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

, . his noble friend would have con sidered that the maritime , treat y . It has not, he seys, the same solemnity as a treaty ; power of this country was the last thing that should have , it does not require ratification by the Sovereigns ; but it been sacrificed, and if it was to b e sacrificed, that the ' has the same effect as a treaty ; nay, it has much more than opinion of the people should have been taken before the , the effect of a treaty, because it is not a treaty agreeing prerogative of the Crown was exercised.. . (Hear, hear.) As with certain Powers to act upon certain principles, the regarded the noble earl opposite (Granville), he considered : action of which is limited by the terms of the treaty, but him to be one of those amiable, 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 bathe law. (Hear.) was desired even by that, polite nation. with which he was i Admitting, therefore, that the Government have the per so much,connected in his early youth. , With regard to the i feet uncontrolled right, subject to their responsibility to noble earl (Harrowby), who had just spoken, he would for- Parliament, of framing the terms of any treaty by which give him if he said that he had no confidence in his primal,. the country may subsequently be bound, I draw a distinc pies. (Laughter.) The noble lord had expressed such a time 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 international lawof Europe. that he 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 the 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 nervation 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 ab o ut 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. (L a ughter.) For the rest of the noble p use, 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- Jake them in a heap —(laughter)—and consider them as niyotentiaries went 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 foun effects were not felt now, would be felt, at a future time ; elation. 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 fled, 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.) • lthe country, was at an end, and what they did beyond that The Earl of ALBEMARLE said he should not have I 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 - bat for his wish to h a d 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 cenrse the likel to ursue, inasmuch as we knew he could not understand the difference between taking from authentic were records y what were the views and opinions an enemy's goods under a neutral flag on shore and at sea. of the late Sir W. Molesworth. 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 R. 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' goods in their which he was a member—and of course a most censpicuous own ships, and that of neutrals—and he was of opinion that member—were to be inferred from the language and opi there was ontrone of these cases in which the right of nions of Sir W. Molesworth. I confess I listened with search should beallowed, and that was in enemies' ships, astonishment to the statement that because Sir W. Moles unless in case df munitions of war, when there was a worth held and expressed certain opinions upon political known blockade. There ought to be no care for a law subjects the country were to infer that he declared the which was not based on right and justice. He did not principles upon winch the Government would subsequently think that his noble friend who introduced this motion act. I thank the noble duke for the light ho has thrown had made out his case as to the benefit which the three upon the interior of the Cabinet, and upon the degree 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 1854, 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 considers 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 came to the Prime Minister for redress, when he said this right of war under such circumstances. We were &I to them, " The war is your own, and you way 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 pretation was placed upon the law of nations to that which caused by the right of search, and America had suffered we g aye 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 i n ternational law b y this countr y and b y France, the one once compelled to premiss to levy a million sterling for the (teetering them good prizes in one case, and the other de• exercise of the right of search, and when the Chamber of Glaring 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 war, and with her navy and privateers she would have to the course pursued by the Government. The noble Se 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 Franca 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 die- 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 mari- and a laugh.) Of those questions which they have dis time law, and he urged that the noble lords opposite had cussed, every one is left as open at this moment as it was at the period at which they commenced their discussion shown them what their opinion was with regard to the ay, even including that article to which I am as popular feeling, by their having brought forward the sub- tonished to find that a British Minister placed his signa ject in their lordships' house, and not in the House of . ture, and which implies the necessity of interfering for the Commons, where all the commercial interests of the coun- regulation of the press of Belgium. (Hear, hear.) Thaat u qestin wa left unsettled ad faint and feebe re try were represented, and where they could not have hoped uaonstr o ances s the plenipotent,iar and of t En Eland ' to my great to have been successful. The noble duke proceeded to con- asto a i s h i n e ni, placed his hand to a protocoll which receg tend that, nevertheless, the people of this country were not nised the necessity of interfering to check the licentious so wholly given up to mere mercenary commercial consi- nese of the Belgian press. (Lord Clarendon here made an , durations 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 "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 medying the real of all ages have accepted as a principle of international inconveniencs 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 h had not intended to touch upon subject, but I was that the maintenance of this eight is of essential impor- astonished to find that to such an article the British pleni trance, and its abandonment of serious injury to a Power potent i ary h a d p l ace d hi s name . Th e no bl e S ecre t ar y f or 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 witted that jurists had laid down that this was the law of questions which affected generally the nations of Europe, nations; but, if that meant that they laid down that it and he gave as his precedents for that interference the ought to be the law as being consistent with natural right T nV proceedings at the congresses of estphalia, and Vienna. The and justice, he was prepared to deny that proposition. He said, with great truth, that at the congress of Vienna, next 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 ono blamed the congress for the discus- This depended on the countries with which we were likely ;1 7 1.1wh.cla took place and the declaration which was made. to be at hostilities. If we were at war with a non-mart- 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 it vrith a maritime country, its commerce would count: y the right of carrying into effect the principle of probably be chiefly carried on in its own ships. The reso - declaration lution affirmed that the right on 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 stied. The power of blockade was - much more effective n tines to the declaration against the slave trade, they were than that of stopping vessels, and it could be most effec- ailing in accordance with the highest and strongest feel• tively exercised by a country possessing naval superioritl. ings of their countrymen, and that no principle was snore Ho 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 wo could operate most effectively against Russia by means rendon) the same confidence with regard to the protocol of a blockade? We had done so in the late war; and the t o w hi c h I h ave re f erre d ?• I ask him whether, if hie inten neutral commerce of which we had most reason to plain was that carried on by Russia over land. Takeeetrnhe- tin to assent to such a declaration had been announced 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 lively to mere considerations of gain and of pelf as to sac their commerce? Referring to our intimate ally, of rifice those rights and interests of this country which they whose naval power he wished to speak with every ra- hold in as high esteem as did their ancestors. The noble spect ; but in the event of a contest with France, if we d u k e opposite has expressed an opinion that the comnaer es ere able to i.ssert our naval superiority, we should natus cial community of this country are so wraps up in the idea rally seek to destroy her commerce by means of blockade, of the acquisition of wealth that they are indifferent on the It had been suggested that American ships might become subject, and that for this reason the question has not been ca , riers for France; but he doubted whether this could be brought forward in the other house. I inakenosuch charge; done to any great extent. The same principle applied to I hold no such opinion; Ido not believe the fact; but Ido Spain and Portugal. We had given up a power which was telieve that if, at the commencement of these negotiations, of very little value, and had retained one which was more it had been announced that you were about to conclude efficient. But, supposing the right of search much more tie war on terms Which abandoned the naval superiority valuable, it was most easily evaded. The neutral power of this country, an universal feeling of indignation would tress generally interested in the cargoes carried by its ships; have been excited. lam of opinion that the course which and it would be easy to giv e th em a mu c h greater interest, has been pursued amounts to an abandonment of the naval Thus embarrassing questions would arise as to the degree superiority of this country, and before I sit clown I shall of interest in the ca rgo p ossesse d by th e neutr a l and the endeavour to show that that opinion is well founded. I belligerent power. The resolution declared that Groat 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 thseexceP tion. With t o s i gn , an i n di gnan t p ro t es t would have been made against regard to Portugal, it had been abandoned f o r 160 years • the betrayal, of the national 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 (N -and, as to the'United Provinces, for 113 years. These trea- c ' l iration of ' the plenipotentiaries is actually illegal, but ties had not been made with smell and insignificant States, certainly it does appear to me to be anything rather than but with the most powerful maritime States in the world. constitutional. And indeed I have observed, not without (Hear.) Then the resolution expressed regret that the satisfaction, that there appears to be some doubt, even principle tied been suddenly abandoned in the recent co:,- among the members of her M ejesty's Government, if not ferances at Paris. This was by no means the case. Years o f the validity at least of the porp dela ' yof this ngaee ago a most able speech had been made in the House of anent. My noble friend .the Lord Privy Seal has . told us Commons by the late Sir Wm. Molesworth, advocating the th a t a lth oug h by this act we have waived our right, yet principle embodied in this declaration ; and it had been re- th a t we by uis abandon the principle, that it is a peatodly r ec ogni se d by th e Government. H e was confident portion of the law of nations that belligerents shall the house would not lend itself to the expression of an I n °ni- have the right of seizing as lawful prize of war the pion, which was no t p ar ti c ip a t e d in by the, commercial goods of an enemy under a neural flag. I hoard classes of this coun t ry. H e conten d e d that n very por- this statement with gratification, bec Luse it seemed to me tent equivalent had been gained by this country. own -o afford some ground of hope that circumstances may commercial marine m ig ht (sense importantadeantages hereafter arise under the influence of which it may be from conducting the carrying trade of belligerent without being exposed to the risk of seizu; powers, found convenient to abandon this very declaration the ruo inent that we have experience of the stern exigencies of that it•was in the power of the United States e' to a m re i f t us ted e war. Allow me to call your attention to the terms in their assent to this declaration ; but, should they do so, w hi c h thi s d ec l ara ti on is couched. If it had been nothing we were not bound to recognise the same right in their ships as we did in those of other countries. The declarationewertel more than a stipulation for not carrying into effect certain articles of international law, —though probably I might pof the late conference could not fail to have a be disposed to call in question the expediency of such a moral effect, and to promote the prosperity of all the na- proceeding—should certainly not have discussed it politi tions concerned. (Hear.) cagy. But it is worthy of i emark 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 unc 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 goods except contrab an d o f w a r, end that neutral goods, his usual share of that great'Parliamentary virtue, but I • except contraband of war, aro not Halals to capture even think with rather loss 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 no bl e and unequivocal, not of what the law was, or shall be, or friends who preceded him. In one respect my'task is an ought to be, under peculiar circumstances, but of what it easy one, but in another it is difficult. It is easy, because flPr ivateering is, and remains, abolished. The neutral ie .a . g covers enemy's goods. Can anything be more dogmatic but little ground. is left for me to go over which has 'n o t or more dictatorial? Nevertheless, there is a strange incons beenalready most a bly oc c upi e d by m y nobl e f r i en d s , an d sisteucy in the manifesto, for the Plenipotentiaries then more vidio 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 debate reference' by the noble earl who spoke third in the and effect except with regard to those nations which ac with a degree of ower ann ability which must cept the whole of it. Here is a latitude and a laxity which, o h p a i v il e i, g w ra s ti li fie a e y l all .. your nirs p lships, ' whatever your political bearing in mind the positive and authoritative tone observ- I n and who from this night will stand in able throughout the earlier portions of the document, we the foremost rank of speakers in this house. (Hear.) But had little reasons to expect. The noble earl the Secretary i n another respect my te e k is not so easy, or if I may be , for Foreign Affairs talks contemptuously of the laws of allowed the expression, it: barbarous ages," and cannot suppress his scorn for usages. _ difficult because it is so easy sanctioned by the authority of such jurists as Grotius—men ~ My wound is great, b eseui . e it is so small." 1 who, be assured us, justified the slaughter of prisoners and I have no arguments to refute ; but I cannot give a vote the Killing of women and children. upon one of the most important quations which has e question the cons:: Tie Duke of ARGYLL, with much warmth—l never gaged our attention for a long time — a will be such as said anything of the kind. (Laughter.) quences and effects of which The Earl of DERBY—I entreat the noble duke to you little con- believe that lam not always talking of him. When I speak templat e a t t h e presen t mo ment, without recordin g m y of another person, it does not follow that it is he who is protest again s t a course o f proceeding, which I b e li eve to p resen t t o ra y thoughts. I stated most distinctly that it be not only humiliating and derogatory, but absolutel was to the noble earl the Foreign Secretary that I was al dangerous to the prime interests of England. (Hear.) my luding. True, the noble duke adopted a similar line of argn objection tothe course which the Government have been t t n h e a nt, but it was to the noble earl the Foreign Secretary iaduced to pursue is twofold. I object, in the first place, lidctice e c f o e l r d ri b n l g o . od l . was observing , that that noble earl chib a t l t t t e w r i i l a b s i u n r ted to Grotius the atrocity of vindicating the to the substance of.what they have done, and I object, in of slaughtering prisoners, and killing women and the next, to the mode and manner in which they have done do c a r . he n E e a l : a l of CLARENDON—I beg the noble lord's par: ' it. I will commence with the latter, upon which the entirely misinterpreted me. What I said was, noble duke has not expressed any with respect to opinion, but to which that many j s ests who defend those early laws and usages the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs ad "articular usages iz ei ritime rights, have also defended the vorten at considerable length. The noble earl took I with respect to Grori hieh he has great pains to assure us that it was clearly within the just alluded, and that, i i s e , he had recognised the right laid prerogative of the Crown to negotiate or conclude any na sa y what the noble lordw attributes down in the Con so l es° w in it it h e o s u to t assigning me his rea. treaty without, the previous sanction and approval of Par- sons fur so doing. That e s litre ' e tre I said—and I know I did liarnent. I know not why the noble earl took that trouble, because, as far as my knowledge extends, no one has as- The Earl of DERBY repudiated the intention of pervert note h e h a d taken of the r eed o r ma i n t a i ne d the contrary argument. W e have ing the noble earl's mesnin referring in justifi dmittod that prerogative of the Crown , and also that suc h cation of his statement to a g ' and after ox a degree of confidence should be reposed in the Ministers pressions that had fallen from . the n , ob f l a e ll e t a h r e l n p o r b o i c e e i e e e a le r e i l ie t c o i • of the Cr own as m i ght ena bl e t h em to negotiate a treaty say—_f will not dispute the point with the no , ble earl, but without th e previous sanction, control, or interferencet of I s will ' f take leave to assure him that, o Parliament. I think, moreovr, we have given a recognise principle ical authorities he has quoted, there is not one who does not proof of our sense of the value of that maxim by resisting,Preportion of the national law of Europe th e during the course of the present session, all the temptationswe contend for, that itis &portion of the national which the temper of the peoplethrew in t our way o ember- law t hat enemy's goods on board of neutral ships are liable rass the Government in their negotiations for peace. We to f capture, and that to capture them i s an inherent right ; o have given to them the co n fid ence d ue t o their position the belligerent Powers.. It is one of those maxims the we have imposed a studious silence upon ourselves; we positive and unquestionable nature of which is signified have not by word or action hindered their proceedings in the A use of the words nemo dubitat—no one doubts the smallest degree. But now I want to knew, in the first ity opposite doctrine was never put forward place, what is this declaration to which they have affixed until e ll 153 , when Prussia for the first time claimed their signatures ? • The noble earl admits that it is not a that th e neutral lag should be held to cover the goods of the enemy. That claim was opposed by England with a strenuous power 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 wrote a few years later, in 1758, availed hiniself of the • occasion to lay it down as aprinciple 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 180 1 , 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 thisdoctrine we should be alone. We have been alone, and yet maintained and up- - held the doctrine against a confederacy of opponents. 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 demn 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, whomayhave 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 ftyourable, (gear.) 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 Walewski 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 cautions; 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 t 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 Russian 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 aro to sacrifice the maritime greatness of Britain at the shrine of Russia? Shall we allow entire freedom to the trade of France I 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 stack ? Shall we allow her to re ceive naval stores undisturbed, and to rebuild and refit that navy which the valour of our seamen has destroyed? Shall we voluntarily give up our maritime consequence and expose ourselves to scorn, to derision, and to contempt ? No man can deploy e more than 1 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 Four nations have leagued to pro duce a new code of maritime laWs, in defiance of the established law of nationr, 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 rights 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 Mieisters, 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 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 his 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 world in arms might be leagued against them, the British Ministers of those days would not propose, and, if they had, the British people would not have consented to the surrender. (Cheers.) Now let us come to later times. We are toad that times are changed, that we are not the powerful nation we were before, that other Powers have grown up, and that we ought 'Co beware how we provoke the hostility of other nations. Shortly before his death Mr. Canning not only refused to surrender this right, hub 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 hell 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 had been had to proposals of amicable negotiatiousfor the purpose of defining, limiting, or qualifying tile exercise of tho 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 wnich would be acceptable to the other party the exercise of a right, without impairing, if not sacrificing, the 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 eheers)— let us go a step further—let us give up that which all statesmen in all ages have hell to be the main stay of our maritime superiority, and then let us say what the result will be? That is the whole of their argument. If Pitt was a barbarian, if Canning was a barbarian, if neither of them know 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 iu the same line of barba rians with Canning, Pitt, Lord Hawkeshury, and Lord Shelborne. I am willing to be numbered myself among these modern ancients, and to leave all civilization and wisdom to the noble duke and the noble earl opposite, and to the rest of the noble lords who coustitute 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 s iid, 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 timore which have been addressed to ns 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 wits 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, even as regards those nations which have joined in this de claration. Yon 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 moo especially against America, Fec.iuse you say that the limited advantages which ale 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 privateering, but the President of the United States, who is a l mos t 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 ever 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 free 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 thatbecause 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 yon grant one principle you must grant the other. And yet, among all the treaties to which noble lords op posite have referred, and which I entirely pass by is being beside she 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 toi n Eliot injury upon neoffendin o e in lividuals, and if yen limit these injuries to cases in which neutrals are virtually assisting belligerents by bringing them what is necessary for carrying on the operations of war—nay, even by increasing the wealth and cotumeicial strength of the country, we are doing nothing TITE SUN, LOND-ON, FRIDAY EVIENINVr, MAY 23, 1R56, but what is consistent with natural law, and we are taking the best steps to put an earl to war. But before I leave the - United States and the fear which has been expres,ed that, hi the event of our persisting in the maintenance of "oar ancient claim, the United States would refuse to re cognise it, let me read what Chancellor Kent and Profes sor Wheaton, who was lately American Minister at Berlin, say upon the subject. Let me preluise it by saying that all the Powers who entered into this solemn le.io - of ue neu trality to which they refer very soon abandoned prin ciples. Within 18 years every one of them had signed treaties in which the principles of neutrality were com pletely given up. Chancellor Kent says,— - "'The Baltic conventional law of neutrality was soon abandoned, as not being sanctioned by the existing law of nations, in every case in which the doctrines of that code did not rest on positive contracts. During the whole course of the ware growing out of the French Revolution the Government of the United States admitted the English rule to be valid, as the true and settled doctrine of international law, and that enemy's 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 owls 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 be founded ou 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 with 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, formiug 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 an 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 aro 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 not given to it by the primitive law of nations." Now, there is the doctrine laid down in supNrt of the opinion of every British statesman, recognisifik the law and the duty of neutral nations to submit to the right which we claim to exercise. I look upon this question as the most important which your lordships can be called on to discuss, and depend upon it that the time will come, if yon don't estimate its importance now, you will deeply feel its consequences. My lords, I look upon this act of tlic Government as cutting off the right arm, as it were, of the country. I look upon it as depriving her of those natural ad vantageswhich 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 nut the mistress of the seas she falls immediately and naturally into the position of a third-rate Power. France 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, bat 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 upan 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 he employs—that the stronger al 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, nod 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 theabaudonment 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 the 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 the French military force. The only power which you could bring against Russia was a naval power; and if that had basin 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 m.antenance 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 R sin 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 on the earth. If you had not had that assistance would you have signed a peace with Prussia for the next 10 years, unless it involved more humiliating concessions than you have made by the abandonme.3 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 snore 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 France, except closing her up hermetically and stopping her commerce? Well, what are you to do ? You can't blockade the whole coast of France ; but you ca I 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. France 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, anti 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 bolls and illuminating your town. I say the country does not see the dangers to which it is exposed; bat depend upon it, when painful experioace 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 paver and gre ttoesi. Igo then to the United States, Do you pre tend that 2,000 miles of seacoast can b 3 uninterruptedly blockaded under whatever circumstances of wind or • weather? Do you mean to say you will apply that prin cipls to a war with the Unitel States? What will happen with regard to the commerce of the United States ? The United States is not titled, unless she enters into the con ' veutien, 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 puck 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 coutraba id of war. Do you mean to accrds to that demand or to refuse it? If you :accede you place yourself in this posit ion,—the trade and c omme rce of the United States remain unieterrupted by the intervention of French neu trals, anal by the refusal of the Milted States to come into the convention they maintain the belligerent right of pri vateering oo goods in your ships. Upon .the principle of privateering, I can ouly,say Ishould cordially rejoice to see it altogether abolished. It is to the interest of all nations that it should be abandoned. It is can:wary to morality i 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 the common consent of nations. (Cheers.) I am not speaking of the three resolutions to be moved by ray noble friend above me. but of privateering properly understood. (Hear.) But if you tell me that the abandonment of privateering is a conce:sion made to Eng land in order to get 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. ust 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, stipule thane, or treaties. (Cheers.) I cannot accept the surren der of privateering as a boon to England. I accept it cor dially and willingly as a concession to humanity, but not 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 jurists of modern 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 throw 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-considered, dangerous act of her Majesty's Government shall receive the 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 my duty,and if I stood alone in condemning this assumption of right, not to limit by treaty, but to recognise and establish a principle of international law at variance with the interests of the country and without its know ledge or sanction—l say, if I stood alone, I would support the revolutions of my noble friend—l would divide the house upon this question—l would give to every one of your lordships the power of recl•rdieg 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 CLA.REND'JN — It mac 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 with other Governments in its repression. The Earl of DE ttßY—You signed that protocol. (Hear.) The Earl of CLARENDON—The contrary is the case. I defended the liberty of the press in Belgium as I do at n ewspapers condemned b y Count home, and th e on ly Walewski i n b r i ng i ng the matter under the n o ti ce of the Congress cann o t b e called a portion of the Belgian press, but were those papers surreptitiously printed without the names of the printers ou 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 donated, and those are newspapers which I think will bet elndeu3ned 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 their lordships that they ought to agree in passing a solemn Parliamentary censure, had 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, he ob jected to the manner in which the Government had entered into the consideration of the question ; and, secondly, he 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 he contended that the declaration should not have been signed without the previous assent of Parliament. Ho had now abandoned that ground; he had 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 had 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, atd 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 he 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 who 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 for the future the right of seizing enemy's property in neutral ships. Now, in considering the question raised by the noble earl and his fiiends, 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. Lushingtou, in answer to his inquiries, said the practice was that, when a British cruiser fell in with a ship un:ler 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 c ise, 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 had 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 the right of search, but he must remind the noble earl that the United States had, he believed, neverobjected to the execrise 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 Bos ton or New York were declared to be British subjects, and were removed from American ships, and it was 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 hai shown that it could produce a naval force far exceeding any the world had hitherto beheld, without having recourse to the odious and unjust system of impressment. (Hear, hear.) He hoped that example had put ae 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 end Manes, in wh'clithis country took no part, would they endure it that every English ship clearing out from Bordeaux should be overhauled by an American frigate, 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 Atheistic 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 Englishmen? This system was bad enough in the great revolittionary war, but when they considered how commercial intercourse had since increased, how trading transactions had multiplied, and when they remembered that during the interval the tonnage of the United States had increased five-fold, they could not believe that such a system would ho tolerated for a day. Great, however, as was the injustice of the old system, it was wholly itieffectnal 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 1,700,003/. 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 to neutral nations to submit any measure they thought ex pedient for distressing an enemy, they might 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 he (E a rl G re y) th oug ht 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 'sae able to stand. lie must say he thought that such expressions as had been used by the noble earl opposite were calculated to exercise an injurious influence neon 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 had fallen from the noble earl (Derby) 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 satisfaction 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 au interest in Iles 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 her 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 made 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 sot only the present but also the past and future, for I should have supposed that he was aware that in the official phraseology of the French lan guage the present tense is invariably employed to express the luture. (gear, he et* ) In conclusion, I have to invite your ordships' attention to the following letter from Lord Campbell : "Central Criminal Court, Thursday, Dear Lord Granville,----As, from the important trial still pending hero, 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 opiuon which I have before expressed in my that the conventien for the modification of the law of marl time warfare is beneficial to England, and was constit u ti on . ally entered into by the English Government.—Yours, v er y truly, " CAMPllnrs. " The Earl Granville.' To that letter I will only add the sincere expression of 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 eini. rent of our statesmen, may be made fairly and honourably, 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 -102 Against the motion : Not Contents—Present Proxies —l5 ci Majority against the motion. 5l 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 pa , sed : —Alford Valley Railway, Barnsdale and Leeds R ,ad, Kettering and Newport Paguell Road, Luton, Dons table, and Welwyn Junction Railway, Midland Railway. Norfolk Railway, Stockport and Warrington Road, and Wolverhampton Water. The following bills were considered and read a third time :—London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway (Ex tension and Branches), and E y Tidal Harbour and NEW WESTMINSTER BRIDGE. In reply to a question from Mr. W. WILLIAMS, Sir B. HALL - said, he wai unable to state the exact state of the new Westminster-bridge. He should re ceive a report from the engineer in 10 days, which no doubt would give the necessary information, and state when the new bridge was likely to be completed. THE CONIMUNICATION 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 cut mit• 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 down to Bussorah. Both those schemes had been proposed for the favourable consideration of the Indian Government, and that favouraWe consideration would of course be given, but until the schemes were submitted in detail it would be impossible to enter :ico 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 hat 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 could 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 sorah. That scheme had been very much promoted by a gentleman of great celebrity, I'r. O'Shaughnessy, who had called the attention of the Indian Government to the advantages which this line possessed over the other he had mentioned. Bath these plans, however, would re• ceive every consideration, the object is view being to favour as much as possible the communication with [ndia. FACTORY INSPECTORS. Mr. HARDY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the report of the factory iaspr!ctors for the six months ending the 30th day of April last would be in the hands of members ; and wnether 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 f )ctory inspectors, or any of them, t) the Secretary of State for the Home Department ; and, it so, whether he would have any objection to lay such coin munications on the table ? Sir G. GREY said the repots had been sent in within the last few days, arid i hey would soon be iaid on the table of the house. There were objections to laying the communications referred to in their present state before the house. 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 Prautices Preve tion Act, 1854 ? Lord PALMERSTON said it wai the intention 01 the Government to prop ic the continuance of the act for a limited period. HAMPSTEAD HEATFI. In reply to a que4tion from Lord R. GROSVENOR, Sir B. - HALE; said that the Government did not in. tend to take steps for the purchase of Hampst.-ad Heath. A deputation had waited on the Board of Works rela• tive to it. That Beard had the power of purchasing it. INDIAN BUDGET. In reply to a ve,tion, Mr. V. SMITH said he should bring on the Indian budget as soon as he could get a day. (Laughter.) THE AMNESTY. Mr. PELLA.TT asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that as there were above a thou sand persons in England and Wales lying in prison for debt, 240 of which were under 61 (debt and costs), who might be restored to their families and occupations for the sum of 1,5001., and as there were a few confined for pro'ricted periods, extending to 40 years, whether the Government would mon:mend them to her Majesty, and debtors under 101. to be included in the commemo rative Peace Amnesty, graciously extended to Frost, Williaous, and Jones, and bother political offenders ? (Laughter.) Sir G. GREY said there was a greater difference be tween critniu4l prisoners and those confined for debt than 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 could 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. COBB= moved that " this house will resolve itself into the said committee upon this day eie months," and proceeded to state the objections he h: d to this bill for providing fencing to machinery in factories. He condemned the bill as altogether impracticable. Mr. T. DUNCO ‘II3E seconded the amendment. Mr. W. PA.TTEN condemned the conduct of the honourable, member for Oldham with reference to the bill. He had given notice of amendments to the bill, and atter 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 been brought in. He hal 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 invent, and suggested to the hon. member for Oldham to withdraw it and allow toe bill to go into committee. Col. DUNNE was in favour of the amendment. Sir G. GREY supported the house going into cow mittee. Mr. MUNTZ complained that neither the mover of the bill nor the Government hail 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 wi ar, into committee. Clauses 1,2, and 3 were agreed to. Clause 4 was objected te by Mr. COBBETT, on the ground that the machinery should be fenced, not only where " children and young perions" passed and worked, but should extend to all, and protect all persons from danger who were engaged in factories the same as by the present law, according to the decision in the Court of Exchequ.r. Mr. W. PATTEN defended the clause, and said that in that clause he had used the sane words as were in the 21st section 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 grownup persons 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 divide], when there were— For the amendment Against it Majority —136 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 coznmittee with several amend meats. FORMATION, &c., OF PARTSHES 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. rent.., were postponed. On clause 9, which provided for the distribution of alms or voluntary contributions, a discussion ensued upon the proper interpretation of the clause. Mr. HENLEY objected to it. Mr. GLADSTONE and Lord GODERICIT objected to it. Lord BLANDFORD Raid it might be better to poet 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 ohjected to this. Sir G. GREY sugested that at that hour (half-past 12) it would be better to report progreAH. This was assented to, and the house resumed. RATING OF MINES' BILL. This bill was pstpuLeci in udder to the appintutent a select coinfoi4eo on the subject, to which Nlr, BOUVERIE a-sentet% REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill passed through committee. JUDGMENTS EXECUTION, &e., BILL. Mr. CRAUFURD moved the second reading of this bill. Mr. NAPIER said it was unreasonable to press ths second reading of a bill which had been before a vie ° committee and rejected by the house last year. Sir G. GREY agreed with the right hon. and learned member, and thought it would be impossible to discuss the bill at present. After some conversation, Mr. BUTT moved the adjournment of the debate. The motion for adjourning the debate was agreed to. and the second reading postponed till to-morrow (t lll6 day). The Registration of Leases (Scotland) Bill was read second time. The Fire Insurances Bill, as amended, was considered' COMMISSIONERS OF SUPPLY (SCOTLAN D) BILL. This bill was read a third time and passed. R EGISTRATION OF VOTE RS (SCOTL AND) BILL : i i On the motion of the LORD•ADVOCATE, this b pi was referred to a select commit:me. SLEEPING STATUTES BILL. The passage of this bill through the cominittee stag e ; at 1 o'clock in the morning, caused some laughter. kV than one hon, member was enjoying a doze when tb order was called on. INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL. a On the motion of Lord GODERICH this bill was r ead a third time and passed. SUMMARY JURISDICTION BILL. • i , The order fur the second reaiing of this bill was. u l charged on the motion ut Mr. L. KING. PUBLIC HEALTH. Mr. COWPER obtained leave to bring in a bill to O r firm provisional orders of the General B,ard of Sol tb applying the Public Itea!to Act, 1848, to the distriets°e Waterloo with Seaforth, West Haw, Sowerby 1 36 '1; and Moss-side ; for alteration of the boundaries of t districts of Rusholine arid Bishop Auckland ; and fut other purposes. ARBITRATION ACT (SCOTLAND) AMEN .P ' MENT. Mr. CRAUFURD obtained leave to bring i n a bill t ° amend the law relative to the arbitration of disputes b r tween masters and workmen. NUISANCES REMOVAL (SCOTLAND) 111. L ec On the motion of the LORD-ADVOCATE the oru i , for the second reading of the Nuisances Removal, , (Scotland) Bill was read and discharged. The house then adjmirned at a q uarter.palt 1 o'clock' PARLIAMENTARY DIVISION. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MAY 22. TORIES B. Order for committee FACTORIES BILL. Order for committee read. Motion lLL made and questioa " proposed, " That Mr. Speaker do now leave the cbs,l,l;'o Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " That, the end of the question, in order to add the words "to house will, upon this day six months, resolve itself Otit the saintcommittee," instead thereof. Question Pci " That the words proposed to be left out stand jo t o, the question." The house divided—Ayes, 207; - AYES-207. Acton, Joseph Foley, J. H. Mulgrave, Earl °f Adderley, C. B. Fortescue, C. S. Mundy, W. Agnew, Sir A. Fox, W. J. Naas, Lord Ind rsoa, Sir J. Freestun, Colonel Napier, Sir 0• , 'eoiley, Sir J. French, Fitzstephen Newark, Viscottlo Baillie, El. Galway, Viscount Noel, G. Baird, J. Gibson, 11. Norreys, Sir IN i taring, Sir F. Gladstone, W. North, Col. J. „. Baring, T. Gladstone, Capt. J, Northcote, Sir D. Barrow, W. Glyn, G. O'Brien, J. Bass, M. Goderich, Viscount Oliveira, B. Beatnish, F. Gower, F. Osborne, R. ,$. Beckett, W. Graham, Sir J. Pakenhant, CLIP Bell, J. Greenall, Gilbert Pakington, Sir J• Bernard, Vist. Gr.enc, Thomas Palk, L. Biggs, W. Gregson, Samuel Palmer. Robert .. Black, Adam Grenfell, Charles Palmer, Rounclo,,ool Blackburn, P. Grey, lit. Hon. Sir G. Palmerston , ViScv Bond, J. Grey, It. Peacocke, G. 1 5 nhain.Carter, J. Grosvenor, Ld. R. Pellatt, A. „ Bouverie, lion. E. P. Hadfield, George Pennant , CoI. P. Bowyer. G. Hall, Sir Benjamin Percy, J. ~.,.. t ' if' Bramston, T. W. Hamilton. Lord Claud Pollar d- a l Brand, H. B. N. liankey, T. Price, W. Brocklehurst, J. Hamner, Sir John Pritchard, J. B rown, W. Hustle, Archd. Raynharn, 110" Buck, Col. Hayes, Sir E. Reed, J. Buckley, Gen. Ileatheoate, Sir W. Ricardo, 0 . Bader, Sir J. Henley, J. Ricardo, S. iturrowes, Robert Herbert, 11. Rice, E. Rung, G. II C. Herbert, Sir T. Rich, Li. Oampb 11. Sir A. I. Heywood, J. Russell, F. C. Cavendish, G. C. Hindley, C. Shaft°, 11. "ayley, E. S. Holford, It. Shelley-, Sit J. Challis; T. Holland, E. Shirley, B. Chaplin, W. Horsfalt, T. Smith, J. B. Cheetham, John Horsman, E. Smith, R. child, Smith Hotham, Lord Smith, W. Christy, Samuel Howard, C. Smollett, A. Clay, Sir W., Bt. Howard, L , rd E. Spooner, it. Cocks, T. S. Hughes, W. Statroitd, A. Cole, 11. A. Hutchins, E. Stafford, I'd arq U ' Colvile, C. R. Hutt, W. Stanley, W. Yrossley, F. Johnstone, J. Steel, John Davie, Sir H. R. F. Jolliffe, Sir W. Strutt, lion. r. Davies, D. Kendall, N. Stewart, sir 3f. Davies, J. Kershaw, J. Stuart. Captain Davison. R. Kingscote, Capt. R. Tattered, IL Deedes, William • Knatchbuli, W. Thesiger, sir. r • Denison, E. Knightley, R. Thompson, 0. De Vere, A. E. Labouclere,llt.Hon.H Thornely, T. Dill wyn, L. L. Lascelles, E. Thornhill, W. I tisraeli, B. Lewis, Sir U. C. Tolletnache, J. Duncan,Wiscount Liddell, El. G. Trollope, Sir J. Duncan, George Lindsay, Col. J. Waddington, a• Dangarvan, Viscount Littleton, E. Whitbread, S. Dunlop. A. Lovaine, Lord Whiteside, J. Egerton, W. Mackie, J. Whitmore. 11. Egerton, Edw. MacGregor, James Wickham, il• Ellice, E. Marjoribanks, D. Wilkinson, W. Evart, J. Martin, P. Willcox, B. c ,, r f, Fenwick, H. Massey, W. Winnington, =''' Fergus, John Miles, W. Wood, Sir C. Ferguson, Colonel Milligan, R. Wyndham, W. Ferguson, J. 31iiner, W. M. E. Wynne. W. Ferguson, Sir J. Monett, Via. Wynne, John Fitzgerald, J. ilonsell, W. TELLES°. Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Moody, C. Patten, Col. Fitzroy, Henry Mowbray, J. R. Stanley, Lord NOES-50. Arbuthnott, Gen. II Fuller, A. E. _ . Newdegate. C • Berkeley, Hon. 11. F. Gallwey, Sir W. O'Connell, 0. Bignold, Sir S. Gaskell, J. O'Connell, J. Blake, M. J. Gooch, Sir E. Ossulston, Lo ra Blakemore, T. G-eville, Colonel F. Sandars, G. Bland, L. H. Grogan, Edward Smyth, John 6, Blandford, Marquis of Halford, Sir Henry Strickland, 'l r , Bolder°, Col. 11. G. Hardy, G. Taylor, Colon el Codrington, Sir C. W. Kelly, Sir F. Tottenham, C• Drummond, 11, Langton, li. G. Vernon, V. Buncombe, Hon. A. Laslett, W. ..,.• Warren, S. Buncombe, O. Lennox, Lord A. F. Wise, A. Dunne, M. Lowther, Col H. C. Woxid, B. .. Dunne, Colonel Macartney, G. Wyndha m , Ge n ' Esmonde, J. M'Gregor, John Easton, !..arl of Michell, William TELLESS. Farnham, E. Muntz, G. Cobbett J. „„.,,,00 Forster, Charles Neeld, John Dancombe, Country rdarkets. DERBY SMITHFIELD.—MAT 20. $ 0 1 ; The mlrket was well supplied with fat beasts o f ° lent quality, and a goo I demand at former pril s io). ll ! s_veral we left unsold. The number of sheepafl u 1 was n>t large, anti mostly disposed of. Fat pigs 9 A good supply of fat and stoi e calves. eJ The following wore the quotations :—Beef, rj j e l f mutton, 7d to ; lamb, 8d to 80; veal, 60 LC to il l lb. ; pigs, lOs6d to lie Od per score ; rough fat, 48 6l n a per 141 b. ; hides, 31d to 4d per lb ; calf-skins, 30 per lb. EDINBURGH GRAIN.—MAY 21. 0 0 Although there was a fair demand for all sorts of 6 ,1 to-day, prices were easy for all kinds. e O g e Wheat, on the top, 24 down, and on the averog 00 down. Barley, is Od down on the top, and Id uP ....verage. Oats on the top 8d up—on the avoil i oil" 7d down. Beaus on the top 6d down—on the a ° 6d down. AVERAGES PER IMPERIAL QUARTER. ~,,, Wheat .00 Do. new - 1, „ Barley - 1 2 t .; Oats 1 7 10 10-1 2 1',,,' Beans -12‘m". BOSTON—MAT 21. The supply of wheat was limited, and for the be i. st, 6 e s sY P, pies the prices realised were about the same as lesv A i odo inferior qualities in better request than of late, 101 : is to 2s per qr. more money. Of spring corn th e ' B - ° little ou offer, and prices were unaltered. ga3 03 Prices :—Wheat, red, 56s Od to 70s Od; white, Q 1 72s Od extra, 74s Ocl. Barley, —s Od to —s 110 183 to 28s. Beans, 38s Od to 45s Od. Peas, 38 to per qr. NEWARK—MAY 21. 0. 1 to We had a full attendance of f arm e rs , with f'lib° la supply of grain of all descriptions. Trade dull, " prises 04 1 :to Wheat, white 72s to 78s, red 66 2 to 71s; barleY,,; ieol —s to —s, grinding s to ...s; oaten, •Ast. 30s to 3 4 ' 1 :1, 26s to 275; beans, 40s to 463 ; malt: 72s to 765; 0 to 4:s ; tares, 60s to 64s per qr. BIRTHS. 07 & 150 b , On the 21st inst., at King's-road, Clapham-Ps r pt ,e, wife of Win. Jones, Esq. irw On the '2lst ult., at Bonn on•the-Rhine, 3111 ' Straith Miller. • 31 1 A DATI GHTER. bo l ; On the 221 inst, at 3, Blomfield-street, circus, the wife of Charles Fra nein Gibson, Esq. , ° of On the 21st in s t., a t S wanagp R ec t ory , the vir'y Rev. Duncan Travers. MARRstep lED. 1 ,00 On the 2!st inst., at St. James's, Paddingtul i f c o ot g a , Green, Esq., S of Clapham-par k, to Mary, the lo td daughter of the late William Clay, Esq., of hill. p.l O O On the "2d inst., at Edmonton parish churclbloot, ! er , Webb, of 25, Mincing-lane, a) Id Richmond, voTiiieet.a, of Win. Webb, Esq., :3, Bro; td Sanctuary, Wes Si,l ll° to Ann, second daughter of 'Firm. Boards, Esq.' , gale Hall, Edmonton. D I 1'1111 : On the 22d inst., Frederic .Kinder, Esq., late °f donne-road, Notting-hill, aged. 38. n On the 19th inst., at Qua en's-terrace, wuli. n e viz Bayswater, John Raikes Bay Iy, Esq., late "- . 0 I T Wilts. On the 16th inst., Sarah, t 7 se wife of Ssuille o o EN., of Derby, aged 65. , •-"--------.....-- , v. 10 v g LONDON: Printed and Pubii3l led by raufwo --,, II"' of No. 112, Strand, Printor at The Stu& Office' . ." o . tf) Strand, in the Precinct of : die Savoys in ti le 6 Dliddlooex, Wednesday, Mt 1 23, 1356. Q : 11: month ai brin g , it IteWain." M^ Bt 11 CRAn v -nrren, v,,___Thread 14 ° ] LAIE 14uelisrls1 b e °4 and lseu ed trails a s ,Orid or r)a.ford !terb, Zrlntri yr °lye] C.; ezere All von, ?°' ibui!! the b,: Their Per . iali er , __,__ (fti ~,._, 11 ' 1 I J., ao 1 1 7 40 to Go 1 I ,P -,.... Perk) 1 11.4, 1 A ssn Ab i ssii Itt e ,