The Express.
London, England, 1862-03-12 00:00:00

=ne at sea should not be respected in like manner.
wee an additional reason for this principle in
the cue of naval warfare. It was this, that
the conqueror could not acquire the sovereignty of
the sea ; why then should be be entitled to seize merchant
vessel.? He could understeod that it might be politic, it
not quite just, on the part of a great maritime power, not
to give up any belligerent rights at eft ; but it seemed to
be only consistent with justice to say that merchant vessels
ought to be protected. At the same time he concurred in
the resolution so far as it went to say that this subject
required the atieetion of the government
itir G. C. LEWIS said that the question which had been
raised by the debate of that night was one of first rate ins.
pounce. (Hear, hear.) It would be of great importance
to a nation which bad not, like England, • great national
navy and a great mercantile marine. But in England,
situated as she was. it was of paramount importance that this
questiongehonld receive a rightdecisiou, and he trustedthat,
whatever might be the result of the motion, they should
not come to any precipitate conclusion, or one of which they
might afterwards repent All international law must,
in a certain sense, be ill defined. It was not laid
down by any legislature, it was only collected from the de-
cision of the courts of different nations, and the writings
and doctrines of different authorities ; bat if any part of
international law was better defined than another,
it was that relating to the seizure of claws of
goods belonging to belligerent nations, especially after
the declaration of Paris. There was another part
of the question much insisted upon by the hon. and learned
member for Dundalk, who had referred to • very
able pamphlet—be meant the statement that Viol ought to
assimilate the law of maritime war to the law of land war-
fare. What was the strength of that argument? In the
first place it was said that all private property was spared
in land warfare. Now he (Sir G. C. Lewis) met that asser-
tion by the mod formal denial. (Hear, hear.) By the laws
of land warfare, as recognised by the most civilised
nations and according to the most recent practice, pri-
vate property was not ;respected. It was respected only
so far as it suited the present convenience of. the belligerent
army. (Hear, hear.) There never was an army under more
strict discipline, in which the commander was le, disposed
to commit excess by hie soldier, or showed • greater dis-
position to spare the country which was the theatre of the
wee. than the army under the Duke of Wellington during
the Peninsular campaign ; but what was the practice of
that army ? When they arrived at • village at night the
proper officer told out • certain number of men
from the different regiments to strip off the roofs and other
timber from the houses for the purpose of making fires to
enable the troops to boil their suppers. (laughter.) That
was a violation of private property, but it was the neetesity
of war. He did not think that such an event was on record
as &campaign in which private p rty was invariably res-
=MNo doubt in modern warfare private property had
uch more respected than it was in the middle
we, or during the thirty yam war, but that was
owing considerably to the forbearance of the belligerent
powers, and to the more humane and civilised principles
which prevailed—not to treaties or compacts between those
powers, nor to resolutions like that proposed by the hon.
member. It was produced by the general softening of man-
ners and the general improvement of humanity. They
might hope that similar ratite might be pro-
Maned in maritime warfare, but they could not
be pointed in the manner the hon. member had pointed
ei& But there was another most important distinction
between land and maritime war, on which the whole quer.
tion might be saidto tarn. When yoar conquered a country,
you conquered its government, and when you had conquered
its government, you had conquered that engine by which
the country could be plundered. (Loud laughter.) That
vas a plain and homely phrase, bat nevertheless it did
express the exact truth. (Coetinned laughter.) What
=Zein Dote during the From* occupation, and after
eet Vienna and the conquest by Napoleon? The
hotels possemsd in the government of Prussia the most
=rert: iNeflinun, dering
that thatince:onorprovi. !le rei
the Pnewlea metterehy the breed of agriculture% hoses bad
not then losneempletely restored in consequence of nearly all
thosehemes bowie' been swept off for the Russian expedition.
Be ends, usentioned this as an illustration of the way in
giallo government could raise war contributions. But
the Ns wee the highway of nations, and was not the sub-
ject of sovereignty or government, and therefore the only
way is which a belligerent could exercise control over the
property of an enemy at sea, was by capture through their
armed) ships. With regard to the assimilation of land
warfare and sea warfare the real assimilation was effected
by the declarations of the treaty of Paris, when this country
surrendered the right of privateering. There was the real
analogy between land warfare and sea warfare which the
hoe. gentlemen was in search of. A private individual was
not permitted to Ko out on an exploring expedition
on he own account to land warfare. The contest was un-
fitted to the army ai the State. At the same time the army
was not restrained from seizing private property whenever
melt seizure might be necesauy. If, unfortunately, war
bad taken place with the United States, he did not think it
Moly that England would have had recourse to the system of
pnrateeeing against the United States, although it was not
a party to the treaty of Paris. England had abandoned that
right. He went to the full extant of the hon. gentleman
in assimilating maritime warfare with land war-
fare, but be did not agree that the armed slim
of the country were not to be allowed to take
mercantile ships of the enemy. For example, suppose &g-
-land was at war with • foreign state, and the Beet was
lyiog ad Plymosth--aecording to thitsroposition of the
right hoe. geellemits • foreign ship t sail through the
fleet without liability to capture. e thought that was
carrying the doctrine cd forbearance to almost an absurd
extent. (Hear.) It would be like interdicting. ourselves
from the use of gunpowder or heavy ordnance m time of
warfare. (No, no.) If the opinions oi the civilised world
condemned the practice of the capture by an armed ship of
the merchantmen of the navy, of comes it was competent
to us at any time to surrender to that principle,
but he thought the home would come to a prema-
ture and unwise decision, if on • vague generality—
a formula which might receive any construction, but which
did receive a peculiar interpretation in the speech of the
hon. mover, they were to call upon the government to sub-
scribe to a principle liable to such formidable and weighty
objection. (Hear.)
Sir G. BOWYER explained that what he intended to
say was Rutin warfare on land private property was not
systematically seized, condemned, and sold, it it was in
maritime warfare. (Hear.)
Mr. T. BARING said that he far one certainly supposed
that the declaration of Paris was still in existence and
force, and that it would be permanently sdhered to ; but
after what the right hon. gentleman had said he had reason
to doubt. The right hon. gentleman not only referred to
armed nentriddies which existed before the convention of
Paris, as involving principles on which the government
ought to act in time of war, and had not only said that
that convention would be broken through in time of war,
but went further, and said that no compact and no treaty
made in time of pees was binding in war. (Hear, bear.)
But it should be recollected that this convention of Paris
was • convention made in time of poem, to provide against
the horrors of war. (Hear, hear.)
Sir G. LEWIS explained that what he meant to say was,
We he conceived the declaration of Paris to be binding as
between this country and neutrals during the existence of
war, and equally binding as • treaty, though only a declara-
tion ; but if England were at war with any of the parties
to that declaration, then, like other treat( it would cease
to have a binding effect as regarded that bell t. (Hear.)
Mr. BARING said that the treaty of Paris was • decla-
ration made between six or seven powers, including the
great maritime 'towers of Europe, the only dissenting
maritime power being that of the United States ; therefore
it would act in reality, in time of war, as binding on all
parties except the two belligerents. But did the right hon.
gentleman mean to say that they were to discuss now
whether it was a binding provision or not? The Attorney -
Gueral admitted that the declaration wan thingof the put
He (Mr. Baring) did not intend to digests the merits of that
declaration. He believed that for the progress of commer-
cial prosperity some treaty was at that time necessary.
Whetherit ought to have been carried to the extent it was,
was matter for reflection at that time, but it was now
matter of fact. England therefore had to consider the
question that this being the law she adopted how it would
act upon her mercantile navy and commerce. if he under-
stood the treaty, England must hold harmless
neutral goods wherever found. Neutral bottoms
were made to cover belligerent geode likewise.
In that state of things whet would happen In case of a war
between this country and France' Was it not evident that
the whole of the commerce of this country must pow into
the hands of neutrals? (Hear, hem.) We changed our
navigation laws. He did not blame the government for
that. It was • thing done. For his own part he wee for
gradual and cautious progress ; but whenever a step had
been taken, he was not for gosug book. He agreed with
the right hon. gentleman in the sentiment that it was very
inconvenient to discuss national policy on a resolution. He
did not know the object of his boa. friend's motion, but he
understood it to be to elicit au opinion from the
house and the government ; not that he thought
they should bind the government to any particular oourae,
bat it was desirable the house should express to the govern.
ment what they believed to he the feeling of the commercial
interests of the country. (Hear.) This would strengthen
the hands of the government in negotiating with other
powers. Whether the motion should be made by an ad-
dress to the crown was • matter of minor importance,
because the right hon. gentleman had distinctly stated that
the government would not listen to the consideration of
private interests at all. The right hoe. gentleman mid they
might as well upset the whole treaty of Paris as entertain
the question, and be quarrelled with his hon. friend for not
agitating a question which it was thought was settled.
The right boo. gentleman said, You make this motion
generally, but make a speech on a particular point.
But it was that particular point they wished to press on the
consideration of the government. He (Mr. Baring) was as
anxious for the supremacy of our navy as say one, but he
could not see how that could be advanced by duoinishisg
the interests of the shipping and commerce of the country.
Did the right hon. gentleman mean to say that the navy
would be lees effective if it were not bound to protect
our mercantile shipping in time of war? Would this
country be losers by such an arrangenuat ? Who had the
largest commercial fleet? England had. What country
would pin most by the proserwatica of the goods oar.
vied I. its ships? England would undoubtedly. You
say the object was to injure the weeny. What
acontry was sore Wired in its eanneeres by war than Esg-
load ? (Hear.) The pecieseMen of the nonsense of other
countries was, is feat, the puteetion ef English esenimerne.
(tiler.) The tight Ma. gestlemea hod abetted to the