The Press.
London, England, 1856-05-24 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

sions by the English Government. It had now been
abandoned; and the question was whether a Minister
could so sign away a portion of the law of the land,
and what was the value of this particular document
so signed. In conclusion, the noble lord urged the
questionable manner in which this change was
effected without the sanction of any of the constitu-
tional authorities of the kingdom.
The Earl of CLARENDON said the question was not
one of law but of policy. The right was one the ex•
ercise of which had involved this country in very
serious disputes, and its abandonment had become
almost a matter of necessity, in consequence of the
alliances England had contracted with nations who
viewed the principle with dislike. In concluding the
convention, the plenipotentiaries had acted on the
great precedent of the convention by which the slave
trade was denounced and suppressed. Had they
confined themselves strictly to those matters which
affected Russia, they would have lost a great oppor-
tunity of settling many important questions ; nothing
would have been said of the affairs of Italy, nor of
the principle of mediation, by the discussion of which
he believed a new obstacle had been placed in the
way of war. England had abandoned with signal
success many exclusive rights once thought essential
to her greatness ; she had abandoned the system of
protection and privileges for her mercantile marine ;
and by abolishing the practice of privateering she
hail acted on sound policy, and done much to reduce
the miseries and barbarities of a war.

The Earl of C kIINARVON supported the resolution. He
did not see that abolishing privateering had anything
to do with concession to neutrals. Lord Clarendon
had not attempted to answer the question what was
the value of this declaration of maritime law' In
any future war, should we have to incorporate it into
orders in council, or obtain for it the sanction of
Parliament. The question was not one as to rights of
neutrality, but as to the protection of enemies' pro-
perty, and the principle involved was simply one of
self-preservation and legitimate self-defence. We
debarred the neutral only from those advantages that
would operate to our own detriment. Chatham, Pitt,
and even Fox, the Duke of Wellington and Sir
Robert Peel, were all opposed to the policy that a
"neutral flag covers an enemy's goods." He was not
very sanguine as to any reciprocal advantage which
this country might obtain as a neutral power, for
since the revolution of 17AR there had scarcely been
a great war in Europe in which England had
not borne a share. As to the manner in which
the convention had been concluded, he thought it
showed a want of candour, fairnegs, and straight.
forward dealing in not giving Parliament some hid•
mation of the great revolution contemplated.
Lord HARROWBY complimented Lord Carnarvon on
the ability of his speech; but he thought there was
no just ground of censure against the Government.
The Earl of HARDWICKE thought the effect of this
article of the convention would prove disastrous
hereafter. He regretted that conditions so deroga-
tory to the honour of England should have been ac-
cepted at Paris under French influence ; but, consi-
dering the Ministry the country had, he was not
surprised.
The Earl of ALBEMARLE thought it an act of down-
right piracy to seize an enemy's goods on board neu-
tral vessels. The recognition of the principle that
neutral flags constituted neutral cargoes he regarded
as an important step in the progress of civilisation.
The Duke of ARGYLL thought England had only
given up a right she never could fully exercise. He
defended the conduct of the Government, maintained
the right of the Crown to conclude any treaties with-
out the sanction of Parliament, and asserted that
every power to carry on future war effectually had
been retained.
The Earl of DERBY thought that the Duke of
Argyll. who generally addressed the house with a
considerable degree of confidence in his own opinions,
had just spoken with rather more than his usual
share of that great parliamentary virtue, but with
rather less than his nsual success. Now he (the
Earl of Derby) did not deny the power of the Crown
to conclude any treaty without the sanction of Par-
liament, but he wished to know what this declaration
signed by Lord Clarendon really was. Was it an
authoritative exposition of the law—not of that which
should be the law' He drew a distinction be-
tween a treaty settling the course of action between
two nations and an act placing the Government in
the position of an exponent of the international law
of Europe. Such an act might be within the prero-
gative of the Crawn, but it was a gross and flagrant
abuse of that prerogative, and, if not illegal, cer-
tainly anything but constitutional. The noble earl
was proceeding with his argument relative to the
question of international law, and alluding to an
expression of contempt for Grotins used by Lord
Clarendon, when
The Duke of ARGYLL, with much warmth, cried out: I
never said anything of the kind. (Loud laughter-)
The Earl of DERBY: I entreat the noble duke to be-
lieve that I am not always talking of him. (Loud laugh-
ter.) When I speak of another person it does not follow
that it is he who is present to my thoughts. (Continued

laughter.) I stated most distinctly that it waa to the noble&
earl the Foreign Secretary that I waa alluding. (Hear,
hear.)

The Earl of Derby then continued to point out that
of all the authorities quoted by Lord Clarendon there
was not one who did not recognise as a portion of the
national law of Europe "that enemy's goods on board
neutral ships wire liable to capture." It was a nem°
dubitat maxim. Lord Mansfield, Vane!, Pitt, Gren-
ville, and Canning had strenuously opposed any
claim of immunity for a neutral flag :

It is now said that if we determine to support this doc-
trine we should be alone. We have been alone, and yet
maintained and upheld the doctrine against a confederacy
of opponents. ( Cheers.) 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. ( Hear, hear.) A noble lord has objected to
the wording of the motion, because it would condemn the
conduct of foreign plenipotentiaries as well as that of our
own. Now, we do not presume to condemn the conduct
of foreign plenipotentiaries, who may have acted wisely in
their generation and rightly for the interests of their coun-
try. ( Hear, hear.) But what we deal with is the conduct
of the English Plenipotentiary in respect to English in•
terests. (Hear, hear.) Let the noble earl say what he
pleases about the importance of England 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, bear.) 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 surrender of
this right. In this matter, I repeat, wo followed in the
wake of France, to which country the adoption of the new
principle is eminently favorable. (Hear, hear.)3
The noble earl then quoted the opinions of Mr. Pitt
in 1801, who characterised the intention of the
Northern Confederacy to produce a new code of
maritime laws, as "a violation of public faith, a viola-
tion of the rights of England, and imperiously calls
upon Englishmen to resist it even to the last shilling
and the last drop of blooe, rather than tamely
submit to degrading concession or meanly yield the
rights of the country to shameful usurpation."
Lord Hawkesbury said such pretensions were irre-
concileable with the true principles of public law,
and struck at the foundations and greatness of tl e
maritime power of England. Lord Shelburne and
Canning held the same opinions, and he (Lord
Derby) was willing to class himself with such "bar-
barians who knew nothing of international law." If
this principle were admitted in the case of neutral
flags carrying canoes, it must be extended to mer-
chant shits of every class. As to treaties concluded
during this century in which the right of search was
not pressed, it was nothing in favour of the present
concession, for it was one thing to waive a right, and
another to give it up in tots. The question was
really most important :

Suppose, which God forbid, that a war shonld arise be-
tween 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? Yon
can't blockade the whole coast of France ; but you can
practically prevent her from sending out one single bale of
merchandise. Your new law permitting French goods to
go with impunity on board neutral vessels comes into
operation ; you have no blockade. 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, and
abandoned too at the suggestion of France. (Hear.) Was
there ever a Ministerso led by the nose? ( Cheers.) Was there
ever a Minister who so deliberately waiked into the trap set
before his face, and so tamely and gratuitously surrendered
the founiation of England's greatness. (Lund cheers.l
If I stood alone I would support the resolutions of my
noble friend—l would divide the hone upon this question
—I would give to every one of your lordships the power of
recording your opinion as to the policy, the wisdom, and
the safety of these proceedings. But, for my part, I
solemnly protest—as derogatory to the country, as incon-
sistent with its dearest interests, as fraught with danger to
its future greatness and power—ay ! and to its future
safety—l protest against the abandonment of rigl.ta in-
volved in that which, with all respect fbr his personal
qualities. I cannot but characterise as the miserable Cla-
rendon-Capitulation of Paris. (The noble lord resumed
his seat amidst loud cheers.)

Earl GREY remarked that the rights abandoned
were beyond England's power to enforce; and no
blame, therefore, could be attributed to the pleni•
potentiaries. Commercial interests, and the public
opinion of nations, were opposed to the retention
and enforcement of the rig to contended for in the
resolution.

Their lordships shortly divided, when there ap-
peared .
For the resolutions (present, 58; proxies, 46) lO2
Against (present, 89; proxies, 68) l5B

Majority against the resolutions .... 64

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, on Tuesday, laid on
the table a series of resolution,, which on some
future evening he should propose for adoption,