The Sun. — London, England, 1856-05-23 00:00:00

• ra ti ' ' ' 'oble *tea would have considered that the maritime fTreaii. Ithasnot,li s says, the same solemnity as a treaty ; 1 power of this country was the last thin g that should have ; it does not require rati fic a tion by the Sovereigns ; but it 1 been sa crificed, and if it was to be sacrificed , that the 1 h as the same effect as a treaty trait', it has much more than • opinion of the people s hould have itien taken before the the effect of a treaty, because it is not a treaty agreeing prerog ative of the Crown was exercised. (Hear , hear.) As ; with certain Power s to act upon certain principles, the rega rded the noble earl opposite (Granville), he considered 1 ac tion of which is limited by the terms of the treaty, but him to be one of those auk - 101e, kind, soft men--(laughter) ,it is, or affects to be, an authoritative exposition of that —who would do anything that he thought kind, and if it which is the law, not of that which shall be the law. (Hear.) was desired even by that polite nation, with which he was Admitting, therefore, that the Government have the per so muchponnected in his early youth. With regard to the feet uncontrolled right, subject to their responsibility to noble earl (Haerowby), who had just spoken, he would for- Parliament, of framing the terms - of any treaty by which give him if he said thatheled no confidence in his princi- the country may subsequently be bound, I draw a distinc ples. (Laughter.) The noble lord had expressed sue h a tion between a treaty settling what—shall be the course of `' -variety of opinions at different times—(laughter)—he had action agreed upon between two countries, and an act or been, if he might use the expression, such a good cross- declaration which places the Government in the position bencher, and had been of such use in balancing parties, of judges and exponents of the internationallawof Europe. that ho respected the . noble earl's talents and virtues, I speak with great hesitation upon the subject; because I • though he had no confidence in him as a statesman stern in am told upon high legal authority that even such an act . . the protection of th e rights of his country. As to the noble as this is within the prerogative of the Crown. Admit and learned lord on the woolsack—(laughter)—the only ob- ting, however, that it is an act within the prerogative of servation he had to make on him, as one of those who had a the Crown—although I should myself have doubted the hand in bringing about this event, was that, with all his soundness of such a doctrine—l must say that it is a gross powers and ability and his judicial authority, he had failed and flagrant abuse of the prerogative. (Hear.) I say that in carrying every measure he had introduced since he had the plenipotentiaries went to Paris for a particular pur been Chancellor. (Laughter.) For the rest of the noble p rse, and the public reposed in them a generous confidence lords composing the Government of the country, he would which they have grossly abused. (Hear, hear.) The ple take them in a heap—(laughter}—and consider them as nipotentiaries event to Paris to stipulate for certain terms only able to follow their leader--(laughter)—and he be- upon which the peace of the world might be restored, and lievedthat thistime they were led to do an act which, if its the interests of the East placed upon a satisfactory loon effects were net felt now, would be felt at a future time ; dation. They concluded a treaty on that subject, and it and he believed also that this debate would not be forgotten remained for the country, after that treaty had been rati at a time when, if by any misfortune, this country was at tied, to express an opinion upon its terms and conditions. war with a foreign power, it was found that a sacrifice had There, however, the duty of the plenipotentiaries, or at all been made of the laws on which the independence of this events the confidence reposed in them by Parliament and great nation depended. (Hear, hear.) the country, was at an end, and what they did beyond that The Earl of ALBENIARLE said he should not have was—l will not say a betrayal of the confidence reposed in • them, but an underhand proceeding of which the country addressed the house on this occasion b u t , for his wish to had no notice and no knowledge. (Hear, hear.) The noble • • correct a misrepresentation of an opinion expressed by him duke (Argyll) tells us that though the Government, in the last year with regard to the right of enemies' goods in course of the war, came to no very definite conclusion on neutral ships. The noble earl then proceeded to urge that this subject, we might have gained some indication of the '' he could not understand the difference between taking course they were likely to pursue, inasmuch as we knew from authentic records what were the views and opinions an enemy's goods under a neutral flag on shore and at see. of the late Sir W. Moleeworth. I wish to speak with the Both acts were of the same character. To seize an enemy's utmost respect of a man of very great ability, especially goods in a foreign territory was not merely an act of as he is now no more; but I confess that I heard with as hostility but of robbery, and it seemed to him that it was tonishment from the noble duke, who at one time professed downright piracy to seize an enemy's goods in neutral to be a follower of the late Sir It. Peel, or at all events a ships. There were two causes for which the right of Conservative Liberal, that the acts of a Government of search was exercised—in the case of enemies' weeds in their which he was a member—and of course a most cenapicuous own ships, and that of neutrals—and he was of opinion that member—were to be inferred from the language and opi there was only one of these cases in which the right of niona of Sir W. Molesworth. I confess I listened with search should be allowed, and that was in enemies' ships, astonishment to the statement that because Sir W. Moles worth held and expressed certain opinions upon political unless in case of munitions of war , when there was a known blockade. There ought to be no care for a law subjects the country were to infer that he declared the I which was not based on right and justice. He did not principles upon which the Government would subsequently think that his noble friend who introduced this motion act. I thank the noble duke for the light he has thrown had made out his case as to the benefit which the three upon the interior of the Cabinet, and upon the de gree of • chief maritime nations of the world would get by the law union which exists among its members. (" Hear, " and a as it had hitherto stood. In the cases of all three the con. laugh.) The noble duke says it is quite true that the trary had been proved. This country had gone to war Government made no declaration of their intention to because some Spanish guarda-costas had searched some abandon the right we are now considering. No; they made English ministers ; and the war was proclaimed amidst a declaration to the contrary effect, for, in the order in the rejoicings of the , people and the ringing of bells, Council of 1834, they spoke of that right as one which in which caused the prime minister of the day, who was disputably belonged to this country, but which considera the only sane man on the subject, to say, " You are tions of State policy, and the peculiar circumstances of the ringing your bells now, but you will be wringing your war in which we were engaged, induced them to waive, hands by and bye." The disasters of Carthagena and although they denied their intention to abandon it. (Hear.) others followed, and our merchants suffered so much that I admit there were grave and weighty reasons for waiving they mime to the Prime Minister for redress, when he said this right of war under such circumstances. We were en to them, " The war is your own, and you may take it for gaged in war along with an ally by whom a different inter your pains." Then the war with America in 1812 was p rotation was p laced u p on the law of nations to that which caused by the right of search, and America had suffered we give it ourselves. Nothing could have been more em by it as well as ourselves. So that disposed of two of the barrassing or unjust to neutrals than that they should be great maritime nations ; and had France any reason to look subject to the double interpretation placed upon the codeof with pleasure on the retention of this law; for she was at international law by this country and by France, the one once compelled to promise to levy a million sterling for the declaring them good prizes in one case, and the other de. exercise of the right of search, and when the Chamber of daring them good prizes in opposite circumstances. At the Deputies refused to pay that sum America prepared for commencement of the war, therefore, I made no objection to the course pursued by the Government. The noble Se wer, and with her navy and privateers she would have swept the commerce of France from the seas but for that cretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that, although country's accepting the advice of England and paying the the settlement of this question of international law was no money. He thought the part that France and England portion of the business which the plenipotentiaries assem had now taken on this question was greatly to their bled at Paris to discuss, yet great disappointment would honour. It was the last step ,of civilisation in relation to have been felt if the plenipotentiaries had not taken the war; and on these grounds he gave his cordial dissent to opportunity of considering and settling many questions the resolutions of his noble friend opposite. of importance relating to the general affairs of Europe. For aught I know the plenipotentiaries may have dis- The Duke of ARGYLL denied the assertion of Lord cussed several questions of the utmost importance ; but of Hardwicke, that the people of this ,country were not fa- this lam quite sure—that they have settled none. (Hear, vourable to the recent adoption of the principle of maid- and a laugh.) Of those questions which they have dis ' cussed, every one is left as open at this moment as it was s 1 time law, and he urged that the noble lords opposite had at the period at which they commenced their discussion se shown them, what their opinion was with regard to the ay, even including that article to which I am as popular - tonished to find that a British Minister placed his signa ject in their lordships' house, and not in the House of tare, and which implies the necessity of interfering for the • a Commons, where all the commercial interests of the coon- regulation of the press of Belgium. (Hear, hear.) That question was left unsettled, and after faint and feeble re try were represented, and where they could not have hoped monstrances, the plenipotentiary of England, to my great to have been successful. The noble duke proceeded to con- astonishment, placed his hand to a protocol which recog tend that, nevertheless, the people of this country were not nixed the necessity of interfering to check- the licentious so wholly given up to mere mercenary commercial consi- ness of the Belgian press. (Lord Clarendon here made an derations as to wish to sacrifice in the least the naval power observation across the table, which was inaudible in the gallery.) This is the protocol to which the noble earl has of England. The more he looked into this subject the attached his signature : more he was convinced that practically this country lost p That all the plenipotentiaries, and even those who con . nothing, but gained much, by the abandonment of the old sidered themselves bound to reserve the principle of the ' principle of maritime law. Let him look at the terms of the liberty of the press, have not hesitated loudly to condemn resolutions proposed by the noble lord (Colchester). The the excesses in which the Belgian newspapers indulge with first paragraph ran thus : "That 'the most eminent jurists impunity, by recognising the necessity of r medyine the real ofall ages have accepted as a principle of international inconveniences which result from the uncontrolled licence law that the right of capturing an enemy's goods on board which is so greatly abused in Belgium." - of neutral vessels is inherent in all belligerent Powers; I had not intended to touch upon this subject, but I was that the maintenance of this right is of essential impor- astonished to find that to such an article the British pleni . tance, and its abandonment of serious injury to a Power potentiary had placed his name. The noble Secretary for , whose main reliance is on her naval superiority." There Foreign Affairs vindicates his dealing with the question of was some ambiguity in the word ," accepted." He ad- international law, inasmuch as it was one of those great mated that jurists had laid clown that this wee the law of q uestions which affectedgenerally the na tions of Europe, nations ; but, if that meant that they laid down that it he his and gave as precedents for that interference the ought to be the law as being consistent with natural right proceedings at the congresses of Westphalia and Vienna. and justice, ho was prepared to deny that proposition. The Re said, with great truth, that at the congress of Vienna ne xt proposition in the resolutions declares that the main - the slave trade formed no part of the business of the con• tenance of this principle was of the utmost importance. gross, but that no one blamed the congress for the discus- This depended on the countries with which we were likely Bios. which took place and the declaration which was made. to be at hostilities. If we were at war with a non-marl- That declaration repudiated the slave trade on the part of time country, its trade would be principally carried on by every state which was a party to it, but it left to every land ; and if with a maritime country, its commerce would country the right of carrying into effect the principle of probably te chiefly carried on in its own ships. Tho reso- the declaration in its own manner and according to its lotion affirmed that the right of search was most important own laws. Is that, however, a precedent for this case ? The to a Power possessing naval superiority; but this ha de- plenipotentiaries at Vienna well knew that in putting their vied. The power of blockade was much - more effective names to the declaration against the slave trade, they were than that of stopping vessels, and it could be most effec- acting in accordance with the highest and strongest feel tively exercised by a country poisessing naval superiority. lugs of their countrymen, and that no principle was more He would look at all the countries of' Europe with which warmly cherished by the people of this country than the we were likely to come in contact. Was it not clear that condemnation of the slave trade. Has the noble earl (Cla we could operate most effectively . against Russia by means rendon) the same confilencs with regard to the protocol of a blockade? We had done so in the lite war; anti the to which I have referred? I ask him whether, if his inten neutral comeneree of which we had most reason to coca- tion to assent to such a declaration had been announce I plain was that carried on by Russia over land. Take the beforehand to the people of England, he would have dared case-of the Scandinavian Powers—and he _hoped never to to refer the question to their decision. I firmly believe ' see this countrylat war with them—but was it not evident that the spirit and feeling of my countrymen have not so from the geographical position of those countries that sunk, and that they have not abandoned themselves so en blockade .. would be the most effective means of attacking tirely to mere consid, rations of gain and of pelf as to sac ' ' their commerce? Referring to our intimate ally, of rifico those rights and interests of this country which they who-'o naval power he wished to speak with every re- hold in as high esteem as did their ancestors. The noble sped ; but in the event of a contest with France, if we duke opposite has expressed an opinion that the comrner . were able to assert our naval snperiority, we should natu- cial community of this co untry aro so wrapt up in the idea • rally seek to destroy her commerce by means of blockade. of the acquisition of we alth that they are indifferent on the ' It bad been suggested that American ships might become subject, and that for this reason the question has not been carriers for France ; bat he doubted, whether this could be brought forward in the other house. I make no such charge; done to any great extent. The same principle applied to I hold no such opinion; Ido not believe the feet; bat Ido Spain and Portugal. We had given up a power which was believe that if, at the commencement of these negotiations, of very little value, and had retained ono which was more i t had been announced that yon were about to conclude efficient. But, supposing the right of search much' more tae war on terms which abandoned the naval superiority valuable, it was most easily evaded. The neutral power o f thi s co u n t r y, an un i versa l f ee li n g of indignation would was generally interested in the cargoes 'carried by its ships; have been excited. lam of opinion that the course which and it would he easy to give them a much greater interest. has been pursued amounts to an abandonment of the naval Thus embarrassin g questions would arise as to the degree superiority of this country, and before I sit down I shall 'of interest in the cargo possessed by the neutral and the endeavour to show that that opinion is well founded. I belligerent power. The resolution declared that Great believe the country coincides in that opinion; and I be- Britain had occasionally waived this right by specific tree- lieve, also, that if the country had known the terms you ties. This was not correct, for the abandonment of the were about to , conclude, and the declaration you were about right had been rather the rule than the exception. With to sign, an indignant protest would have been made against regard to Portugal, it had been abandoned for 160 years ; the betrayal of the aatioual interests. lam not enough of as to France, for 116 . years ; as to Spain, for 131 years ; a lawyer to take upon me to assert positively that this de and, as to the United Provinces, for 113 years. These trea- claration of the plenipotentiaries is actually illegal, but ties bad not been made with small and insignificant States, c e r t a i n ly it d oes a pp ear t o me to be anything rather than but with the most powerful maritime - Stet in the world. constitutional. A n d indeed I have observed, not without (Hear.) Then the resolution expressed regret that the satisfaction, that there a ppears to be some doubt, even principle had been suddenly abandoned in the recent cou- among the members of her Majesty's Government, if not ferences at Paris. This was by no means the case. Years of the validity at least of the perp ttuity of this engage ago : . Commons by the late Sir Wm. Molesworth, advocating the that although by this act we have waived our right, yet principle embodied in this declaration ; and it had been re- that we by no means abandon the principle, that it is a peaterily recognised by the Government. He was confident portion of the law of nations that belligerents shall the house would net l en d itself to the expression of an opi have the rig ht of seizing as lawful prize of war the • Ilion, which was not participated in by tho 1 commer ' cia goods of an enemy under a neutral flag. I heard classes of this country. He contended that a very helper- this statemeipt with gratification, bee ruse it seemed to me taut equivalent had been gained by this country.' Our own - so afford some ground of hope that circumstances may - commercial Marine might derive important advantages hereafter arise under the influence of which it may be . • from conducting the carrying trade of belligerent powers, found convenient to abandon this very declaration the mo without being exposed to the risk of seizure. He admitted meat that we have experience of the stern exigencies of that it was in the power of the United States to refuse war. Allow me to call your attention to the terms in their assent to this declaration ; but, should they do so, which this declaration is couched. If it had been nothing WO were not bound to recognise the same right in their ship s es t op than a stipulation for not carrying into effect curtain as we did in those of other countries. The decla ra ti on .;e. ticles of international law, —though probably I might s inquestio n expediency of the late 'conference could not fail to have a powerful be disposed to ' e 11 the of such a m ' . oral effect, and to promote the prosperity of all the na - proceeding —should certainly not have discussed it politi- Mons concerned. (Hear.) - tally. But it is worthy of remark that this declaration is The Earl of DERBY—The noble duke, who generally general, not particular, and that in its terms it is absolute addresses the house with a considerable degree of confidence and uric mditional. It proceeds to say` that privateering is and remains abolished, th t the neutral flag covers enemy's in his own opinions, has spoken to-night with more than goo 19 except contraband ' ' of war, and that neutral goods, his usual sliaro of that great Parliamentary virtue, but I except contraband of war, are not liable to capture even think with rather lase than his usual success, in attempt- under an enemy's flag. This is a declaration unqualified ing to grapple with the arguments advanced by my noble and unequivocal, not of what the law was, or shall be, or ought to . be, under peculiar circumstances, but of what it • friends who prece led him. In one respect my task is an is. privateering is, and remains, abolished. The neutral easy one, but in another it is difficult. It is easy, because flag covers enemy's goods. Can any thing be more dogmatic hat little ground is left for me to go over which has not or m o re dictatorial? Nevertheless, there is a strange incon been a l rea d y ' - most ably occupied by my noble friends, and sistency in the manifesto, for the Plenipotentiaries then . snore especially, if I may venture to make a somewhat in- go on to say that that which they have solemnly propounded to be a part of the international law shall not be so in fact e vidions referene , by the noble earl who s eke third in the - with a . c and effect except with regard to those nations which degreeac debateof power an d abi lity which must cept the whole of it. Here is a latitude and a laxity which, have gratified all youalordships, whatever your political bearing in mind the positive and authoritative tone observ opinions may be, and who from this night will stand in able throughout the earlier portions of the document, we the forenicist rank of speakers in this house. (Hear.) But had little, reasons to expect. The noble earl the Secretary i' n another respect my task is n o t so easy, or, if I may be for Foreign Affairs talks contemptuously of the laws of allowed the expression, hecausa it is so small." " barbarous ages," and cannot suppress his scorn for usages it is difficult because it is so easy— sanctioned by the authority of such jurists as Grotius—men . .. ~ .. , " )Iy wound is groat, •. whc, he assured us, justified the slaughter of prisoners and • I have no arguments to refute ; but I cannot give a vote the killing of women awl children. upon one of the most i m p ortant questions whi c h h as en :Tr Earl of DERBY—I entreat the noble duke to en - Tee Duke of ARGYLL, with much warmth—l never gaged our attention for a long time—a qu es ti on the couse- raid anything of the kind. (Laughter.) . . (sciences and effects of which will be such as The You little con- believe that lam not always talking of him. When I speak g template at the present moment , without repeesp r „ m of another person, it does not follow that it is he who is y • protest agair a t a cou rse of proceeding, which I beli eve to present to my thoughts. I stated most distinctly that it absolutely be not only hn m ili a ti n e and derogatory, but .was to the noble earl the Foreign Secretary that I was al ' dangerous to the prime interests of England. (Hear.) My lading. True, the noble duke adopted a similar line of argu urent, but it was to the noble earl the Foreign Secretary objection to the course which the Government . have been that I was referring. I was observing that that noble earl minced to pursue is twofold. I object, in the first place, had attributed to Grotius the atrocity of vindicating the to the substance of what th have done, and I object , in p r acticeofs c la o u ld ele b t lo e o ri d n . g prisoners, and killing women and ' ey children in a the next, to the mode and manner in which they have done Earl The it. p I will commence with the latter, upon which the pa p.of CLARENDQN—I beg the noble lord's par lee has entirely misinterpreted me. What I said was, with respect to n o ble duke has not expressed any opinion, but to which that many Jurists took particular usages to which he has just alluded, and maritime a w_ll a defend those early laws and usages the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs ad considerable length. The noble earl rititne rights, have also defended the vetted at great pains to assure us that it was clearly within the with respect to Grotins, he had reco gnised the right laid prerogative of the Crown to negotiate or conclude any down in the Consolato de Mare, without assigning his rea treaty -without the previous sanction and approval of Par- sons fur so doing. That is what I said—and I kno w lg I di d liatieent. I know not why the noble earl took that trouble, not sa y what the nobl e l ord attribUtes to me. because, as far as my k n owledge extend s , no one has as- The Earl of DERBY repudiatede intention th tented or maintained the contrary argument. We have ins the noble earl's meaning, and after of pervert tented referring in j ustifi admitted th a t pramga ti v p o f the Crown, anti also that suchcat ion of his statement to a note he h a degree of con fi dence should be reposed in the M' • Ministers pressions noble earl, proceeded to of the Crown as might enable them to negotiate a treaty y Iw ill not dispute the point with the noble earl, but without the previous sanction, control, or interference of "- to him I will take leave assurethat, of all the no ble leaned Parliament. I think, moreover, we have given a practical authorities ' has quoted , there is not he proof of our same of the value of that maxim by resisting ,of the national recognise asa portion ' during the - eourae of the present session, all the temptationsaconte nd for, that itis aportion o f the national which the temper of the p eople threw in our way to embar- princ iple we law that enemy's goods on board of neutral ships are liable rasa tiro Government in their negotiations for peace. We to capture, and that to capture them is an inherent right have given to them the confidence due to their position ; of th be l l igerent Powers. It is one of those maxims the °sal . we h av e imposed a studi ous s il ence u p on ourselves ; we j - • • ve and unques t ion able nature of which is signified have not by word or action hindered their proceedings in by the u se o f the words Wino dubitat—no one doubts the smallest degree. But now I want to know, in the first it. An opposite place, what is this declaration to which they have affixed until 1753 , when Prussia for the first time claimed their signatures ? The noble earl admits that it is not a 1 that the neutral flag should be held to cover the goods of ~~ ~ THE LONDON', FRIDAY EVMNINft, MAY 2s, 1866. the enemy. That claim was opposed by .England with a strenuous Kwer of argument,, and with the intima tion of her intention to resist it by force. Lord Mansfield denounced it with characteristic earnestness, and Vattel, who ►rote a few years later, in 1753. availed himself of the occasion to lay it down as a principle that if we find enemy's. goods in the ship of a neutral we are justified in seizing them by right of war, taking care, however, to pay the master. The claim of immunity for the neutral flag was again put forward in 1780 and 1801, but on each occasion it was strenuously and successfully resisted by England. In modern times Pitt, Lord Granville, and Mr. Canning all supported the right for which we now contend. It is now said that if we determine to support this doctrine we should be alone. We have been alone, and yet maintained and up held the doctrine against a confederacy of opponeuts. Yet this principle of belligerent right has been abandoned by the Government, I know not on what grounds, but this I know, that it has been abandoned without the sanction or consent of the people of this country. A noble lord has ob jected to the wording of the motion because it would con damn the conduct of foreign plenipotentiaries as well as that of our own. Now, we do not presume to condemn the con duct of foreign plenipotentiaries, who may have acted wisely in their generation, and rightly for the interests of their country. But what we deal with is the conduct of the Eng lish plenipotentiary in respect to English interests. Let the noble earl say what he pleasesabouttheimportance of Eng land taking the first and primary position in this work of humanity, I beg to remind him that England did not take the first step, but followed in the wake of France. (Hear.) It was the proposal of the French Plenipotentiary, and I should have liked to see what arguments were used by the noble earl, and what conditions were made for the surren der of this right. In this matter, I repeat, we followed in the wake of France, to which country the adoption of the new principle is eminently favourable. (Hear.) But the noble duke said this was not a sudden proceeding. All I know is that it took the people of England by surprise, and also the Plenipotentiaries. (Hear.) It. was not hinted at during the course of the conferences up to the Bth of April, and then, for the first time, Count Walewaki brought forward this new declaration upon international law. The surprise of the Plenipotentiaries of the other Powers was no less than that of the people of England. Prussia, con sistently and wisely as a carrying Power, jumped at a proposal she had been urging for the last 103 years. Russia and Austria were more cautious; their Plenipotentiaries stated that the matter was beyond their instructions, and, desired time to consult their Courts. They did so by tele graph, and received for answer—" Good Heavens ! is Eng land so weak to consent to this ! We have gained a point we have been contending for during many years, and have at last found a British Minister to concede it." I said I would tell you what former statesmen stated on this sur render of right, and perhaps your lordships will not be in disposed to listen to the opinions of the late Mr. Pitt in 1801: " Let it be granted that it was an 'act of sound policy to make that cession to Russia, that it was so at a time when our naval superiority was too unfortunately conspicuous, when we were at war with France, with Spain, and with Holland, and when the addition of hostility might have been a serious evil—does it follow that at the present moment, when the fleets of all the Northern Powers, com bined with those of France, of Spain, and of Holland, would be unequal to a contest with the great and superior naval power of England—does it follow that we are to sacrifice the maritime greatness of Britain at the shrine of Russia? Shall we allow entire freedom to the trade of France ? Shall we suffer that country to send out her 12,000,0001. of exports and receive her imports in return, to enlarge private capital, and to increase the public stock ? Shall we allow her to re. ceive naval stores undisturbed, and to rebuild and refit that navy which the valour of OUP seamen has destroyed ? Shall we voluntarily give up our maritime consequence and expose ourselves to scorn, to derision, and to contempt ? No man can deplete more than I do the loss of human blood, the calamities, and the distresses of war ; but will you silently stand by and, acknowledging these monstrous and unheard of principles of neutrality, insure your enemy against the effects of your hostility I Four nations have leagued to pro duce a new code of maritime laws, in defiance of the established law of nations, and in defiance of the most solemn treaties and engagements, which they endeavour arbitrarily to force upon Europe. What is this but the same Jacobin principle which proclaimed the rights of man, which pro duced the French Revolution, which generated the wildest anarchy, and spread horror and devastation over that un fortunate country ? Whatever shape it assumes it is a viola tion of public faith, it is a violation of the rights of England, and imperiously calls upon Englishmen to resist it even to the last shilling and the last drop of blood, rather than tamely submit to degrading concession or meanly yield the riglats of the country to shameful usurpation." Such was the language of Mr. Pitt. There was then no men to tell us that "we stand alone." Hear, hear.) In those days England was not afraid to stand alone, and let England be still England,:as she would be but for England's Ministers, she would not now be afraid to stand alone. (Cheers.) Lord Hawkesbury said, " His Majesty will never submit to pretensions irrecon cileable with the true principles of public law, and which strike at the foundations of the greatness and maritime power of his dominions. It is sufficiently known with what hostile intentions an attempt was made in 1780 to introduce a new code of public law against Great Britain, and to support by force b a system of innovation prejudicial to the dearest rights of the British empire. But his Majesty has hitherto had the satisfaction to see that these arbitrary and injurious measures have been completely given up. His Majesty has already repeatedly communicated Ma fixed unalterable determination to maintain those established principles of maritime law, which have been found by the experience of all ages to afford equal security to the just rights and interests as well of neutral as of belligerent Powers." There was then no difference of opinion on the point that this was a surrender of the maritime power and greatness of this country, and, notwithstanding all the w 0 in arms might oe leagued against them, the British Ministers of those days would not propose, and, if they haul. the British people would not have consented to the surrender. (Cheers.) Now let us come to later times. We are told that times aro chann' D ed , that we are not the powerful nation we were before , that other Powers have grown up, and that we ought to beware how wo provoke the hostility of other nations. Shortly before his death Mr. Canning not only refused to surrender this right, but absolutely refused to ratify a treaty concluded with Brazil by Sir C. Stewart, on the ground that it contained an article which abandoned the right. "The rule of maritime law which Great Britain has always held on this subject is the ancient law and usage of nations ; but it differs from that put forth by France and the Northern Powers of Europe; and that which the United States were constantly endeavouring to establish. England had braved confederacies and sustained wars rather than give up this prin ciple; and whenever, in despair of getting the British Go vernment to surrender it by force, recourse bad been had to proposals of amicable negotiations for the purpose of defining, limiting, or qualifying the exercise of the right of search, Great Britain had uniformly declined all such overtures, from a conviction of the impracticability of qualifying, limiting, or even defining in terms that anich would be acceptable to the other party the exercise of a right, without impairing, if not sacrificing. Wet right itself." He then goes to say that this had been refused to all possible motives of interest or apprehension, and that, as the treaty gratuitously gave it up, it was- impossible for him to ratify the treaty. Have I brought down my authorities to a late period ? Are these the doctrines of barbarous ages ? Are these the. exploded principles of a time long gone by? Noble lords opposite say we have given up the corn laws, we have abandoned the navigation laws ; all these changes have answered so wonderfully well —(Ministerial cheers) — let u 4 go a step further—let us give up that which all statesmen in all ages have held to be the main stay of our maritime superiority, and then let us say what the result wits be? That is. the whole of their argument. If Pitt was a barbarian, if Canning was a barbarian, if neither of them knew anything about the principles of in ternational law, or about the rights and interests of their own country • if they knew not how, or when, or where to maintain or abandon those rights and interests, then I am content to class myself humbly in the same line of barba rians with Canning, Pitt, Lord Hawkesbury, and Lord Shelborne. I am willing to be numbered myself among these modern ancients, and to leave all civilization anti wisdom to the noble duke and the noble earl opposite, and to the rest of the noble lords who constitute her Majesty's Government; but I must beg at the same time to enter my protest against the conclusion at which they have ar rived. We have been told that we are to consider, not what the law is but what it ought to be. All the old jurists, it is said, have been content to lay down the law without attempting to defend it. So far from this being the case, the jurists have all dealt with the principles on which the law is founded; they have all dealt with it on its foundation, on the rights of civil society, and of the inherent privileges of belligerents. They have entered, one and all, into the rationale of the case, and they have substantiated not only that it was the law, but why it was and why it ought to continue to be the law. Among the arguments a anion which have been addressed to us from the other side, we have been told to remember 1812, and the circumstances of the war in which we were engaged in that year with America. But what was the point upon which you quarrelled with America in 1812 ? It was not because you prevented neutral vessels from conveying enemies' goods, but it was upon the question which you studiously keep alive in these protocols—the right of search. Their grievance was that they might be overhauled on the open sea, and especially that they were liable to have their seamen taken out of them on the ground that they were de serters from our service, and that they were liable to be sent to a neutral port. They denied altogether the right of search as applied by belligerents. You maintain, however, the right of search in these protocols in its full integrity, eaen as regards those nations which have joined in this de claration. You maintain the principle that neutrals may I e searched for contraband of war, and you thereby admit the principle of the violation of the neutral flag, and you continue the damage and inconvenience which result to merchantmen from being overhauled on the open sea. But you point it more especially against America, tec ruse you say that the limited advantages which are given to neu trals under this new law shall only be shared by those who adhere to this declaration. The noble duke opposite ex pressed a hope that the Americans would adhere to this declaration, and more particularly that they would give up the principle of privateerin g , but the President of the United States, who is almost as good an authority on Ame rican affairs as the noble duke, told you only a year ago that this was a right which the Americans would never give up, nor over consent to discuss. By the surrender you have made you do not escape the hostility of neutral na tions upon the ground of the right of search, and you make the hostility of America more pointed by maintaining against her particularly the right of search in its full in tegrity. That is always the result of paltry concessions wrung from you by apprehension. You lose your self-re spect and your position in the world, you. weaken the in fluence which you have always maintained, and you do not gain the adhesion and affection of those whom you seek to conciliate. Some noble lords have contended that there is no difference between land and sea, and what is hoe by land ought to be free by sea, and that there should be no violation of private property at all. But this would put an end to naval warfare altogether. It was argued that because enemies' goods, even on hoard a neutral, are merely the property of an individual, not the property of the State, they should not be seized; but why do you not ex tend your principle, and say that merchant ships, being private property, unarmed and engaged merely in the prosecution of commerce, ought to be allowed to pass through the belligerent cruisers? I defy you to draw the line. If you grant one principle you must grant the other. And yet, among all thi treaties to which noble lords op posite have referred, and which I entirely pass by s Wing beside the question—for it is one thing to waive a right and another thing to give it up altogether—there is but one—a treaty negotiated by Franklin with Prussia—which contains the principle that merchant ships should be al lowed to pass through the cruisers of the belligerents. I am afraid, however, that it is and always will be one of the consequences of a state of warfare tog nfliet ioj try upon unoffending in lividuals, and if you limit these injuries to cases in which neutrals are virtually assisting belligerents by bringing thein what is necessary for carrying on the operation s of war—nay, even by increasing the wealth and commercial strength of the country, we are doing nothing but what; is consistent with natural law, and we are baking the best steps to pat an end to war. But nefore r leave the Unit ad States and the fear which has been exp res , ed thlt, in the event of our persisting in the rusinterrance of our ancient claim, the United States would refuse to re cognise it, let me read what Chancellor Kent and Profes sor Wimaton, who was lately American Minister a t Berlin, say up , .) n the subject. Let me premise it by saying that all tie Towers who entered into this solemn ]e,g , ..te of neu trality to which they refer very soon abandoned.•cheir prin ciples_ Within 18 years every one of them had signed treatises in which the principles of neutrality were com pletely given up. Chancellor Kent says,— "CThe Baltic conventional law of neutrality was soon ibandoned, as not being sanctioned by the existing law of is:stk. - as, in every case in which the doctrines of that code did not rest on positive contracts. During the whole course of the wars growing out of the French Revolution the Government of the United States admitted the English rule to he valid, as the true and settled doctrine of international law, and that enemy's property was liable to seizure on board neutral ships, and to be confiscated as prize of war. The two distinct propositions that enemy's goods found on board a neutral vessel may lawfully be seized as prize of war, and that the goods of a neutral found on board an enemy's vessel were to be restored, have been explicitly incorporated into the jurisprudence of the United States, and declared by the Supreme Court to bo founded on the law of nations. . . I should apprehend the belligerent's right to be no longer an open question; and that the autho rity and usage on which that right rests in Europe, and the long, explicit, and authoritative admission of it by this country have concluded us from making it a subject of con troversy ; and that we are bound in truth and justice to sub mit to its regular exercise in every case, and with every bel ligerent Power who does not freely renounce it." That is the declaration of one of -the most eminent lawyers of America as to the bounden duty of that country wish regard to the international law which we have always maintained, and which he declares to be incorporated into the law of the United States. Again, what does that high authority Wheaton say upon the same subject. He says,— " Whatever may be the true original abstract principles of natural law on this subject, it is undeniable that the con stant usage and practise of belligerent nations, from the ear liest times, have subjected enemy's goods in neutral vessels to condemnation as prize of war. This constant and univer sal usage has only been interrupted by treaty stipulations, forming a temporary conventional law between the parties to such stipulations. By the general usage of nations, indepen dently of treaty stipulations, the goods of an enemy, found on board the ships of a friend, are liable to capture and con demnation. The primitive law, independently of inter national compact, rests on the simple principle that war gives the right to capture the goods of au enemy, but gives no right to capture the goods of a friend. The right to capture an enemy's property- has no limit but of the place where the goods are found, which, if neutral, will protect them from capture. We have already seen that a neutral vessel on the high seas is not such a place. The stipulation that neutral bottoms shall make neutral goods is a concession made by the belligerent to the neutral, and gives to the neutral flag a ca pacity notgiven to it by the primitive law of nations." Now, there is the doctrine laid down in support of the opinion of every British statesman, recognising the law and the duty of neutral natiees to submit to the right which we claim to exercise. I labk upon this question as the most important which your lordships can be called on to discuss, and depend upon it that the time will cones, if you don't estimate its importance now, you will deeply feel its consequences. My lords, I look upon this act of the Government as cutting off the right arm, as it were, of the country. I look upon it as depriving her of those natural advantageswhich her great maritime power has given her in war, and of the exercise of that superiority and those bel ligerent rights without which she is nothing. If she re mains not the mistress of the seas she falls immediately and naturally into the position of a third-rate Power. Trance and England are the two greatest Powers of Europe and God forbid that they should be separated: United, they may secure or they may imperil the peace of the world, but separated they each have their peculiar means of of fence and defence. The means of France is her army, and the main resort of England must always be to her navy, whether it be to defend her own coasts from aggression to which, thank God, she has hitherto been a stranger, or to enforce her rights upon foreign nations. By the navy you must do it, and the more you circumscribe the power of that navy the more you weaken the strength and influence of the country. I confess that I was astonished at the ar gument of the noble duke, if indeed, I could be astonished at any argument that ho employs—that the stronger a Power was at sea the less important was it for her to main tain her maritime rights. The noble duke took the resolu tions seriatim, and commented on them with various ob servations, more or less important, —I think most of them less. (A. laugh.) I will not follow him through his observa tions, but I must meet his statement that thuabandonment of the right which we have possessed was not an abandon ment of any right or power the loss of which would be serious to this country. In order to test tho value of that opinion, let us take the recent case of the war with Russia. Now, I want to know where you would have been in the war with Russia if you had abandoned the principle of cap turing an enemy's gocds in neutral vessels, and had been unassisted by tee French military force. The only power which you could bring against Russia was a naval power ; and if that had been unsupported by military assistance, what impression, I want to know, would you have made up to this moment upon Russia? (Hear.) You might have greatly distressed Russia by the maintenance of your maritime rights ; you might, no doubt, have greatly incon venienced and annoyed her by a blockade of her ports; but she sends her goods to Memel—you can't blockade Memel, which is a Prussian port, and the commerce of Rursia is not interrupted by any naval operations of yours. (Hear.) You conquered Russia, because. in addition to your naval power, you had the assistance of the greatest military power ou the earth. If you had not had that assistance would you have signed a peace with Russia for the next 10 years, unless it involved more humiliating ooncessions than you have made by the abandonment of this right? What ever losses Russia may have suffered by this war, whatever embarrassments she may have experienced, I hesitate not to say that they are more than compensated by the adoption of that one article, gratuitously inserted by the French and British plenipotentiaries, by which, in the words of Mr. Pitt, you have sacrificed the maritime greatness of England on the shrine of Russia. (Hear.) Suppose, which God forbid, that a war should arise between this country and France, what means have you of opposing Franca, except closing her up hermetically and stepping her commerce? Well, what are you to do ? You can't blockade the whole coast of France ; but you can practically prevent her from sending out one single bale of merchandise. Your new law permitting French goods to go with impunity on board neutral vessels comes into operation ; you have no block ade. Franco gives up her whole commercial marine ; she makes her vessels into vessels of war ; she has seamen to man them ; and, before your very face, she carries on her whole commerce under the Prussian or American flag. (Cheers.) You are powerless. Your power is gone. Your right arm is cut off, Your only, means of defence are abandoned, and abandoned too at the suggestion of France. Was there ever a Minister so led by the nose? Was there ever a Minister who so deliberately walked into the trap set before his face, and so tamely and gratuitously sur rendered the foundation of England's greatness? The noble lord finds in it a subject for laughter; I hope the country will find in it a subject for laughter some 10 years hence. A noble earl has well said, " You ring your - bells now; you will have to wring your hands hereafter." You are exulting over peace. You are ringing your bells and illuminating your town. I say the country does not see the dangers to which it is exposed ; but depend upon it, when painful experieaco shall make the country wring her hands and not her bells, she will know on whose head to visit the consequences of the decline of her power and gre it:l , Bi. I go then to the United States. Do you pre tend that 2,000 miles of seacoast can ba uninterruptedly blockaded under whatever circumstances of wind or weather? Do you mean to say you will apply that prin ciple to a war with the United States ? What will happen with regard to the commerce of the United States ? The United States is not titled, unless she enters into the coa lveation, to carry the goods of France; but supposing you are at war with the United States, what is your position ? France is a I arty to your convention, France has a perfect right to carry goods like other neutrals, and France offers to carry the goods of the United States, with which she is at peace, and claims to pass unquestioned unless she carries contrabaed of war. Do you mean to accede to that demand or to refuse it? If you accede you place yourself in this position,—the trade and commerce of the United States remain uninterrupted by the intervention of French neu trals, and by the refusal of the United States to come into the convention they maintain the belligerent right of pri vateering oa goods in y our s hips. Upon the principle o f privateering, 1 can only,say Ishould cordially rejoice to see it altogether abolished. It is to the interest of all nations that it should be abandoned. It is con . zary to morality and international law, because traffic in war is carried on not in the service of country, but for private gain ; and I should desire nothing more than to see that principle aban doned altogether by tho common consent of nations. (Cheers.) I am not speaking of the three resolutions to be moved by my noble friend above me, but of privateering properly understood. (Hear.) But if you tell me that the *abandonment of privateering is a concession made to Eng land in order to got her to abandon a valuable right, I can not and will not accept it, because, abhorrent as the prin ciple and practice may be, if privateering were resorted to by all nations none would gain more or suffer less than England. (Hear.) You may say she has an extended commerce. I t , nst that commerce will be more extended. Hitherto, with her own right arm, and that navy which is her mainstay, England has been able to protect and defend her commerce, without recourse to conventions, stipula tions,toEngland.humanity, or treaties. (Cheers.) I cannot accept the surren der of privateering iva w te i e l lriinngglyss as a concession a boon cor dially and as a great and pre-eminent advantage peculiar to ourselves. Therefore I say, according to my reading of these articles, you gratuitously and tamely, without application from any Power, but upon the recommendation and following in the wake of France, surrender a right which belonged to us, which was established as a right by all jurists of earlier days, which was recognised by all j ur i s t s o f mo d ern times, which has been upheld by every statesman of im portance in this country down to the latest, and which it was reserved for the present Government to thsow away, although Pitt and Grenville and Canning successively de clared it to be the mainstay of the naval power of England. I know not what may be the judgment at which yourlord ships may arrive. I shall regret if this hasty, ill-consider ed, dangerous act of her Majesty's Government shall receive th e high sanction of the assembly which I have the honour to ad dress. But whether it be so decided or not, I feel I have done and will do myduty,aud if I stood alone in condemning this a surnption of right, not to limit by treaty, but to recognise woulidts support kew and establish a principle of international law at v ar i ance with the interests of the co l tin st t o r o y d a a n l t t l without ledge or sanction—l say, if the resolutions of my noble friend--j would divide the house upon this question—l would give to every one of your lordships the power of roc srdiog your opinion as to the policy, the wisdom, and the safety of these proceed ings. But, for my part, I solemnly protest —as deroga tory to the country, as inconsistent with its dearest inte rests, as fraught with danger to its future greatness and power —ay ! and to its future safety—l protest against the abandonment of rights, involved in that which, with all respect for his personal qualities, I cannot but characterise as the miserable Clarendon -Capitulation of Paris. (The noble earl resumed his seat amidst loud cheers.) The Earl of CLARENDON—It was be inferred from what the noble earl has said that I took part against the independence of the Belgian press, and was prepared to join witli other Governments in its repression. Tie Earl of DE KBY—You signed that protocol. (Hear.) The Earl of CLARENDON—The contrary is the care. I defended the liberty of the press in Belgium as I do at home, and the only newspapers condemned by Count Walewski in bringing the matter under the notice of the Congress cannot be (salted a portioe of the Belgian press, but w ere th ese p a pers surreptitiously printed with ou t t h e names of the printers on the Continent, for the purpose of being smuggled into France, which preach the assassination of the Emperor and the subversion of the present state of things in France. Those are the newspapers which I con demned, and those are newspapers which I think will be eoedemned by every friend of the liberty of the press of England. (Cheers.) Earl GREY confessed that, after hearing the explanation of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the course taken by her Majesty's Government, he thought the noble earl (Lord Derby, in endeavouring to satisfy t ieir lordships that they ought to agree in passing a solemn Parliamentary censure, bad undertaken a task too great even for his distinguished abilties. Amid all the eloquent declamation of the noble earl he listened in vain for any argument to show that the course taken by the Government was open to objection or justified the vote of censure implied in the resolutions. The objection of the noble earl was twofold ; first, ho ob jected to the manner in which the Government had entered into the consideration of the question ; and, secondly, ho objected to the substance of the engagement itself. It was satisfactory to find, with regard to the manner, that the noble earl had seen reason to modify the opinion which he expressed in the debate on the treaty of peace. On that occasion be contended that the declaration should not have been signed without the previous assent of Parliament. He had now abandoned that ground ; he bad recognised the constitutional power of the Crown to bind the country by engagements contracted with foreign Powers ; and had admitted that it was not fitting that the purport of such engagements should be discussed beforehand in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) The constitutional principle undoubtedly was, that the advisers of the Crown were responsible to Parliament for the measures which they recommended the Crown to take, but that it was the prerogative of the Crown to take those measures without the previous assent of Parliament. Nay, as the noble earl had further ad mitted, it was within the constitutional power of the Crown to declare from time to time in what manner and to what extent it should exercise its rights under the maritime laws ; and that, in point of fact, from the earliest times the Crown had been in the habit of enforcing, some times more, sometimes less strictly, its maritime rights during war. Orders in Council had been repeatedly recog nised by our Admiralty Courts, presided over by men of the highest eminence, as constituting the law on the sub ject ; and it was clear that if the Crown bad the power of declaring to what extent the rights of the country should be exercised, it was equally entitled to make an engagement beforehand with other Powers to the same effect. Admitting all that, how came it that the noble earl was prepared to vote for a resolution which condemned the proceeding of the Government, be cause it had been adopted "without the previous sanction or knowledge of Parliament. ?" The noble earl said this was not a treaty or convention—not a declaration of what the law should be hereafter, but a declaration of what the law was at present. What had that to do with the " pre vious sanction or knowledge of Parliament ?" A knowledge that it would have been better to draw up the document in the form of a convention, aril that would not justify the passing of such a resolution. , The truth was, that all the objections of the noble earl resolved themselves into mere verbal criticisms upon the manner in which the de claration was drawn up. Were their lordships going to adopt so solemn a proceeding as a Parliamentary censure upon the Government for entering into an engagement against which no stronger objection could be made than that it was carelessly or improperly worded ? It was evi dent that the words, " without the previous sanction or knowledge of Parliament," had been inserted in the resolu tion, not with any serious notion that they could be pressed as a valid objection, but to create a prejudice against the measure in the minds of persons wh o wou ld no t take the trouble to inquire into the real facts of the case. (Hear.) Coming now to the substance of the question, he might venture to say, that of the four principles contained in the declaration there was, substantially, only one to which the noble earl objected, viz.—that in which we agreed to waive far the future the right of seizing enemy's property in neutral ships. Now, in considering the question raised by the noble earl and his friends, it was important to ascer tain how the principle now abandoned had worked in former times, and especially during that memorable strug gle with France which resulted from the French Revolu tion. For information upon that point he had applied to the distinguished judge who now presided over the Court of Admiralty, who in those days had a very extensive business in the prize courts, and who was, therefore, well qualified by knowledge and experience to describe accurately the practical operation of this particular por tion of the maritime law. Dr. Lushington, in answer to his inquirie , , said the practice was that, when a British cruiser fell in with a ship unler a neutral flag, an officer was sent on board to examine the cargo, and, if he found any irre gularity in the bill of lading or any of the other documents, so as to raise a doubt whether the property was neutral or not, the vessel was taken into a British port for adjudica tion. After considerable delay the Court gave its decision, and the goods were eventually condemned or restored; but in the latter case, not in one instance in 500 was any com pensation male to the owner of the ship or to the owners of any portion of the cargo which might not have been dis puted for all the inconvenience and expense to which they hail been subjected. It often happened, when goods were restored, that they were so only upon payment of costs. Could their lordships conceive anything more intolerable to neutrals than such a right so exercised ? He believed, indeed, that it was the extreme irritation produced by the constant annoyance and loss to which the American ship owners were subjected by the British cruisers that mainly led to the war with America. The noble earl had stated that that war arose entirely from thb right of search, but he must remind the noble earl that the United States had, he believed, never objected to the exercise of the right of search in time of war for the purpose of ascertaining whether ships were conveying contraband of war. The quarrel arose from the pretensions which this country put forward to search American ships, in order to ascertain whether any of the seamen were British subjects. Frequently, upon very im• perfect evidence, men who might havebeen natives of Boa ter' or New York were declared to be British subjects, and were removed from American ships, and it wa- this system of impressment, and not the exercise of the general right of search, which led to the war with America. He was glad that, in the late war, this country ha 1 shown that it could produce.a naval force far exceeding any the world had hitherto beheld, without having recenrse to the odious and unjust system of impressment. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that example bad put an end to the system of im pressment for ever, and had thus averted any chance of a quarrel with the United States upon such a ground. They must net forget that, if this country claimed for itself the right which noble lords opposite supported, it must be pre pared to allow the same power to be exercised against it; and how would British shipowners submit to the exercise of such a right if this country should be placed in the posi tion of a neutral ? Suppose a quarrel took place between the United States and France, in which this country took no part, would they end are it that every English ship clearing out from Bordeaux should be overhauled by an American igate, and that, if it could not be proved that all the pro perty on board was English property, the ship should be sent across the Atlantic in order that the question might be considered by an American court, while the British merchant suffered consequent inconvenience, delay, and ex pense? How would they endure it that vessels from New York or New Orleans, laden with cotton which our manu facturers Were anxiously expecting, should be stopped by French frigates, and conveyed to French ports, while the French courts inquired whether the cargoes were the pro perty of Americans or of Englishman? This system was bad enough in the great revolutionary war, but when they considered how commercial intercourse hed since increased, how trading transactions had multiplied, and when they remembered that during the interval the tonnage of the United States had incre ase d fi ve -f o ld , th ey cou ld not believe that such a system would be tolerated for a day. Great, however, as was the injustice of the old system, it was wholly ineffectual in accomplishing the object for which it was established. He found, from political publica tions which he had consulted, that the law had been virtually inoperative, and that they must go a great deal further if they wished to attain their object. (Hear, hear.) Frauds on the most gigantic scale were committed, and one individual covered, with his protection as a neutral, property to' the value of 1,700,0001. which be longed to the Dutch East India Company. It was admitted that unless they adopted the plan of cutting off an enemy's trade altogether they could not prevent neutrals from co vering the property of the enemy in one way or other. If they attempted to act upon extreme principles, irrespec tive of all right and !justice, and endeavoured to compel neutral nations to submit to any measure they thought ex pedient for distressing an enemy, they ne4ht make war upon the world. A noble earl opposite had said that Eng land would be unworthy of her high position, if she was not able to stand alone, but ho (Earl Grey) thought that was not the language of a cool and reflecting statesman. Neither England nor any other nation could stand against the world in arms, and God forbid that the contrary should be the case. He did not speak simply of physical power, although there was no one nation that by mere physical power could possibly stand against a combination of all other nations of the world ; but he referred to what was still more to be dreaded, a combination of the opinion and intelligence of nations. Against such a feeling he be lieved neither this nor any other nation was able to stand. He must say he thought that such expressions as had been used by the noble earl opposite were calculated to exercise :m injurious influence upon the character of this country in Europe and in the world. During the French revolu tionary war we asserted this extreme belligerent right, but we subsequently saw the necessity of relaxing it, as also did Napoleon, who granted licences to trade, by means of which he enriched both himself and his marshals. (Hear.) It was to be hoped that their lordships would not suffer themselves to be persuaded by the arguments that hail fallen from the noble earl (Darby) to condemn the wise and liberal step taken by the Government for the purpose of in troduc'ng a more rational and, despite the sarcasms of the noble earl, he would add, a more humane system of warfare. Earl GRANYILLE—I trust your lordships will not be alarmed at my standing up at so late an hour, for I have the sitisfaction of assuring you that I have not the least inten tion of making a speech, nor will I trespass upon your at tention for more than a single moment. Although during the whole course of the war I have felt as deep an interest in This question as any of your lordships, and although I view, with sentiments of the most cordial approval the course taken with respect to it by he? Majesty's Government, I feel that if I were to offer any remarks of my own on the subject I should only weaken the effect of the observations that have fallen from my noble friend (Earl Grey) who, because he has declined to declaim and has only argued, has male a speech that appears to me entirely unanswerable. I may be allowed, however, to express my surprise that the noble lord opposite (the Earl of Derby) should have inferred from the wording of the declaration that it includes not only the present but also the past and future, for I should have supposed that be was aware that in the official phraseology of the French lan. gunge the present tense is invariably employed to express the future. (Rear, hear.) In conclusion, I have to invite your lordships' attention to the following letter from Lord Campbell : " Central Criminal Court, Thursday. "Dear Lord Granville,—As, from the important trial still .pending here, I shall not be able to be in the House of Lords this evening, I should be glad if you could find an opportu nity, in the course of the debate, to explain the cause of my absence, and to state that, upon deliberation, I fully adhere to the opinon which I have before expressed in my place, that the convention for the modification of the law of maxi. time warfare is beneficial to England, and was constitutior. ally entered into by the English Government.—Yours, very truly, " CAMPBZI L. " The Earl Granville." _ _ To that letter I will only add the sincere expression •f my hope that your lordships will not hesitate to give your sanc tion to a concession which is founded upon a liberal policy, and which, in the opinion of some of the best and most erni rent of our statesmen, may be made fairly awl hononrably, and without the slightest prejudice to our naval supremacy. Lord COLCHESTER, having made a few observations in reply, The house divided, when the numbers were— For the motion : Content—Present Proxies 56 . 46 -102 Against tho motion : Not Contents—Present • Proxies —153 Majority against the motion 54 Their lordships then adjourned at 12 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour. The following bills were read a third time and passed : —Alford Valley Railway, Barnsdale and Leeds Read, Kettering and Newport Pagnell Road, Luton, Duns table, and Welwyn Junction Railway, Midland Railway. Norfolk Railway, Stockport and Warrington Road, and Wolverhampton Water. The following bills ware considered and read a third time :—London, Tilbury, and Southend Rail way (Ex tension and Branches), and E y Tidal Harbour and Railway. NEW WESTMINSTER BRIDGE. In reply to a question from Mr. W. WILLIAMS, Sir B. HALL said, he was unable to state the exact state of the new Westminster-bridge. He should re ceive a report from the engineer i❑ 10 days, which ❑o "doubt would give the necessary information, and state when the new bridge was likely to be completed. THE COMMUNICATION WITH INDIA. Lord STANLEY asked the President of the Board of Control whether any steps were being taken by the Indian Government to facilitate the establishment of a line of telegraphic and other communication between England and India, through the Euphrates Valley? Mr. V. SMITH said he need hardly assure the noble lord that the Indian Government took the deepest inte rest in any scheme intended to facilitate the communica tion with India. Two or three schemes bad been submit ted for the accomplishment of that object. One was to carry a railway from Seleucia to a place on the Euphra tes, and so join with the navigation of that river. The other and the larger scheme was to continue the railway from Belgrade to Constantinople, to cross Asiatic Tur key, and descend the valley of the Euphrates do An to Bussorah. Both those schemes had been proposed for the favourable consideration of the Indian Govcrniuent, and that favourable consideration would of course be given, but until the schemes were submitted in detail it would be impossible to enter ;a%o them minutely. When the noble lord spoke of facilitating the communication with India it must be supposed that he meant facilitating it by means of pecuniary assistance or by a guarantee. Of course, however, that would not be done until the plans had been submitted in detail. With reference to the electric telegraph, that was in much the same posi tion. A proposal had been male to carry on the tele graph from Alexandria to the Red Sea, and in that way across to India. The answer given by the Indian Go vernment to this proposition was, that they coird not give any opinion respecting it until the electric telegraph had actually reached Alexandria. The other scheme was to carry the same line on from Seleucia to join the Euphrates, and descend the valley of that river to Bus soreh. That scheme had been very much promoted by a gentleman of great celebrity, Cr. O'Shaughnessy, who had called the attention of the Indian Government to the advantages which this line possessed over the other he had mentioned. Both these plans, however, would re ceive every consideration, the object in view being to favour as much as possible the communication with FACTORY INSPECTORS. Mr. HARDY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the report of the factory inspectors for the six months ending the 30th day of April last would be in the hands of members ; and whether any communications respecting the bill for the further amendment of the laws relating to labour in factories, as now proposed to be amended, had been made by the factory inspectors, or any of them, t) the Secretary of State for the Home Department ; and, if so, whether he would have any objection to lay such corn munications on the table ? Sir G. GREY said the repots had been sent in within the last few days, arid they would soon be laid on the table of the house. There were objections to laying the communications referred to in their present state before the houce. CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT. Sir F. KELLY asked the First Lord of the Treasury the intentions of her Majesty's Government as to the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854? Loid PALMERSTON said it was the intention of the Government to propose the continuance of the act for a limited period. HAMPSTEAD HEATH. In reply to a question from Lord R. GROSVENOR, Sir B. HALL said that the Government did not in tend to take steps for the purchase of Hampstead Heath. A. deputation had waited on the Board of Works rela• tive to it. That Board had the power of purchasing it. INDIAN BUDGET. In reply to a question, Mr. V. &Arra said he should bring on the Indian budget as soon as he could get a day. (Laughter.) THE AMNESTY. Mr. PELL:ITT asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that as there were above a thou sand rnioui in England and Wales lying in prison for debt, 240 of which were under 61. (debt and costs), who might be rp , tored to their families and occupations for tLe sum of 1,5001., and as there were a few confined for ro`r tcted pri )(Is, extending to 40 years, whether the Government would rcommend them to her Majesty, and debtors under 101. to be included in the commemo rative Peale Amnesty, 8) graciously extended to Frost, Williams, and Jones, and ,other political offenders ? (Laughter.) Sir G. GREY said there was a greater difference be tween criminal prisoners and those confined for debt that the hon. gentleman appeared to think. The Crown had the power to exercise its prerogative of mercy in the case of criminal offenders, but it °mild not in the case of debtors, except at the expense of the creditors. There were no persons now confined for debt for the small amounts named by the hon. member except those who had refused to com ply with the provisions of the law for the recovery of small debts. FACTORIES BILL. On the motion for going into committee on this bill, Mr. COBBEFT moved that " this house will resolve itself into the said committee upon this day six months;" and proceeded to state the objections he had to this bill for providing fencing to machinery in factories. He condemned the bill as altogether impracticable. Mr. T. DUNCO ABE seconded the amendment. Mr. W. PATTEN condemned the conduct of the honourable, mainber for Oldham with reference to the bill. He had given notice of amendments to the bill, and after that bethought himself' of his pre sent amendment to defend it. A recent decision in the Queen's Bench had shown how impossible it was for the manufacturers to obey the present law with reference to the fencing of machinery, and it was to remedy the law that this bill had bQect brought in. He bad done his best to meet the objection of the hon. member, and if he had failed the hon. member would have an opportunity of introducing amendments to meet his own views in committee, Mr E. DENISON thought it would be a want of time to divide on the amen itnent, and suggested to the hon. member for Oldham to withdraw it and allow tne bill to go into committee. Col. DUNNE was in favour of the amendment. Sir G. GREY - supported the house going into coin mittee. Mr. MUNTZ complained that neither the mover of the bill nor the Government bad kept faith with the house with reference to the alterations that were to be male in the bill before it was committed. The house then divided, when the numbers were— For going into committee 207 Against it Majority ---157 The house then wt at into committee. Clauses 1,2, and 3 were agreed to. Clause 4 was objected to by Mr. COBBETT, on the ground that the machinery should be fenced, not only where " children and young persons" passed and worked, but should extend to all, and protect all perspns from danger who were engaged in factories the same as by the present law, according to the decision in the Court of Exchequer. Mr. W. PATTEN defended the clause, and said that in that clause he had used the same words as were in the 21st seotion of the old act, which the hon. member approved. The only addition or alteration he (Mr. Pat ten) had made was to alter the compulsory fencing, and provide arbitration in its stead. Mr. M. CHAMBERS said that the 21st section also provided " that all parts of mill gearing in factories shall be securely fenced ;" and it was on those words that the Court of Exchequer held that the act applied to grown-up person 7, of both sexes , as well as " children and young persons. The clause now proposed, con trasted with the clause of the old act, would deprive grown-up persons of protection. After some further discussion the committee divided, when there were-- For the amendment Against it Majority —l36 The remaining clauses were then agreed to. The house then resumed, and the chairman reported progress. REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL. This bill passed through committee with several amend ments. FORMATION, &c., OF PARISHES BILL. The house went into committee on this bill. Clauses 1,2, 3,4, and 5 were agreed to. Clauses 6,7, and 8, relating to the fixing of pew rents, were postponed. On clause 9, which provided for the distrilyition of alms or voluntary contributions, a discussion ensued upon the proper interpretation of the clause. Mr. HENLEY objected to it. Mr. GLADSTONE and Lord GODERICII objected to it. Lord BLANDFORD said it might be better to post pone the clause in order to amend it. Mr. GLADSTONE objected to postponement unless t was understood upon what principle it was to be amended. Mr. HENLEY suggested to strike out the word “ alms." Mr. GLADSTONE oljected to this. Sir G. GREY suggested that at that hour (half•past 12) it would be better to report progress. This was assented to, and the house resumed. ItATIIM isir/r8 BILL This bill was postponed in order to the Appoisitzu of a : , eleet corntnittee ou the subject, to which Mr BOUVERIE a.sented. REFORNIATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) 1311414 This bill passed through conimitt , te. JUDGMENTS EXECUTION, &c., BILL. , Mr. CRAUFURD moved the second reading °lt'll° bill. Mr. NAPIER said it was unreasonable to press tbe‘ second reading of a bill which had been before a oleo committee and rejected by the house last year. d Sir G. GREY agreed with the right hon. and learned member, and thought it would be impossible to dii ct/9" the bill at present. After some conversation, Mr. BUTT moved the adjournment of the debate. The motion for adjourning the debate was agreed t i. ° l, and the second reading postponed till to-morrow (t' day). The Registration of Leases (Scotland) Bill Wag t eA~ second time. The Fire Insurances Bill, as amended, was considered' COMMISSIONERS OF SUPPLY (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. „ fj , REGISTRATION OF VOTE RS (SCOTLAND) 1 31 'w On the motion of the LORD.ADVOCATE, this 1 " was referred to a select committee. SLEEPING STATUTES BILL. a ta aP p The passage of this bill through the committee at 1 o'clock in the morning, caused some laughter. 11 3 ) than one hon, member was enjoying a doze whet' order was called on. INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETI BILL. On the motion of Lord GODE RICH this bill loss food a third time and passed. SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL. d i e The order for the second reading of this bill loss charged on the motion of Mr. L. KING. PUBLIC HEALTH. or Mr. COWPER obtained leave to bring in a bill to citb, firm provisional orders of the General Board of II ° d applying the Public Health Act, 1848, to the districldli Waterloo with Seaforth, West Ham , Sowerby 1 to and Moss-side; for alteration of the boundaries of fur districts of Rusholine and bishop Auckland ; and other purposes. ARBITRATION ACT (SCOTLAND) AME N, MENT. iiil4 Mr. CRAUFURD obtained leave to bring in a 1) "4 amend the iaw relative to the arbitration of disput es tween masters and workmen. NUISANCES REMOVAL (SCOTLAND) 1 31 r jer On the motion of the LORD-AD VOCA. PE the ° for the second reading of the Nuisances Removal, (Scotland) Bill was read and discharged. The house then adj turned at a quarter past 1 o'ol°4‘ PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MAY 22. Order for committee FACT read. O RIES , Motio ß n ILL made and 4- aetil proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the e b t oto Amendment proposed, to leave out the word Ths,,tho the end of the question, in order to add the wordaiiiplo house will, upon this day six months, resolve itae' IA the sail committee," instead thereof. Que stion " That the words proposed to be left out stand P, A , V ) the question." The house divided—Ayes, 207 ; II. '" AYES-207. of Acton, Joseph Foley, J. H. Mulgrave, Earl Adderley, C. B. Fortescue, C. S. Mundy, W. Agnew, Sir A. Fox, W. J. Naas, Lord Copt Bailey, Sir J. Freestun, Colonel Napier, Sir ",.;noi Railey, Sir J, French , Fitzstephen Newark, 171.5'"- Eaillie, 11. Galway, Viscount Noel, G. Baird, J. Gibson, M. Norreys, Sir 0 ' Baring, Sir F. Gladstone, W. North, Col. J. $. B tring, T. Gladstone, Capt. J, Northcote, SU Barrow, W. Glyn, G. O'Brien, J• Bass, M. Goderich, Viscount Oliveira, B. Beamish, P. Gower, F. Osborne, 8.,. t, Beckett, W. Graham, Sir J. Pakenhana , . 4 .1, Bell, J. Greeiiall, Gilbert P a ki ng ton, Sir Bernard, Vist. Greene, Thomas Palk, L. , ft Biggs, W. Gregson, Samuel Palmer. Bob"y01,4 Black, Adam Grenfeli, Charles Palmer. Bd un oco r Blackburn, P. Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir G. Palmer ston Bond, J. Grey, It. Peacock°, ‘". ii - mham-Carter, J. Grosvenor, Ld. IL FOWL A. .$, Eouverie, Hon. E. P. Hadfield, George Pemiant, Co+2 Bowyer. G. Hall, Sir Benjamin Perc y , J. _,,,,5, 1r Bramston, T. W. llamilton, Lord Claud Pollard-111%Pu- Brand, H. B. W. llankey, T. Price, W. Brocklehurst, J. llanmer, Sir John Pritchard, J. , Brother ton, J. Hastie, Alex. Pugh, D. ~,,,,c s ill, Brown, W. llastie, Archd. R ayn ham, I. ' Buck, Col. Hayes, Sir E. Reed, J. Buckley, Gen. Heathcoate, Sir W. Blea r "' O• Butler, Sir J. Henley, J. Ricardo, 8.. Burrowes, Robert Herbert, H. Rice, E. P.yng, G. H. C. Herbert, Sir T. Rich, EL A fiampb -IL Sir A. I. lieywood, J. Russell, F. C. Cavendish, G. C. Handley, C. Shaft°, gar ' ~.. Bayley, E. S. Ilolford, 11. Shelley, ,-. Challis, T. Holland, E. Shirley J ,••• Chaplin, W. Horsfall, T. Smith, J. B. Cheetham, John Horsman, E. Smith, B. Child, Smith Hotham, Lord Smith, W. Christy, Samuel Howard, C. Smollett, A. Clay, Sir W., Bt. Howard, 1. , rd E. Spooner, it• Cocks, T. S. Hughes, W. Stafford, A. Cole, 11. A. Hutchins, E. Stafford, _l%l° Colvile, C. R. Hutt, W. Stanley, vo • Crossley, F. Johnstone, J. Steel, John ~ Davis, Sir H. R. F. Jolliffe. Sir W. Strutt, lion. N'‘. Davies, D. Kendall, N. Stewart, Si r n Dayton, J. Kershaw, J. Stuart , CaPt*- Davison, R. Kingscote, Capt. R. Tancred 11 , ~,, f, Deedes, William Knatchbull, W. Theaiger, Su it ' benison, E. Knightley, It. Thompson , u' De Vere, S. E. Labouchere,Rt.Hon.H Thornely, T;, Dillwyn, L. L. Lascelles, E. Thornhill, iv; Disraeli, B. Lewis, Sir tL C. T T o ro ll i e lo m p a c c , lg r , '' ,/, ', 4 Duncan,lVisconnt Liddell, H. G. Duncan, George . Lindsay, Col. J. Waddington; '' Dungarvan, Viscount Littleton, E. WhitbreAd, 0. Dunlop, A. Lovaine, Lord Whiteside, J,:,. Egerton, W. Mackie, J. MacGregor, James Egerton, Edw. Ellice, E. Marjoribanks, D. Wilkinson, n , Ewart, J. Martin, P. Willcox, B• pl. Fenwick, H. Massey, W. Winningt on ,, , Fergus, John Miles, W. Wood, 5 1 r *, Ferguson, Colonel Milligan, It. Wyndhain, " Whitmore.' o silu ,.. Ferguson, J. Milner, W. M. E. Wynne. IV' JO lO Ferguson, Sir J. Monck, Via. Wynne, ~..'.. Fitzgerald, J. Monsell, W. TW A Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Moody, C. Patten, 1 fiord Fitzroy, Henry Mowbray, J. R. Stanley, IA NOES-50. c. Arhuthnott, Gen. H. Fuller, A. E. Newdegat e. ... Berkeley, Hon. H. F. Gallwey, Sir W. O'Connell, ,;.' Bignolii, Sir S. Gaskell, J. O'Connell, d•.A Blake, M. J. Gooch, Sir E. Ossulston. Dl"' Blakemore, T. Greville, Colonel F. Sandars , G o ' A Bland, L. H. Grogan, Edward smyth.. l ° . , slf u . Blandford, Marquis of Halford, Sir Henry Stricklan.L.fiel Boldero, Col. H. G. Hardy, G. Taylor, C° W;. Codrington, Sir C. W. Kelly, Sir F. Tottenham''‘' Drummond, U. Langton, 11. G. Vernon. V. Duncombe, Hon.A. Laslett, W. Warren, S• Duncombe, 0. Lennox, Lord A. F. Wise, A. Dunne, M. Lowther, Col. H. C. Woadd, 13 ' 001 1 ' Dunne, Colonel Macartney, G. wyndlita, Esmonde, J. M'Gregor, John ' A Euston,t . :arl of Michell, William TE S • Farnham, E. Muntz, G. Cobbett. •I• 00 Forster, Charles Neeld, John Dancoulbe, Country Markets. DERBY SMITRFIELD.—MAY es o , l The market was well supplied with fat beast° °et" lent quality, and a good demand at former P l j several were left unsold. The number of s heep% or was n large, and mostly disposed of. Fat Pig 4 A good supply of fat and stole calves. r,Ao e i4 ,l ? d i The fallowing were the quotations :—Beef, mutton, 7d to 8d ; lamb, 8d to 8 d ; veal, bid, 6) lb. ; pigs, lOs Gd to lie Od per score ; rough fat, t 0 per 141 b.; hides, 31d to 4d per lb ; calf-skins, 3 ' per lb. EDINBURGH GRAIN.—MAT 2 1 . o O fe: Although there was a fair demand for all sort); io to-day, prices were easy for all kinds. rog" Wheat, on the top, 2i down, and on the 0 8 % 4 0- down. Barley, to Od down on the top, and Ad:; average. Oats on the top 8d up—on the a c ",fr 7d down. Beans on the top Gd down—on the Gd down. AVERAGES PER IMPERIAL QUARTER.,'O: d Wheat £3 7 3 — Or Do. new Barley Oats 1 710 10-15010 Beans BOSTON—MAT 21. bO i ir/::; The supply of wheat was limited, ..el for thl o t pies the prices realised were about the rsame As' r inferior qualities in better request than of late, t yre is to 2s per qr. more money. Of spring corn little on offer, and prices were unaltered., 7x4 Prices :—Wheat, red, 56s Od to 70s Od; whitelo • 72s Od: extra, 74s Od. Barley, —a Od to t,0 4 I . Bs to 28s. Beans, 38s Od to 45s Od. Peas, 33 per gr. NEWARK—MAY 2 t. y 11 , We had a full attendance of farnie rs, with 11, ist supply of grain of all descriptions. Trade do prtePs tO l k Wheat, white 72s to 78s, red 66s to 71.5; barielye, —s to —s, grinding —s to ...s; oats, 14st. 30 3 to 0 0 0 26s to 27s ; beans, 40s to 463 ; malt 72s to 769; ) to 4ls ; tares, 60s to 64s per qr. BIRTHS. or & SON. 0 or, On the 21st inst., at Ring's-road, Claphil' wife of Wm. Jones, Esq. Dir e. On the 21st at Bonn on-the-Rhine, Straith Miller. ff 3P A DATIGHTIB. Y .0 0° , ey On the 22d fast. , at 3, Blomfield-street , so flf circus, the wife of Charles Francis Gibson, Es 4 "ife On the 21st inst., at Swanage Rectory, the If Rev. Duncan Travers. MARRIED, st e On the 21st inst... at St. James's, PaddingOv'foott'il: Green, Esq., of Clapham-park, to Mary , t e be St* 9 ' daughter of the late William Clay, Esq., 10;" hill. % a t On the ¶2d inst 14 c_., at Edmonton parish urcbti, ogo , e 4 Webb, of 25, Min-ling-lane, and Richmond, 417,00,1, of Wm. Webb, Esq., 3, Broad SanctuarY, to Ann, second daughter of Wm. Boards, Escl.' gale Hall, Edmonton. DIED. lao a f" ; On the 22d. ;mat. Frederic Kinder, Esq " downe-road, Jiotting-hill, aged 38. of t ' On the 19th inst., at Queen's -terrace, we o e t . pef Bayswater, John Raikes Bayly, Esq. , late I T r° W ilts. Sam ue l Esq., the 16th t est., Sarah, the wife o f Esq., of Derby, . aged 65. A LONDON: Frill' aul and Published by liftram — ?;o of No. 112, r,trand, Printer at The Sgti OffW, Strome, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the Middlesex , Wednesday, May 23,1656. apiv4 3 9th ~1 _ at R, fitalLl a Plat 1 L La form" 7 1 rate above tnettd entitl4 facial, Cheri Only) and healtl 2 ,4,s by j ) &hlllll Ittc;Tli the Pi every !iatUr, ~.`b.e be libido entiou the F . ries vi Ad; )het R ' 0 be List 2, Du: Ancor9o.oo( 28,00( I,„A •he p 'Wh o I Dire . Paid. (lay .tore "'Gr. and I Thy sAirt Pa; beta Iv, , bic at th, the c Da the b aectu koet the.e cally te e ., Z r it s, 7 ,l l °fa th tt 'ink e 'it litr, (3, T,