The Sun.
London, England, 1863-01-16 00:00:00

Messrs. Bright and Scholefield at Binning-
ham.

BIRMINGHAM, THURSDAY NIGUT.
The second anniversary dinner of the Birming-
ham Chamber of Commerce was held at the Hen
and Chickens Hotel, Birminghon3, this evening.
Mr. Geo. Dixon, vice-president of the Chamber of
Commerce, occupied the chair, and among the
guests were Mr. J. Bright and Mr. Seholtfield, as
bOrough members. Apologies for their absence on
the occasion were received from Mr. Spooner, M.P.,
Mr. Forster, M.P., Mr. Newdegate, M.P., and Mr.
Sheridan, M.P.

The healths of the " Queen," and " The Prince of
Wales and the rest of the Royal Family" having
been duly honoured,

Mr. A. RYLAND proposed "The Members for the
Borough," expressing the plea Sure with which the
Chamber of Commerce welcomed those gentlemen to
their festive board.

The toast was drunk with great cordiality.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, as the senior member, first re-
sponded. After referring to various questions de-
serving the attention of the Chamber of Commerce,
he alluded to the alterations made in international
law by the declaration of Paris of 1856, especially
as regarded neutral rights. Those changes he had
always thought to be full of hazard, and they had
been effected in an irregular, not to say unconstitu-
tional manner, Parliatnent'eaßt having been con
suited in regard to them; but is now proposed
to carry these alterations further, by exempting the
merchant ships of belligerents from capture altoge-
ther. Now, so long as war should be deemed the
ultima ratio between contending nations, so long
would it be incumbent upon us to use every measure
to make it more humane and less a thing of blood-
shed and carnage. At the present moment the into-
rests of commerce operate favourably in two ways
—first, in averting war ; and secondly, in limiting
its duration, when once declared, to the shortest
possible time. The moment rumours of war began
to spread the influence of commercial men was
brought to bear upon the Government in urging
the utmost moderation, coolness, and judgment;
and when war had begun the same influence urged
bringinghtehofemiroBthives for this action on their part.
eaann sa
me of
c a b les r r a conciliation-
everynge
upon the Government
ips m c
every
rvoery aboutm p
ture, and you at once
mwithdraw
r meanse
Free
War would then become a mere naval and military
duel, in which the nation that could afford to spend
most money and sacrifice the largest number oflives
would be the winner. Property, it is true, would be
Isatvweda,sbsuatidhtuhmatanwe don't
ewould be spent in proportion.
confiscate property on land
and why should
We could not cripple the general
commerce
()fan enemy by isolated attacks on pro-
perty by land in the immediate neighbourhood of
our armies, but we could almost destroy his com-
merce by seizing his property at sea. Moreover, it
was not the interest of a General to confiscate pro-
perty on land, foreverysuch confiscation only added
to his difficulties, bymultiplying his enemies around
him; but wherever it was his interest to do this de-
pend upon it he never had hesitated. At the pre-
sent moment we had an instance before us of the
most gigantic confiscation of property on land that
ever occurred. President Lincoln had, avowedly
as a war measure, confiscated the slave property of
every state in rebellion against the Union. (Hear.)
There were other considerations which he might
urge, such as that of allowing an enemy's commerce
to flourish, and thus literally feed up his resources
for carrying on war against you. He might also
refer to the special interests of a maritime nation
with a comparatively small army, but he did not
wish to enter on an exhaustive argument, or to do
more than merely call their attention to this im-
portant subject, and indicate in general terms his
own views upon it as one of their representatives.
(Cheers.)

Mr. BRIGHT, who was received with cheers, said
—Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen,—l feel great plea-
sure in being here to night, and in being greeted as
I have been with that cordial welcome which has
always been accorded to me ever since I have become
connected with Birmingham. I must say, however,
that I sho'ild have spent a still more pleasant evening
had I anticipated that I was to come here to listen and
not to speak. Just now I find it extremely difficult to
determine what are the politics which are likely to
prove interesting in the least degree, on an occasion
like the present, to those whom I have the
honour to address. My hon. friend has, it is
true, found no difficulty upon this score. I quite
envy the felicity with which he has touched upon
those subjects to which he has' adverted, although
there is one question which I fear I am not likely
to regard in the same light as that in which he
looks upon it. I asked before I came here a mem-
ber of the Chamber of Commerce whether there was
any point on which he thought it ;particularly de
sirable that 1 should make any remarks, but without
receiving any satisfactory solution of the question.
It seemed to me that the subject of bankruptcy re-
form was one on which it might be desirable that
some comment should be made, but I have come to
the conclusion that that reform—very much like
others in this country—leaves us precisely in the
same position as we were. There is, however,
another question—one of international law—to
which my hon. friend has referred, which, although
it is of considerable importance, does not seem to
me to press upon our attention very much at this
moment. International law is not very clearly de-
fined, and the various contradictory opinions which
have been expressed, with a view to elucidation,
have tended to puzzle, rather than to inform, un-
learned persons; but, as my hon. friend has alluded
to what was done at the Congress of Paris, I may
be allowed to say that the Ambassadors of the prin-
cipal European rowers represented at that Congress
agreed to a certain alteration of practice in regard
to some points of international law—an alteration
whish obtained the assent of, I think, every civilised
and Christian nation, with the exception of the
United States, the Government of which proposed
to accept a portion of the propositions of the Con-
gress of Paris, while it did not wish to assent to one
of them in the shape in which it was offered. Now,
my hon. friend seems to think that an attempt will
be made to undo in Pat liament that which was ac-
complished at the Congress of Paris; but I very
much doubt whether that wilt be the case. The
fact is that that which was done at Paris was not
done because our Government particularly liked
it, but because there was no other mode of get-
ting out of the difficulty by which their repre-
sentatives as well as those of the other European
Powers were surrounded. You recollect, when the
war with Russia—a war which, I suppose, most
persons now wish had never broken out—com-
menced, the Queen then issued a proclamation that
the rights of this country as a belligerent nation
would be abandoned during the war, and that the
property of Russia, if in neutral vessels, would he
safe. The reason why the Government of England
came to that conclusion was this—that when the
Russian war began she was not, to use an insolent
phrase, mistress of the seas, while it was felt by
England and France that if the old policy of cap-
turing the goods of belligerents in neutral vessels
were adhered to with respect to the vessels of the
United States six months would not elapse before
we should have to fight, not Russia alone but that
country. It was for that reason, and for that reason
only, that our Government assented to the procla-
mation which was then issued ; for that reason, and
that only, it was that the proposition which was
adopted at the Congress of Paris was made the law
of Europe for all future time. That being se, I do
not believe there will be any alteration in the de-
claration then made in the sense of going back-
wards. lat once admit, however, that nothing can
be more absurd than the point at which the Con-
gress of Paris stopped short ; and if anybody sup-