinion on the subject, but his own views were in favour of the blockade. i Returning to the main question referred to iA his reiolu- WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 12, Lion, he thought America bad not been fairly dealt with They were told that America would not give up the right of privateering. Why? Because she contended that we should put ships and cargoes on the same footing. The hon. member read some extracts from the blue books, to show that Presi dent Pierce had expressed his views to the Paris Congress; also extracts of Lord Russell's letters to Lord Cowley, in which the noble lord declined to apply the terms of the con vention of Paris to the case of the civil war in America, and continued. He was there merely to state the views of the mercantile community. He knew there was great jealousy of motions of this kind by executive governments, but the noble lord Woula permit him again to refer to the speech already quoted, in which the noble lord seemed to give him (Mr. Horsfall) an express invitation to bring the subject before th© house. The noble lord said, " The Government always feels deeply indebted to the great commercial com munities, which are kind enough to impart to us from time to time their suggestions for the remedy of existing evils. We know well that no executive government can be so per fectly informed of all the detailed operations of commerce as to be able without such assistance to devise those mea sures which may be best calculated to set free the industry of the country and to give the greatest development to com mercial enterprise." (Cheers.) It was in answer to that invitation that he ventured to trespass on the attention of the house, and he asked it to affirm the resolution which he had to move in the name of the commerce of the country, and in the name of humanity, civilisation, and justice. (Cheers.) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had expected some discussion before he was called upon to explain the views of the Government. It was not to be doubted that the question was one of great importance and demanding their most serious attention. But whatever might be the opinion of the Government, it would of course be impossible for them to act without consultation with other nations. He would not stop to occupy the time of the house in en tering into a prolonged attempt to discuss the policy of the law. He believed that the law was well understood and defined, and his hon. friend had left him but little to say, because it appeared to him that his hon. friend had satis fied himself in the main with a correct statement as to what was the present state of the law. His hon. friend had stated truly that privateering was a belligerent right, and that ships of the enemy were liable to capture, but he did not state correctly that neutral goods in the enemy's ships were liable to capture. Perhaps he might have been misled upon this matter by the proclamation issued by her Majesty, in which it was stated that it is not the intention to claim the confiscation of neutral property not being con traband of war, if found on board enemies' ships. It might I have been a very just and expedient proceeding to make the declaration, that all neutrals whose interests might be con- cerned might be aware of the terms and conditions upon which the country would carry on a war; but the hon. member was wrong in inferring from it that the goods of a friend on board the ships of an enemy 'were, previous to that date, liable to capture and confiscation.. So long ago as 1753 these propositions were laid down by the highest authori ties in this country, viz., by the Judge of the Prerogative Court, and assented to by the Advocate-General and the Attorney-General, afterwards Lord Mansfield. First, that the goods of an enemy on board the ships of a friend may be taken ; secondly, that the lawful goods of a friend on board the ships of an enemy ought to be restored; and thirdly, that contraband goods going to an enemy, though the property of a friend, might be taken as prize, because the supplying an enemy with things with which to carry on the war was a breach of neutrality. Now, coming to the declaration of Paris, it would be found that it contained two proposi tions which expressed the ancient or former law, and two only which expressed the altered state of the law, The first and second propositions introduced new law, and the first was, "privateering is and remains abolished," and the second was, "a neutral flag covers enemies' goods with the exception of contraband of war." The last was the main burden of the complaint of the hon. member. The third proposition was, " that neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag." That was a mere statement of antecedent law, just as was the last proposition, Niz., " that blockades to be binding must be effective." With the exception he bad stated, he quite agreed with what the hon. gentleman had said as to the law, and he contended that his speech contra dicted that portion of his motion which stated that the law was ill defined, for the hon. gentleman had hiinself clearly defined it. The law, whether right or wrong, was not in volved in any doubt or obscurity, but was free from the imputation passed upon it by the hon. member. He would not occupy any considerable portion of the time of the house in adverting to the other part of the honourable gentleman's motion. He said that the consequence of the adoption of the declaration of Paris would in many cases of war be to give an advantage to neutrals carrying enemies' goods over the ships of belligerents. No doubt such must be the case, although he could not agree that the necessary adoption cf this rule would be to put a stop to the carrying trade of the belligerents, seeing that if one of the belligerents was strong at sea, and particularly if mistress of the seas, the naval force of that power would be able to defend and protect its mercantile flag, and thus the subjects of the stronger belligerent power would carry their own goods in their own ships. Of course it followed that the stronger belligerent would be able to practically annihilate the com merce of the weaker belligerent; whilst its own commerce would compete with neutrals who would have the benefit of the declaration of Paris. This declaration was a concession to neutrals, and he would not discuss the policy of that change but would only observe that he did not understand his hon. friend to suggest a doubt whether it was prudent on the part of this country to accede to that change, so much as to contend that we ought to go further in case we should be in a state of war. The exemption for which his hon. friend contended had no reference to neutrals at all, and it was one which neutrals would rather should not exist, for they would prefer their monopoly. What was contended for as an exception in favour of the subjects of a bellige rent power, whose ships it was proposed should receive protection, so that they could so carry in their own ships their own goods. Certainly such a change in the law would go very much beyond any relaxation in the rigour of the maritime code which had been suggested by writers upon international law. He did not say because the proposition was novel that therefere it was not entitled to great and serious consideration; but whilst he admitted that it was worthy of consideration, it was, he submitted, a question whether the house should take upon itself to express an opinion in conformity with the motion of his hon. friend, the more especially as anything done in that direc tion must be done not by any one Government, but by the general concurrence of those nations who were likely to be come belligerents. He had said that this doctrine had not been broached until lately, but he would so far correct him self asi to say that it appeared from a statement by Benjamin Franklin that a treaty was entered into between the United States and Prussia in 1785, in which there was an article in accordance with what Franklin called his " Quaker no tions," it being agreed that the merchant ships of the con tending parties should not be liable to capture, but this article was not inserted in the renewed treaty in 1799 be tween the same powers, and certainly from that time down to the present he was not aware of any serious proposition having been made between the two nations to mitigate the old rigour of the maritime law. He felt that ho ought to apologise for having entered so much into the question of policy, and he would conclude by stating that as to the matter of law ho was relieved from any labour by his hon. friend having himself so well defined the law—he had in fact disposed of that part of the motion, and there was no good reason for calling upon the Government to take any action in reference to the question of policy. Mr. LIDDELL said the hon. and learned gentleman had regretted that the hon. member for Liverpool had limited his argument to only one portion of this great question, and he (Mr. Liddell) joined with him in that regret, but when the hon. and learned gentleman went on to state that the maritime law was not involved in any doubt or obscurity, he would ask him whether he thought that the law of contra band was not involved in obscurity,and also whether the law of blockade was not at this moment Involved in doubt. There was a blockade now in force about the legality of which there were great doubts, and there were doubts as to what was and was not a privateer. By the declaration of Paris, by which we for the first time admitted the prin ciple that free ships make free goods, we no doubt made a great concession, which necessarily told most against that country that had most ships. But not only that, we, at the very moment we had constituted a naval reserve, gave a di ect premium to every man of that reserve by the pros pect of the higher 'wages he would receive by going into the service of a ship belonging to some neutral country. He would give the opinion of an authority on this subject— that of Earl Russell, who, no longer ago than June, 1857, in a debate which arose on the motion of the hon. member for Sunderland, said, " I am afraid we must be bound by the declaration. lam afraid that the consequences are so serious as to show that such a declaration was very imiru• dent ; but I agree that England ought to uphold her mari time superiority. The whole matter is most unsatisfactory. Tho state of this question is to me most alarming, but I do not see that a breach of faith would at all mend our posi tion." He (Mr. Liddell) agreed with the noble bond that we should not mend our position by a breach of faith; for if we did there would again be a combination against us of all the European Powers. The policy of America was not to interfere in European politics, and in case of any Euro pean war in which We should be engaged, she would be neutral, and take the benefit that would accrue to her from that position. He wanted to know why, having abandoned the position of our maritime code, for which we had fought so stoutly, we should not take full advantage of the conces • sion that we had made. •He believed that it was for the in terest of England that we should carry on our commerce during war with our own ships. Why should we not study the interest of our manufacturers, and at the same time prevent ruin from coming on our shipowners ? Why Y the interest of neutrals by saying we should wot would od y onlyneutrals e we study u ts r t allow al our commerce to be carried on duri n g s instead o f carr yi ng it o n ourselves ? Th is coun try lost largely b y i ssu i ng t h e or d er s in Council war which were intended to counteract the effect of the Milan and Berlin decrees. That policy of our Government de prived us of exports to the value of ten or twelve millions y ear. Nor did we obtain either glory or profit by block ading the ports of Russia when we went to war with that country in 1854. The result of that blockade was that th r ough neutral ports to thi s c oun t r y, and that the Una IRA the tallow, and hemp, and linseed of Russia found i ts way ISM producer did not suffer so much as the consumer in this country, who, in consequence of the produce having to be sent a roundabout way, had to pay an enhanced price. Formerly a neutral was debarred from carrying on in time of war any trade that he could not engage in during the continuance of peace. But, by the commercial policy which we had latterly adopted, we had thrown open every branch of the shipping business to the mercantile marine of the whole world. No one would therefore be so foolish, if we wore at war, to employ ships that would be liable to cap ture. (Hear.) President Pierce, in his message for 1856, stated that Russia, France, Bremen, and Hamburg were disposed to accept tho principle of granting immunity to private property in time of war. The proposition was therefore by no means so novel as it might seem, but even if it was new, that was no reason why it should not be right. (Hear.) England, let him remind the house, had a much greater stake in this question than any other power, for there was none that at the breaking out of a war was likely to have nearly as much property at sea. We had relin quished the substance; and let us therefore seek no longer to retain the shadow, and thus reject the opportunity of protecting from rapine and robbery the property of her Majesty's subjects. (Loud cheers ) Mr. COCHRANE had learned one thing from this de bate, namely, that it seemed to be generally agreed the course which had been taken at the Congress of Paris was a mistake. (No.) So far as he could follow the arguments of his hon. friend it appeared to be that because we had blundered on that occasion we should go still further in the direction of our original error. As had been remarked by Lord Russell, on the 9th of March, 1857, the maritime supremacy of England was a great preventative of war, and the effect of the proposed change would be to render that supremacy nugatory. On the same occasion the noble lord was followed by Sir Charles Napier, who expressed his hope that the country would not abandon her maritime rights and allow other nations to trade without restriction in the time of war. It seemed, as he had said, to be agreed that the declaration of Paris had been a very unfortunate step ; and how it had happened that the interests could have been so compromised by Lord Clarendon without Parlia ment being consulted, was to him perfectly incomprehen sible. The hon. gentleman who had introduced this subject seemed to think that war ought to be carried on in the most amicable manner that could be conceived—that it ought in fact to be waged in kid gloves ; but that was not the spirit in which we had built our Warriors and Black Princes—had constructed our immense engines of war, and armed our troops with rifles that would carry any distance. (Hear.) The 3d article of the declaration of Paris was that "neutral goods, except contraband of war, were not liable to capture under the enemy's flag ;" and it appeared to him that that might materially affect the energies of our naval officers. Ho would not speak of it as a matter of prize money, for he thought the hon. gentleman was quite right in his indignant repudiation of any such consideration. But instances had occurred in which an active officer, unwilling to weaken his crew by putting men on board his capture, had burnt the ship. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) That was a sacrifice of prize -money, and therefore aproof of disinterested energy. But if there happened to be £lOO,OOO or £200,000 worth of neutral property on board, no officer would venture to burn the ship, for he might thereby make himself liable for the loss of the goods. (Hear, hear.) If the proposition of the hon. gentleman were carried out the naval supremacy of this country would be at an end. What was the course pursued by Lord Nelson in 1804 ? Before war was declared with Spain he issued an order that all ships and vessels belonging to his Spanish Majesty (except vessels carrying corn) should be forthwith seized and carried into the ports of Gibraltar and Malta. He (Mr. Ccchrane) thought the declaration of Paris was one of the most unfortunate arrangements for this country that could have been made. Mr. BOWYER said he thought the question lay in a very narrow compass. This country being a great naval power it was perhaps desirable that the rights of belligerents should be as widely extended as possible, therefore it was very questionable whether it was prudent to involve this country in such an engagement as the declaration of Paris. (Hear.) Be that, however, as it might, that declaration was now an accomplished fact. (Hear.) But what was the principle of warfare on land ? If an army was marched into a country, and conquered it, that army did not interfere with private property. (Hear.) The principle of interna tional law with regard to the conqueror vi as, that he was put in possession of the rights of the government of the con quered country, which rights might afterwards be the sub ject of treaty, but not of the property of private persons. He (Sir G. Bowyer) never could understand why the same principle should not be extended to maritime warfare, or why the rights of private persons at sea should not be re spected in like manner. There was an additional reason for this principle in the case of naval warfare. It was this, that the conqueror could not acquire the sovereignty of the sea ; why then should he be entitled to seize merchant ves sels? He could understand that it might be politic, if not quite just, on the part of a great maritime power, not to give up any belligerent rights at sea ; but it seemed to be only consistent with justice to say that merchant vessels ought to be protected. At the same time he concurred in the resolution so far as it went to say that this subject re quired the attention of the Government. Sir G. C. LEWIS—The question which has been raised to-night is of first-rate importance. (Hear.) It would be of groat importance to a country which has not a powerful national navy and a vast mercantile marine, but to Eng land, situated as she is, it is of paramount importance that this question should receive a right decision when discussed in Parliament. I trust that, whatever may be the result of this debate—whatever may be the fate of the motion sub mitted by the hon. member for Liverpool—we shall not come to any precipitate conclusion, or one of which we may hereafter have occasion to repent. (Hear.) The hon. gentle man has proposed " that the present state of international 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 Government." The terms of his motion are as general es it is possible to frame them. They bring under review the whole state of international maritime law, as affecting the rights of belligerents and neutrals. Hence they involve the question of privateering ; they involve the question of the neutral flag covering the enemy's goods ; they involve the question of the sanctity of private property on the sea. But the hon, member, in stead of making his speech coextensive with the terms of his motion, directed his arguments to one single point— viz., that the enemy's flag should cover the enemy's goods. That is the whole extent of the speech which he made, and the recommendation which be offered to the house. Mr. HORSFALL—What I contended for was that all private property should be respected. (Hear.) Sir G. C. LEWlS—Precisely ; that the private property of the enemy should not be taken out of the enemy's ships. By the Declaration of Paris neutral goods are sacred under the enemy's flag. Mr. BRIGHT—And the ship also. Sir G. C. LEWIS—Very good ; the argument is that the ship should be sacred as:well as the goods under the enemy's flag. Such is the proposition of the hon. member for Liverpool, and that being so, it seems to me that the more correct course, as far as this house is concerned, would have been for the hon. gentleman to move an address to the Crown, requesting her Majesty to use her influence with foreign Powers for the purpose of making the principle that the enemy's flag should cover the enemy's ship and goods a maxim of international maritime law. That would have brought the question which the hon. member has argued fairly under the consideration of the house; but at present any gentleman who thinks, for instance, that pri vateering ought to be continued, or that the clauses of the Declaration of Paris ought to be repealed—who, in short, entertains views entirely opposed to those which have been advanced to-night—might with perfect propriety say to the honourable member for Liverpool, "I do not agree with your speech, but 1 approve your resolution, and therefore shall vote for it." (Hear, hear.) It seems, there fore, to me that if the hon. gentleman succeeded in carry ing his resolution he would not necessarily give effect to his opinions. The Government would say, we are not bound by the speeches of individual members, we must look to the general terms of a resolution, and act accordingly. Therefore, I say, if he wished to establish this principle, that the ship and goods of an enemy are to be respected in war by the belligerent, he ought to have embodied that pro position in a distinct resolution and submitted it to the house ; he would then have raised a distinctive issue on which we might have acted. (Hear, hear.) But I must say that the proposition which ho has submitted is—not un fair, but most inconvenient. I have no doubt he thought it was a convenient mode of raising the question, and per haps, when he came to embody his principle in terms, he was afraid to look it in the face, and therefore preferred to take refuge in generalities; but I must repeat, I can hardly conceive a more inconvenient course then that which has been adopted in bringing a very important principle under the consideration of the house. Well, sir, there have been many occasions on which the rights of neutrals and belli gerents with regard to maritime war have been agitated in Europe. In the first place, there was the celebrated armed , neutrality of 1780 ; b u t th e pr i nciples laid down in that year I by Russia, and concurred in by other Powers, were entirely confined to the flag covering enemy's goods, and also mainly, I think, to the question of blockades ; but I feel confident that if any gentleman will examine the negotia tions, the conventions, and treaties of that period he will not find a single trace of the principle that a belligerent is not to be permitted to capture the ships or goods of his enemy. In 1800 the same question was again revived, and again there is a total absence of such an assertion ; and the reason is perfectly obvious—the armed neutrality of both those years was a representation of the interests of note rals. Neutrals have no interest in the principle which the hon. member recommends to the acceptance of the house. One hon. gentleman, indeed, who spoke treated the ques tion as one involving the interests of neutrals; but it is im possible to conceive a greater mistake. Neutrals, so far as they have any interest, have an interest directly the oppo site. If they wished to become the carriers of the world they would naturally wish that the ships and goods of the - belligerents should be exposed to risk. Therefore, I say neutrals as such have no interest in the question. Then, there is another reason why on these occasions the armed neutrality did not start this question. These who adyised that state of affairs were persons acquainted with the prin ciples and elements of international law; I must be per mitted, with great respect to the hon. gentleman, to say that his speech seemed to overlook the most fundamental doctrines of hatoruational law, because you may mak° a compact with a neutral State that in time of war you will respect the neutral flag. For instance, we have now a compact with France and other continental Powers that we will act on the principle that the neutral flag covers the enemy's goods, so that if we were to seize American goods under the French flag we should be guilty of a violation of engagement with France. Therefore by international law you can make a valid engagement with respect to the prin ciple that the neutral flag covers enemy's goods; but when you go to war with a nation, war puts an end to all treaties and engagements in the nature of a treaty. (Hear, hear.) Therefore if we had unfortunately, a short time ago, found ourselves involved in hostilities with the United States, and if we had previously had a treaty with the United States recognising the principle that belligerents were to spare one another's mercantile marine, the very act of war would have put an end to that treaty, and it would have been in the discretion of either Power whether or no they would act on that principle. Suppose you make such an engagement, how are you to rely on the honour of a belligerent observing it, be cause by the concert of all civilised nations you may alter all the principles of international law ? It is conceivable, for example, that by the genet al agreement of nations the principle for which the hon. gentleman contends might be established, but it is inconceivable that a treaty between two belligerents which is in derogation of the general prin ciples of international law should bind them during the continuance of war. An hon. gentleman referred to the Declaration of Paris ; he said it was not a treaty but a de claration, and therefore it must be abandoned in the event of war. Now, I entirely dispute that inference or state. ment. I presume he means to sa3 that it is binding in re spect of neutrals in time of war. No doubt we are bound in respect of France or Russia if we are at war with the United States ; but it is an absurdity to suppose that if wo were at war with France or Russia it would have any bind ing effect upon us, except in regard to our honour. (Hear.) All I say is, it is not binding by international law. We are not bound to assert extreme belligerent rights, but with out any such treaty we might say we will not capture the mercantile marine of an enemy. Well, the hon. gentleman the member for Honiton spoke with great censure of the Declaration of Paris, and said we were in such a position we must either advance or recede—our present position was untenab:e. We had made a declaration restrictive of our power of carrying on a maritime war, and we should find it necessary to violate that engagement, He objected that before the Crimean War by proclamation we modified our belligerent rights, and the hon. member for Liverpool read from the proclamation the passages which were equivalent to the Declaration of Paris ; therefore, when the war was ended and the declaration of neutral rights was raised in Paris, it seemed the proper and natural course for our Plenipotentiary to agree to this principle, which had been consecrated by the Executive Government at the commencement of the war, of which Parliament had full notice, end to which Parliament had at no time objected. If it had been thought that the principle that the neutral flag shall not cover the goods was essential to the effective conduct of mari time war by this country, why was it abandoned at the commencement of the Crimean War, and no voice raised against it during the continuance of that war ? The hon. gentleman overlooked that important element. The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) did not alto gether seem to approve of the modus operandi of the hon. gentleman who made this motion ; he seemed to be aware that there was some difficulty in establishing a binding en gagement between two belligerents ; and with respect to the case of America, it is said that the Government of the United States is willing to assent to this principle combined with certain others. But if the United States of America approve so highly of the principle of not capturing enemy's ships and goods, why don't they establish that principle with respect to the Southern States ? (Hear, hear.) Here is a fine opportunity for the Government of Washington acting on that principle. (Hear, hear.) There is a war actually waging in which they are involved, why not act on that principle at once ? No doubt it is said that the Southerners are rebels, but in the exchange of prisoners and in the matter of the blockades they have been treated in all respects as belligerents. If that be the case, why does not the Government of Washington show its forbearance in not capturing enemy's goods? (Hear, hear.) I strongly sus pect that the exasperation which exists between those two contending Powers renders any such forbearance utterly impracticable. The hon. member for Northumberland seems not altogether to trust to this plan of mutual forbearance by belligerents during war, and he proposes that England should call a congress. [Mr. Liddell—lnvite a congress.] Well, that we should invite the nations of Europe to meet in congress and that we should submit to this congress the question raised in to-night's debate. But, then, he an nexed a condition which I am afraid, if strictly fulfilled, would render the convening of the congress a somewhat remote event, because he said that it was a necessary con dition that the parties composing the congress should not be actuated by any special or national interests, but have solely in view the general good of mankind. (Laughter.) My little acquaintance with the history of congresses does not lead me to anticipate that it is extremely easy to form a congress upon that condition, and I am afraid if we wait until a congress be formed in which the members are wholly regardless of the interest of their own respective nations and are devoted to promoting the universal happiness of the world, the meeting must be postponed until the Greek 'Calends. (Hear.) His proposal no doubt is a philanthropic and well-meant proposal, but it only shows the difficulties with which the subject is encumbered, and the necessity of further consideration before the house can with any pro priety agree to the adoption, I will not say of the hon. mem ber's resolution, but of a resolution embodying the result of his arguments. As to the resolution, I really do not know that I feel any difficulty in saying that any branch of international law is ill-defined, because every branch must be ill-defined, as it is not law laid down by any Legis lature, and is only to be collected from the decisions of the courts of different countries, and the writings of different text writers. In a certain sense international law may always be said to be ill-defined. At the same time I really believe that if any part of international law is better de fined than another, it is the question relating to procedure in seizing differ ent classes of goods belonging to different nations, and particularly since the Declaration of Paris. There is another part of the question, upon which the hon. baronet the member for Dundalk much insisted, and which I know he has often brought forward in discussion. It is mentioned in an able pamphlet, which I have no doubt many hon. members have read, and unless it receives exa mination is calculated to make an impression on the mind— I allude to the statement that we ought to assimilate the laws of maritime to the laws of land warfare. If the house will permit me, I will examine for a few moments what strength is due to that argument. It is said, in the first place, that all private property is spared in land warfare. I must begin by meeting that assertionby a most formal denial. (Cheers.) I say that by the laws ofland warfare, as recognised by the most civilised nations and according to themost recent practice, private property is not respected. It is respected only so far as it suits the present convenience of the bellige rent armies. I believe there never was an army under more strict discipline in which the commander was less disposed to permit excesses by the soldiery, or in which there was a greater disposition to spare the country which was the theatre of the war, than the Duke of Wellington's army during the Peninsular war. What was the practice of that army ? When they arrived at a village at night the proper officer told out a certain number of houses, the roofs were stripped off, and the timber was used as firewood for boiling the men's suppers. That certainly was not very remark able respect for private property. (Hear.) Such are the necessities of war. The army must have food, and the food must be cooked. They cannot carry fuel with them, and if they cannot carry fuel they must take it. With regard to the armies of the French empire, anybody who has only a superficial acquaintance with the subject must know the extent to which the system of plundering conquered coun tries was carried. I do not believe that there is on record a single campaign in which private property has been re spected. No doubt, it is respected to a greater extent in recent times than in the warfare of the middle ages. Since the Thirty Years' War and the wars of Louis IV. there is no question we have advanced considerably by the forbear ance of the belligerent Powers, and more humane and more civilised maxims have prevailed. But if is not by treaties or compacts between belligerent Powers, or by such resolu tions as this, that this result has been produced. It has been produced by the general softening of manners and the general improvement of humanity. We may hope that similar results will be produced in maritime warfare, but they will not be produced in the manner which the hon. member points out. (Hear.) In the first place, I deny the truth of the principle that private property is respected in land warfare. There is another important distinction be tween land and maritime warfare, upon which the whole question may be considered to turn. When you conquer a country you conquer its Government, and when you have conquered its Government you have conquered that engine by which the country can be plundered. (Laughter.) Per haps the language which I have used may be somewhat homely; nevertheless, it does express the exact truth. (Cheers.) And if any gentleman will inquire what hap pened in Berlin during the French occupation, after the battle of Jena, and the French conquest by Napoleon,_ he v w l e i rr l en l mel learn bt ea t rhmha most ea t tr i h t ehmneffiegFoe nsia r eau e t nr n bßetj c heee h enrytl g p i, ini o ntn s he s wi a e nf t s he s rti e lohp d Bhel 3er it2enn:wefert breed i h orrmn e ee gesPdtpt still u el elarfs s tp osreani provinces agricul tural i ni. nwe G t ucre o eyil s_l - . of the e P d ru u s p s o ia n n tural horses had not been restored. I use that as an illus tration of the way i n w hi c h th e G overnment raise contributions in a conq uere d country. 'With regard t o the tea - there is no s i m il ar eng i ne . Th ere i s no G overnment which exercises any power at sea. The seoeafrtiyasrmomfaeeecinbreeeslmiyhiiiiget belligerent e e II floatingmrtd ro high way of nations. It is not the subject of Government o of o s sovereignty, v t e h r ee exercisei g s enat anyyi s , andb controlthe captureeo over e l b y r yw themaye means n u t- se whichp regard to the question of assimilating land waare s. m n n tr w y as su effe rre c ntedderebir the the seaiat hn declara tionright of warfare, of f r e th ri e s, r w ea h l e a n ss t i h m is ila ee ti tt o private warfare—when this country abolished priva r t i e g ering o . (Cheers,) There is the real analogy bets;f e er land and sea warfare of which the hon. gentleman private individual to n go out on W a e plunderingdpermitonot e xp a e s d i i n t g to l n e in; private online the contest to the same . pine, we do not restrain army of the State. At expedition. . e that army seig may be necessary, tv. a • 4 p operty l whenever such seizures plunder on 1 2 1 0; own aCcoucin°t. not We allow used a to e rivit l te person to e plunder on his own account at sea by granting aew le i t l te m rs of marque. That principle we have abandoned;and if un fortunately a war had happened with the United States I recourse to the system not think it lik e l y we should have had ' he system of P , 4 Vateeriug againstlthe 'United States, although they were no parties to the declaration of Paris. (Hear bear.) I t l li , m, tx,i, ix:J=oy has deflaiciyely rouounced the principle of privateering. To that extent I am quite ready to agree to assimilate land warfare and maritime warfare ; but I do not assent to the bon. gentleman's propo sition that the armed ships of a country are not to be allowed to take merchant ships. With our fleet at Portsmouth or Plymouth to allow enemies' ships to go in and out free from capture seems to me to be carrying the doctrine of forbear ance in time of war to an absurd point. (Hear, hear.) It is almost like interdicting ourselves from the use of gun powder or et dnance in time of war. Of course, we may if we think fit renounce the right to capture merchantmen, not by privateers, but by our armed ships, if the opinion of the civilised world condemned the practice. But I think the house would come to an unwise and premature decision if—upon a vague generality, a mere formula which really might admit of any construction, but which is to receive a peculiar interpretation from the speech of the hon. member who moves the resolution, while it may receive various in terpretations from the different persons who support it— they were to call upon the Government to subscribe to a principle liable to such formidable and weighty objections. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. BOWYER wished to explain that, when he said that in warfare on land private property was respected, he did not mean to say that ther3 might not be excesses com mitted against private property in such warfare, or that in cases of necessity violations, more or less, of the rights of private pe operty might not take place. IN hat he intended to say was, that in warfare on land private property was not systematically seized, condemned, and sold, as it was in warfare at sea. Mr. T. BARING—Sir, I have listened with some sur prise to the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Secre tary for War. The right hon. gentleman, speaking of the Convention of Paris, not only referred to the possibility of that convention being broken through in time of war and necessity, but went further, and said that no compact and no treaty made in peace is binding in war. Now, as I un derstand it, the Paris Convention was made in time of peace in eider to provide against some of the worst evils and horrors of war. Sir G. C. LEWIS (interrupting)—This is so important a point that I should be sorry if any misunderstanding arose. What I meant to say, and what I believe I did say, was this—that I believed the declaration of Paris to be binding as between this country and neutrals during the existence of war, and to be equally binding with a treaty, though it Was only a declaration; but that if we were at war with any of the parties to that declaration, then, like other treaties, it would cease to have a binding effect as regards that bel ligerent. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BARING continued—That convention was made between six or seven States, including the great maritime Powers of Europe. I believe the only great maritime Power of the world not included is the United States. Therefore it would operate in time of war upon them all except the two belligerents. But does the right hon. gentleman mean to say that we are now to discuss whether that was a wise provision intn th e d i o s r e u n s o s t i o ? n e T f he e A tt orn merits e y f G e t n u e e r r a 1 a w r s o u c l d e n n v o e t n e t n t e t e n r ; he treated it as an accomplished fact, which must be ad hered to. And being now the law, as far as regards the Governments that were parties to it, the question for us is, how will it act on cur mercantile navy and our commerce? As I understand the matter, by that convention you hold neutrals' goods harmless wherever they may be found, and then,youalso would make h a the pp e neutralhappen case flag e cover ov e a war rrbetween enemy's this goods. co W un h t a ry t, and trade Fran c,:eul?lds passievidenttno i tntetheh tanhadts of the whole of p carry ing(Hurear You repealed your Navigation Laws. Ido not now blame you for that. lam always for cautious and gradual pro gress; but when once a step is made I am not for going back. But in time of war the neutral flag would, I repeat, carry all your commerce, and your ships would be placed at a great disadvantage as compared with every other maritime Power in the world. I cannot, therefore, help thinking that it is a wise thing to consider this subject in time of peace. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that there is great inconvenience in discussing a question of national policy upon a resolution like this, and I hardly know what reasons induced my hon. friend to couch his motion in these terms; but I take it that his object was to elicit the opinion of the Government of this house. He seeks, I apprehend, not to bind the Government to any particular course, but that those of us who agree with him, as I do, should express to her Majesty's Ministers what I believe to be the feelings of the commerce of this country (hear)—that we should, if necessary, strengthen the hands of the Government in neg, tinting with other Powers. (Hear, hear.) It is a question, no doubt, for negotiation with other Powers, and must be left in the bands of the Government. Whether the motion ought to be in the form of an address to the Crown or of a resolution is really a matter of very minor importance, and certainly would not call for the decided opposition which has been offered to this proposition by the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman will not listen to it at all. He says, "You might as well agitate whether there shall be privateering or not, or whether you will upset the whole Declaration of Paris, as even entertain this question." And he quarrels with my hen. friend the member for Liverpool for not agitating questions which we all thought settled. Again, he says, "You make a general motion and confine your speech to a particular point." Why, it is that par ticular point to which we are desirous to press on the at tention of the Government. (Hear.) lam as anxious as any one for the supremacy of the navy of this country, but I cannot understand how you can advance that supremacy by damaging your commerce and your shipping interest. (Hear, hear)! Do you mean to say that your navy would be less effective if it were not bound to protect your mercantile mat ine, or that you would have less naval force to employ against your enemy if it were freed from the duty of con voying? Why, what country has most commerce afloat, most property to be seized ? Surely England. What country would gain most by the preservation of that property ? It is England. (Hear, hear.) You say that your object in war is to injure your enemy. What country would be so much injured in war through her commerce as England? It might have been a question, before the Declaration of Paris was signed, what course we ought to have taken. But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that if you wish to bene fit your commerce, and at the same time to increase your efficiency as a belligerent at sea, you ought gravely to con.- eider the motion before Its. (Hear.) The right hon. gentle man says that the Duke of Wellington burnt houses in Spain. Well, but you don't want to take a merchant ship for fuel—(hear, and a laugh)—and therefore the right hon. gentleman's argument entirely fails. The right hon. gen tleman adverted to the suggestion of a Congress, and said that if you are to expect a meeting of diplomatists to con - Bider the welfare of commerce you must wait till the Greek kalends. For my part Ido not see why a Congress should • not meet and discuss this question in the interests both of commerce and of Europe. Ido not know what course my hon, friend will follow, but I have h ear d w i th regret t h e announcement that the Government win not entertain this question, and that they will not do it because the United - States did not adopt this principle towards the Southern States. Why, that is the case of a struggle between two great sections of one country, and not an international dis pute. It therefore constitutes no ground for opposing the views of my hon. friend. I firmly believe that, sooner or later, this principle will prevail. (Hear.) It may be re sisted by the present Administration, and yet I had cer tainly thought from the speech which my hon. friend quoted that it would not have encountered opposition from the noble viscount's Government. (Hear.) I thought front that language that the noble viscount had seen that it was necessary to moderate the horrors of war, and that the Go vernment was disposed as much as possible to protect the private property-of their own countrymen as well as of others. But, whatever course the Government may take as to the resolution of my hon. friend, whether they object to it as toe general or not put in proper form, I am confident that the time will come when the house will not turn a deaf ear to t th he e prayer which hichtnitseraedsdtsreosfsed the country. mar.) toitbythe great majority of Mr. COBDEN moved the adjournmen s t ats o ci f oi the debate. y A o sh L sei M bn le friend, ST O importance forN — t have a thinkt v h e e nti this ttsers objection to the me' n of greatest t o Lor dinP p e t s h ti o c n o uof t t r h Y: and one, therefore, which requires to be fully discussed. (Hear.) My own opinion is —and I hope that it will he the opinion of the house —that the principle which the hon• member for Liverpool recommends, if carried into practice. would level a fatal blow at the naval power of this coup , : try and would b e an act of political suicide. (Cheers.) - 1 therefore entirely concur in the motion for adjournment' (A laugh.) We shall be perfectly ready to assist the hone member in fixing a day for resuming the debate. Mr, BRIGHT—I hope the noble lord will give us ig whole night, for it is a great disadvantage to have an ill' portant question like this brought on alter some other sub' pet has been discussed. (Hear. hear.) The noble lord Ilse expressed a very confident opinion on the question vei l / much at variance with that quoted by the hon. gentleman' opposite. I hope when he rises to address the house on the main question that ho will revert to his old opinion. (Hear,) Lord PALMERSTON—I am willing to let the debate come on the first thing on Monday night next. (Hear.) The debate was then adjourned until Monday night. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION. Mr. H. SEYMOUR, in moving for a committee to in quite into the present state of the Ecclesiastical Commis' sion, and report to the house whether; the ecclesiastical re venues could not be more advantageously administered fel the interests of the Church than they were at present, se,id that as the motion was not opposed he should not P a l it necessary to detain the house. The hon. gentlema- a , a fter tracing the history of the Ecclesiastical COrtltairsion from its foundation through the various chum which had been made in it, and referring to the vark s comm i ttees which had sat on the subject, said hie r• • .ibject was to take u the inquiry where it had ho --en Ir•it by ra' enittee in 1856. He wished th the last co m' committee to i n quire how the revenues had been ad committee and how far any of the su ered since that time ; worthy of consideration, ggested improvements were Sir G. GREY assented to the appointment of the cow mittee, thinking that there were inquiry ; bat it mus t b e been derived fro the admitted that imm ense benefit ha"' m e exercise of the Ecclesi astical Commission. the powers vested in Mr. DEEDES would not • etea orpose the motion, b u t objected to the committee, that Butch interference from time t o tiree must impede the action of the Commission ; it ()ugh; not to be interfered with unless some real reason could mu shown. Mr. KINNAIRD said that though his hon. friend vig t satisfied with the working of the Commission, a large, beg satis of persons in th e H ouse were very much dit •I} d it, (Hear.) Mr. BOUVERIE said there was a general 'belief °lot the commission wanted sifting, but agreed in tkiltinking 1j334 the motion was premature. The motion was then agreed to. SAVINGS BANKS. Mr. S. ESTCOURT o bt a i ne d leave to introduce a O t t to amend the laws relating to the security and Inan'ageni e ., 3l o -- of savings banks, and sa id th a t h o proposed to inteoduo°_,k-a new regulations, but simply t o en f orce upon all local_ beiTt regulations which al rea dy obtained in. a/ most all managed institutions. COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDINGS BILL•. to Mr. COWPER, i n as ki ng f or l eave to into, A„,-, 0 a pi enable the Commissioners of her Majestr a ,F O 4 O to a s i ipire a site for the erection and concentrat; 0 of at e t justice and of offices belonging to the sp, II id, at that hour (quarter to 1) he should confine ne, sato retina that substantially the bill was the sari, -imself whit 1101 that d passed through the house last session,. as the House of Lords for want of tim" and was stope- Leave was given to introduce tl e b . h Was tsubse' quently brought in and read a 4 :lrst which The Register of Voters Bill W as , `me. second Owe' The Officers' Commission Nil 'ad a we. The house adjourned at 5, ra j,. 'vas aced a thio'clock I, ' lute s to 1 ..611 .•••••• • OM LONDON : Printed a':,ed Published 0 YOUN G ' 1- e mURD of No. 112, Strand, Punter,-- NO 11 ,, at T N - office, • g ee Strand, the Precinct of ir E 'n the COW. , the .Q Savoy, 1""aY1 Mac iLl . 11302.. A