Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-01-17 00:00:00

Tuadary. • Ilank!tary . 117, 4861.-T

only to the belligerents thtmeglvea . -but to the
world at large.
As is well pointed out in the documents we
refer_ to, the present state of the international-
maritime law is fraught with evils in time of I
peace,, as well as in time of war. •"Difficult
questions must often arise between great nations. 1
During these discussions, the ships of the coun-
tries involved in these questions are avoided by
sliippers in distant ports, or, at all events, extra
rates of- insurance are charged to cover the.
remote risk of capture, while credits are either
altogether withheld from intending operators,
or are negotiated at a disadvantage." This has
been found to be the case in a most injurious,
degree, we believe, within' the last few months-
The idea had been abroad, that it was not un-
likely
there might be a rupture between France 1
and England,—that English ships, therefore,
would be those of a belligerent on the high seas,
and that their cargoes, although the, Property of
unoffending individuals, would be liable to be
seized or destroyed. English ships, therefore,
have found great difficulty in obtaining
freights, more especially from distant ports.
We believe ' that the depression of Bri-
tish Shipping is at this very moment much
aggravated by this circumstance. Uncertain-
.,''
ties - and inconveniences to commerce are thus
created ; and England, as a great maritime and
commercial nation, must feel the evil more ex-
tensively than probably any other country-
French Shipping must, of course, have suffered
likewise. It has been recently stated, indeed,
that " ships of the French flag had been detained
months in port by-their owners under the appre-
hension that a war might break-- out between
England and France before they could return
from an eastern voyage." All this in time of
peace, and under a remote apprehension of war-
How, then, would it be were war actually to
break out ? Why, as it has been'well explained,
" many vessels owned in the belligerent states
would be detained idle in port, and the consequent
extravagant rates of freight would impede the
free interchange of commodities on which the
welfare of mankind is daily becoming more and
more dependent." So that here, we see, it would
be a common calamity. Not only would the
Shipping Interest be paralysed, but every other i
Interest in
,the country would be more or less
less injured likewise. •
The barbarity and inhumanity of attacking
private property on the seas ought, of itself, to
be sufficient, were there no other consideration,
to insure the adoption of the new and improved
international code that has been proposed
namely, "that the private property of subjects
and citizens of a belligerent on the high sag
shall be exempt from seizure by the public armed
1

vessels of the other belligerents, except it be on'
trabaud." But, as we have shown, even motives
of expediency might still urge its adoption. It i 4
no answer to say—as we see it is said—" that all
war is barbarous and inhuman, and that the cell
declaration of such a state of things between tw°
civilised and Christian nations is itself a proceed"
ing of such barbarity that the mere incident of .
confiscation can hardly aggravate it." For, 1°161: '-
we contend against is, the making of that "cluck
is of itself barbarous and inhuman, more bar"
barons and inhuman still, by such atrocious means
and appliances beyond the actual waging of war it-
self. There are many and weighty reasons, besides,
why the commercial marine of a country like Eng'
land should in time of war be especially protected,
and in time of peace be freed from all apprehen-
sions of insecurity. These considerations, bow-
eyer, must form the subject of a future article.
The question will doubtless be brought before
Parliament, and other opportunities will, there-
fore, be afforded of considering it in detail.