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

producer did not suffer so much as the consumer in this
country, who, in consequence of the produce having to be
sent a roundabout way, had to pay an enhanced price.
Formerly a neutral was debarred from carrying on in time
of war any trade that he could not engage in during the
continuance of peace. But, by the commercial policy which
we had latterly adopted, we had thrown open every branch
of the shipping business to the mercantile marine of the
whole world. No one would therefore be so foolish, if we
wore at war, to employ ships that would be liable to cap-
ture. (Hear.) President Pierce, in his message for 1856,
stated that Russia, France, Bremen, and Hamburg were
disposed to accept tho principle of granting immunity to
private property in time of war. The proposition was
therefore by no means so novel as it might seem, but even
if it was new, that was no reason why it should not be right.
(Hear.) England, let him remind the house, had a much
greater stake in this question than any other power, for
there was none that at the breaking out of a war was likely
to have nearly as much property at sea. We had relin-
quished the substance; and let us therefore seek no longer
to retain the shadow, and thus reject the opportunity of
protecting from rapine and robbery the property of her
Majesty's subjects. (Loud cheers )

Mr. COCHRANE had learned one thing from this de-
bate, namely, that it seemed to be generally agreed the
course which had been taken at the Congress of Paris was a
mistake. (No.) So far as he could follow the arguments
of his hon. friend it appeared to be that because we had
blundered on that occasion we should go still further in
the direction of our original error. As had been remarked
by Lord Russell, on the 9th of March, 1857, the maritime
supremacy of England was a great preventative of war, and
the effect of the proposed change would be to render that
supremacy nugatory. On the same occasion the noble lord
was followed by Sir Charles Napier, who expressed his
hope that the country would not abandon her maritime
rights and allow other nations to trade without restriction
in the time of war. It seemed, as he had said, to be agreed
that the declaration of Paris had been a very unfortunate
step ; and how it had happened that the interests could have
been so compromised by Lord Clarendon without Parlia-
ment being consulted, was to him perfectly incomprehen-
sible. The hon. gentleman who had introduced this subject
seemed to think that war ought to be carried on in the most
amicable manner that could be conceived—that it ought in
fact to be waged in kid gloves ; but that was not the spirit in
which we had built our Warriors and Black Princes—had
constructed our immense engines of war, and armed our
troops with rifles that would carry any distance. (Hear.)
The 3d article of the declaration of Paris was that "neutral
goods, except contraband of war, were not liable to capture
under the enemy's flag ;" and it appeared to him that that
might materially affect the energies of our naval officers.
Ho would not speak of it as a matter of prize money, for he
thought the hon. gentleman was quite right in his indignant
repudiation of any such consideration. But instances had
occurred in which an active officer, unwilling to weaken his
crew by putting men on board his capture, had burnt the
ship. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) That was a sacrifice
of prize-money, and therefore aproof of disinterested energy.
But if there happened to be £lOO,OOO or £200,000 worth of
neutral property on board, no officer would venture to burn
the ship, for he might thereby make himself liable for the
loss of the goods. (Hear, hear.) If the proposition of the
hon. gentleman were carried out the naval supremacy of this
country would be at an end. What was the course pursued
by Lord Nelson in 1804 ? Before war was declared with
Spain he issued an order that all ships and vessels belonging
to his Spanish Majesty (except vessels carrying corn) should
be forthwith seized and carried into the ports of Gibraltar
and Malta. He (Mr. Ccchrane) thought the declaration of
Paris was one of the most unfortunate arrangements for
this country that could have been made.
Mr. BOWYER said he thought the question lay in a
very narrow compass. This country being a great naval
power it was perhaps desirable that the rights of belligerents
should be as widely extended as possible, therefore it was
very questionable whether it was prudent to involve this
country in such an engagement as the declaration of Paris.
(Hear.) Be that, however, as it might, that declaration
was now an accomplished fact. (Hear.) But what was the
principle of warfare on land ? If an army was marched into
a country, and conquered it, that army did not interfere
with private property. (Hear.) The principle of interna-
tional law with regard to the conqueror vi as, that he was
put in possession of the rights of the government of the con-
quered country, which rights might afterwards be the sub-
ject of treaty, but not of the property of private persons.
He (Sir G. Bowyer) never could understand why the same
principle should not be extended to maritime warfare, or
why the rights of private persons at sea should not be re-
spected in like manner. There was an additional reason for
this principle in the case of naval warfare. It was this,
that the conqueror could not acquire the sovereignty of the
sea ; why then should he be entitled to seize merchant ves-
sels? He could understand that it might be politic, if not
quite just, on the part of a great maritime power, not to
give up any belligerent rights at sea ; 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 re-
quired the attention of the Government.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—The question which has been raised
to-night is of first-rate importance. (Hear.) It would be of
groat importance to a country which has not a powerful
national navy and a vast mercantile marine, but to Eng-
land, situated as she is, it is of paramount importance that
this question should receive a right decision when discussed
in Parliament. I trust that, whatever may be the result of
this debate—whatever may be the fate of the motion sub-
mitted by the hon. member for Liverpool—we shall not
come to any precipitate conclusion, or one of which we may
hereafter have occasion to repent. (Hear.) The hon. gentle-
man has proposed " that the present state of international
maritime law, as affecting the rights of belligerents and
neutrals, is ill-defined and unsatisfactory, and calls for the
early attention of her Majesty's Government." The terms
of his motion are as general es it is possible to frame them.
They bring under review the whole state of international
maritime law, as affecting the rights of belligerents and
neutrals. Hence they involve the question of privateering ;
they involve the question of the neutral flag covering the
enemy's goods ; they involve the question of the sanctity
of private property on the sea. But the hon, member, in-
stead of making his speech coextensive with the terms of
his motion, directed his arguments to one single point—
viz., that the enemy's flag should cover the enemy's goods.
That is the whole extent of the speech which he made, and
the recommendation which be offered to the house.
Mr. HORSFALL—What I contended for was that all
private property should be respected. (Hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWlS—Precisely ; that the private property
of the enemy should not be taken out of the enemy's ships.
By the Declaration of Paris neutral goods are sacred under
the enemy's flag.
Mr. BRIGHT—And the ship also.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—Very good ; the argument is that the
ship should be sacred as:well as the goods under the
enemy's flag. Such is the proposition of the hon. member
for Liverpool, and that being so, it seems to me that the
more correct course, as far as this house is concerned, would
have been for the hon. gentleman to move an address to the
Crown, requesting her Majesty to use her influence with
foreign Powers for the purpose of making the principle
that the enemy's flag should cover the enemy's ship and
goods a maxim of international maritime law. That would
have brought the question which the hon. member has
argued fairly under the consideration of the house; but at
present any gentleman who thinks, for instance, that pri-
vateering ought to be continued, or that the clauses of the
Declaration of Paris ought to be repealed—who, in short,
entertains views entirely opposed to those which have
been advanced to-night—might with perfect propriety
say to the honourable member for Liverpool, "I do not
agree with your speech, but 1 approve your resolution, and
therefore shall vote for it." (Hear, hear.) It seems, there-
fore, to me that if the hon. gentleman succeeded in carry-
ing his resolution he would not necessarily give effect to his
opinions. The Government would say, we are not bound
by the speeches of individual members, we must look to
the general terms of a resolution, and act accordingly.
Therefore, I say, if he wished to establish this principle,
that the ship and goods of an enemy are to be respected in
war by the belligerent, he ought to have embodied that pro-
position in a distinct resolution and submitted it to the
house ; he would then have raised a distinctive issue on
which we might have acted. (Hear, hear.) But I must
say that the proposition which ho has submitted is—not un-
fair, but most inconvenient. I have no doubt he thought
it was a convenient mode of raising the question, and per-
haps, when he came to embody his principle in terms, he
was afraid to look it in the face, and therefore preferred to
take refuge in generalities; but I must repeat, I can hardly
conceive a more inconvenient course then that which has
been adopted in bringing a very important principle under
the consideration of the house. Well, sir, there have been
many occasions on which the rights of neutrals and belli
gerents with regard to maritime war have been agitated in
Europe. In the first place, there was the celebrated armed ,
neutrality of 1780 ; but the principles laid down in that year I
by Russia, and concurred in by other Powers, were entirely
confined to the flag covering enemy's goods, and also
mainly, I think, to the question of blockades ; but I feel
confident that if any gentleman will examine the negotia-
tions, the conventions, and treaties of that period he will
not find a single trace of the principle that a belligerent is
not to be permitted to capture the ships or goods of his
enemy. In 1800 the same question was again revived, and
again there is a total absence of such an assertion ; and the
reason is perfectly obvious—the armed neutrality of both
those years was a representation of the interests of note rals.
Neutrals have no interest in the principle which the
hon. member recommends to the acceptance of the house.
One hon. gentleman, indeed, who spoke treated the ques-
tion as one involving the interests of neutrals; but it is im-
possible to conceive a greater mistake. Neutrals, so far as
they have any interest, have an interest directly the oppo-
site. If they wished to become the carriers of the world
they would naturally wish that the ships and goods of the -
belligerents should be exposed to risk. Therefore, I say
neutrals as such have no interest in the question. Then,
there is another reason why on these occasions the armed
neutrality did not start this question. These who adyised
that state of affairs were persons acquainted with the prin-
ciples and elements of international law; I must be per-
mitted, with great respect to the hon. gentleman, to say
that his speech seemed to overlook the most fundamental
doctrines of hatoruational law, because
you may mak° a

compact with a neutral State that in time of war you will
respect the neutral flag. For instance, we have now a
compact with France and other continental Powers that
we will act on the principle that the neutral flag covers the
enemy's goods, so that if we were to seize American goods
under the French flag we should be guilty of a violation of
engagement with France. Therefore by international law
you can make a valid engagement with respect to the prin-
ciple that the neutral flag covers enemy's goods; but when
you go to war with a nation, war puts an end to all treaties
and engagements in the nature of a treaty. (Hear, hear.)
Therefore if we had unfortunately, a short time ago, found
ourselves involved in hostilities with the United States, and
if we had previously had a treaty with the United States
recognising the principle that belligerents were to spare
one another's mercantile marine, the very act of war would
have put an end to that treaty, and it would have been in the
discretion of either Power whether or no they would act on
that principle. Suppose you make such an engagement, how
are you to rely on the honour of a belligerent observing it, be-
cause by the concert of all civilised nations you may alter
all the principles of international law ? It is conceivable,
for example, that by the genet al agreement of nations the
principle for which the hon. gentleman contends might
be established, but it is inconceivable that a treaty between
two belligerents which is in derogation of the general prin-
ciples of international law should bind them during the
continuance of war. An hon. gentleman referred to the
Declaration of Paris ; he said it was not a treaty but a de-
claration, and therefore it must be abandoned in the event
of war. Now, I entirely dispute that inference or state.
ment. I presume he means to sa3 that it is binding in re-
spect of neutrals in time of war. No doubt we are bound
in respect of France or Russia if we are at war with the
United States ; but it is an absurdity to suppose that if wo
were at war with France or Russia it would have any bind-
ing effect upon us, except in regard to our honour. (Hear.)
All I say is, it is not binding by international law. We
are not bound to assert extreme belligerent rights, but with-
out any such treaty we might say we will not capture the
mercantile marine of an enemy. Well, the hon. gentleman
the member for Honiton spoke with great censure of the
Declaration of Paris, and said we were in such a position
we must either advance or recede—our present position was
untenab:e. We had made a declaration restrictive of our
power of carrying on a maritime war, and we should find
it necessary to violate that engagement, He objected that
before the Crimean War by proclamation we modified our
belligerent rights, and the hon. member for Liverpool read
from the proclamation the passages which were equivalent
to the Declaration of Paris ; therefore, when the war was
ended and the declaration of neutral rights was
raised in Paris, it seemed the proper and natural course for
our Plenipotentiary to agree to this principle, which had
been consecrated by the Executive Government at the
commencement of the war, of which Parliament
had full notice, end to which Parliament had
at no time objected. If it had been thought that
the principle that the neutral flag shall not cover
the goods was essential to the effective conduct of mari-
time war by this country, why was it abandoned at the
commencement of the Crimean War, and no voice raised
against it during the continuance of that war ? The hon.
gentleman overlooked that important element. The hon.
member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) did not alto-
gether seem to approve of the modus operandi of the hon.
gentleman who made this motion ; he seemed to be aware
that there was some difficulty in establishing a binding en-
gagement between two belligerents ; and with respect to the
case of America, it is said that the Government of the
United States is willing to assent to this principle combined
with certain others. But if the United States of America
approve so highly of the principle of not capturing enemy's
ships and goods, why don't they establish that principle
with respect to the Southern States ? (Hear, hear.) Here
is a fine opportunity for the Government of Washington
acting on that principle. (Hear, hear.) There is a war
actually waging in which they are involved, why not act
on that principle at once ? No doubt it is said that the
Southerners are rebels, but in the exchange of prisoners and
in the matter of the blockades they have been treated in all
respects as belligerents. If that be the case, why does not
the Government of Washington show its forbearance in not
capturing enemy's goods? (Hear, hear.) I strongly sus-
pect that the exasperation which exists between those two
contending Powers renders any such forbearance utterly
impracticable. The hon. member for Northumberland seems
not altogether to trust to this plan of mutual forbearance by
belligerents during war, and he proposes that England
should call a congress. [Mr. Liddell—lnvite a congress.]
Well, that we should invite the nations of Europe to meet
in congress and that we should submit to this congress the
question raised in to-night's debate. But, then, he an-
nexed a condition which I am afraid, if strictly fulfilled,
would render the convening of the congress a somewhat
remote event, because he said that it was a necessary con-
dition that the parties composing the congress should not
be actuated by any special or national interests, but have
solely in view the general good of mankind. (Laughter.)
My little acquaintance with the history of congresses does
not lead me to anticipate that it is extremely easy to form
a congress upon that condition, and I am afraid if we wait
until a congress be formed in which the members are wholly
regardless of the interest of their own respective nations
and are devoted to promoting the universal happiness of the
world, the meeting must be postponed until the Greek
'Calends. (Hear.) His proposal no doubt is a philanthropic
and well-meant proposal, but it only shows the difficulties
with which the subject is encumbered, and the necessity of
further consideration before the house can with any pro-
priety agree to the adoption, I will not say of the hon. mem-
ber's resolution, but of a resolution embodying the result of
his arguments. As to the resolution, I really do not know
that I feel any difficulty in saying that any branch
of international law is ill-defined, because every branch
must be ill-defined, as it is not law laid down by any Legis-
lature, and is only to be collected from the decisions of the
courts of different countries, and the writings of different
text writers. In a certain sense international law may
always be said to be ill-defined. At the same time I really
believe that if any part of international law is better de-
fined than another, it is the question relating to procedure
in seizing differ ent classes of goods belonging to different
nations, and particularly since the Declaration of Paris.
There is another part of the question, upon which the hon.
baronet the member for Dundalk much insisted, and which
I know he has often brought forward in discussion. It is
mentioned in an able pamphlet, which I have no doubt
many hon. members have read, and unless it receives exa-
mination is calculated to make an impression on the mind—
I allude to the statement that we ought to assimilate the
laws of maritime to the laws of land warfare. If the house
will permit me, I will examine for a few moments what
strength is due to that argument. It is said, in the first
place, that all private property is spared in land warfare. I
must begin by meeting that assertionby a most formal denial.
(Cheers.) I say that by the laws ofland warfare, as recognised
by the most civilised nations and according to themost recent
practice, private property is not respected. It is respected
only so far as it suits the present convenience of the bellige-
rent armies. I believe there never was an army under more
strict discipline in which the commander was less disposed to
permit excesses by the soldiery, or in which there was a
greater disposition to spare the country which was the
theatre of the war, than the Duke of Wellington's army
during the Peninsular war. What was the practice of that
army ? When they arrived at a village at night the proper
officer told out a certain number of houses, the roofs were
stripped off, and the timber was used as firewood for boiling
the men's suppers. That certainly was not very remark-
able respect for private property. (Hear.) Such are the
necessities of war. The army must have food, and the food
must be cooked. They cannot carry fuel with them, and
if they cannot carry fuel they must take it. With regard
to the armies of the French empire, anybody who has only
a superficial acquaintance with the subject must know the
extent to which the system of plundering conquered coun-
tries was carried. I do not believe that there is on record
a single campaign in which private property has been re-
spected. No doubt, it is respected to a greater extent in
recent times than in the warfare of the middle ages. Since
the Thirty Years' War and the wars of Louis IV. there is
no question we have advanced considerably by the forbear-
ance of the belligerent Powers, and more humane and more
civilised maxims have prevailed. But if is not by treaties
or compacts between belligerent Powers, or by such resolu-
tions as this, that this result has been produced. It has
been produced by the general softening of manners and the
general improvement of humanity. We may hope that
similar results will be produced in maritime warfare, but
they will not be produced in the manner which the hon.
member points out. (Hear.) In the first place, I deny the
truth of the principle that private property is respected in
land warfare. There is another important distinction be-
tween land and maritime warfare, upon which the whole
question may be considered to turn. When you conquer a
country you conquer its Government, and when you have
conquered its Government you have conquered that engine
by which the country can be plundered. (Laughter.) Per-
haps the language which I have used may be somewhat
homely; nevertheless, it does express the exact truth.
(Cheers.) And if any gentleman will inquire what hap-
pened in Berlin during the French occupation, after the
battle of Jena, and the French conquest by Napoleon,_ he
vwl
eirrl
enl
mellearnbt
eat
rhmha
most
eattr
iht
ehmneffiegFoe
nsiareauet
nrnbßetjcheeehenrytl
gpi,
iniontnsheswi
aenf
tshe srti elohpdBhel
3er it2enn:wefert
breed
ihorrmneee
gesPdtpt
still
uel
elarfsstp
osreani
provinces
agricul-
tural i
ni.
nweGt
ucreoeyil
s_l-.
of the ePdruuspsoiann
tural horses had not been restored. I use that as an illus-
tration of the way in which the Government raise contributions in a conquered country. 'With regard to the tea -
there is no similar engine. There is no Government which
exercises any power at sea. The seoeafrtiyasrmomfaeeecinbreeeslmiyhiiiiget
belligerent
ee
II
floatingmrtd
ro
high-
way of nations. It is not the subject of Government o of
os sovereignty, v
te
hr
ee
exercisei gs
enat
anyyi
s, andb
controlthe
captureeo over
el
byr
yw themaye
means
nut-
se whichp
regard to the question of assimilating land waares.m
nntrwyassuefferrec
ntedderebir
the the
seaiat hn
declara-
tionright of
warfare,of
f r ethries,rweahleansstihmisilaeetitto
private warfare—when this country abolished privartiegeringo.
(Cheers,) There is the real analogy bets;feer land and sea
warfare of which the hon. gentleman
private individual ton go out onWae
plunderingdpermitonot
e xpaesdiintgtolne
in; private online the contest to the
same. pine, we do not restrain
army of the State. At expedition.
.e
that army seig
may be necessary, tv.a • 4
p opertyl whenever such seizures
plunder on 1210; own aCcoucin°t. not
We
allow
used a
to
erivitlte person toe
plunder on his own account at sea by grantingaewleitltemrs of
marque. That principle we have abandoned;and if
un-
fortunately a war had happened with the United States I
recourse to the
system not think it likely we should have had '
he
system of P ,4
Vateeriug againstlthe 'United States, although
they were no parties
to the declaration of Paris. (Hear
bear.) I tlli ,
m, tx,i, ix:J=oy has deflaiciyely rouounced

the principle of privateering. To that extent I am quite
ready to agree to assimilate land warfare and maritime
warfare ; but I do not assent to the bon. gentleman's propo-
sition that the armed ships of a country are not to be allowed
to take merchant ships. With our fleet at Portsmouth or
Plymouth to allow enemies' ships to go in and out free from
capture seems to me to be carrying the doctrine of forbear-
ance in time of war to an absurd point. (Hear, hear.) It
is almost like interdicting ourselves from the use of gun-
powder or et dnance in time of war. Of course, we may if
we think fit renounce the right to capture merchantmen,
not by privateers, but by our armed ships, if the opinion of
the civilised world condemned the practice. But I think
the house would come to an unwise and premature decision
if—upon a vague generality, a mere formula which really
might admit of any construction, but which is to receive a
peculiar interpretation from the speech of the hon. member
who moves the resolution, while it may receive various in-
terpretations from the different persons who support
it—
they were to call upon the Government to subscribe to a
principle liable to such formidable and weighty objections.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. BOWYER wished to explain that, when he said
that in warfare on land private property was respected, he
did not mean to say that ther3 might not be excesses com-
mitted against private property in such warfare, or that in
cases of necessity violations, more or less, of the rights of
private pe operty might not take place. IN hat he intended
to say was, that in warfare on land private property was not
systematically seized, condemned, and sold, as it was in
warfare at sea.

Mr. T. BARING—Sir, I have listened with some sur-
prise to the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Secre-
tary for War. The right hon. gentleman, speaking of the
Convention of Paris, not only referred to the possibility of
that convention being broken through in time of war and
necessity, but went further, and said that no compact and
no treaty made in peace is binding in war. Now, as I un-
derstand it, the Paris Convention was made in time of
peace in eider to provide against some of the worst evils
and horrors of war.

Sir G. C. LEWIS (interrupting)—This is so important a
point that I should be sorry if any misunderstanding arose.
What I meant to say, and what I believe I did say, was
this—that I believed the declaration of Paris to be binding
as between this country and neutrals during the existence
of war, and to be equally binding with a treaty, though it
Was only a declaration; but that if we were at war with any
of the parties to that declaration, then, like other treaties,
it would cease to have a binding effect as regards that bel-
ligerent. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BARING continued—That convention was made
between six or seven States, including the great maritime
Powers of Europe. I believe the only great maritime Power
of the world not included is the United States. Therefore
it would operate in time of war upon them all except the
two belligerents. But does the right hon. gentleman mean
to say that we are now to discuss whether that was a wise
provisionintn th e d
iosre
unsosti
o?n
eTf he
eA tt orn
merits e y
fG etnueer
ra 1
awr
so ucl de
nnvoetnetnt
et en r;
he treated it as an accomplished fact, which must be ad-
hered to. And being now the law, as far as regards the
Governments that were parties to it, the question for us is,
how will it act on cur mercantile navy and our commerce?
As I understand the matter, by that convention you hold
neutrals' goods harmless wherever they may be found, and
then,youalso
would make
h a thepp e neutralhappen
case flage cover ov e a
war
rrbetween enemy's
this
goods.coWunhtaryt,
and
trade Fran c,:eul?lds
passievidenttnoitntetheh
tanhadts of the whole of
p carry-
ing(Hurear
You repealed your Navigation Laws. Ido not now blame
you for that. lam always for cautious and gradual pro-
gress; but when once a step is made I am not for going
back. But in time of war the neutral flag would, I repeat,
carry all your commerce, and your ships would be placed
at a great disadvantage as compared with every other
maritime Power in the world. I cannot, therefore, help
thinking that it is a wise thing to consider this subject in
time of peace. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that
there is great inconvenience in discussing a question
of national policy upon a resolution like this, and I
hardly know what reasons induced my hon. friend to couch
his motion in these terms; but I take it that his object
was to elicit the opinion of the Government of this house.
He seeks, I apprehend, not to bind the Government to any
particular course, but that those of us who agree with him,
as I do, should express to her Majesty's Ministers what
I believe to be the feelings of the commerce of this
country (hear)—that we should, if necessary, strengthen
the hands of the Government in neg, tinting with other
Powers. (Hear, hear.) It is a question, no doubt, for
negotiation with other Powers, and must be left in the
bands of the Government. Whether the motion ought to
be in the form of an address to the Crown or of a resolution
is really a matter of very minor importance, and certainly
would not call for the decided opposition which has been
offered to this proposition by the right hon. gentleman.
The right hon. gentleman will not listen to it at all. He
says, "You might as well agitate whether there shall be
privateering or not, or whether you will upset the whole
Declaration of Paris, as even entertain this question." And
he quarrels with my hen. friend the member for Liverpool
for not agitating questions which we all thought settled.
Again, he says, "You make a general motion and confine
your speech to a particular point." Why, it is that par-
ticular point to which we are desirous to press on the at-
tention of the Government. (Hear.) lam as anxious as
any one for the supremacy of the navy of this country, but
I cannot understand how you can advance that supremacy
by damaging your commerce and your shipping interest.
(Hear, hear)! Do you mean to say that your navy would be
less effective if it were not bound to protect your mercantile
mat ine, or that you would have less naval force to employ
against your enemy if it were freed from the duty of con-
voying? Why, what country has most commerce afloat,
most property to be seized ? Surely England. What country
would gain most by the preservation of that property ? It is
England. (Hear, hear.) You say that your object in war is
to injure your enemy. What country would be so much
injured in war through her commerce as England? It might
have been a question, before the Declaration of Paris was
signed, what course we ought to have taken. But there is
not the slightest doubt in my mind that if you wish to bene-
fit your commerce, and at the same time to increase your
efficiency as a belligerent at sea, you ought gravely to con.-
eider the motion before Its. (Hear.) The right hon. gentle-
man says that the Duke of Wellington burnt houses in
Spain. Well, but you don't want to take a merchant ship
for fuel—(hear, and a laugh)—and therefore the right hon.
gentleman's argument entirely fails. The right hon. gen-
tleman adverted to the suggestion of a Congress, and said
that if you are to expect a meeting of diplomatists to con-
Bider the welfare of commerce you must wait till the Greek
kalends. For my part Ido not see why a Congress should •
not meet and discuss this question in the interests both of
commerce and of Europe. Ido not know what course my
hon, friend will follow, but I have heard with regret the
announcement that the Government win not entertain this
question, and that they will not do it because the United -
States did not adopt this principle towards the Southern
States. Why, that is the case of a struggle between two
great sections of one country, and not an international dis-
pute. It therefore constitutes no ground for opposing the
views of my hon. friend. I firmly believe that, sooner or
later, this principle will prevail. (Hear.) It may be re-
sisted by the present Administration, and yet I had cer-
tainly thought from the speech which my hon. friend quoted
that it would not have encountered opposition from the
noble viscount's Government. (Hear.) I thought front
that language that the noble viscount had seen that it was
necessary to moderate the horrors of war, and that the Go-
vernment was disposed as much as possible to protect the
private property-of their own countrymen as well as of others.
But, whatever course the Government may take as to the
resolution of my hon. friend, whether they object to it as toe
general or not put in proper form, I am confident that the
time will come when the house will not turn a deaf ear to
tthhee prayer which
hichtnitseraedsdtsreosfsed
the
country. mar.)
toitbythe great majority of
Mr. COBDEN moved the adjournmenstatsocifoithe debate.
yAo
shLseiMbn
le
friend, ST O
importance
forN —
t have a
thinktvhee nti
this
ttsers objection to the me'
n of
greatest
t oLor
dinPp
etshti o cno uof
ttrhY:
and one, therefore, which requires to be fully discussed.
(Hear.) My own opinion is—and I hope that it will he the
opinion of the house—that the principle which the hon•
member for Liverpool recommends, if carried into practice.
would level a fatal blow at the naval power of this coup,:
try and would be an act of political
suicide. (Cheers.) -1
therefore entirely concur in the motion for adjournment'
(A laugh.) We shall be perfectly ready to assist the hone
member in fixing a day for resuming the debate.
Mr, BRIGHT—I hope the noble lord will give us ig
whole night, for it is a great disadvantage to have an ill'
portant question like this brought on alter some other sub'
pet has been discussed. (Hear. hear.) The noble lord Ilse
expressed a very confident opinion on the question veil/
much at variance with that quoted by the hon. gentleman'
opposite. I hope when he rises to address the house on the
main question that ho will revert to his old opinion.
(Hear,)
Lord PALMERSTON—I am willing to let the debate
come on the first thing on Monday night next. (Hear.)
The debate was then adjourned until Monday night.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR, in moving for a committee to in
quite into the present state of the Ecclesiastical Commis'
sion, and report to the house whether; the ecclesiastical re-
venues could not be more advantageously administered fel
the interests of the Church than they were at present, se,id
that as the motion was not opposed he should not Pal it
necessary to detain the house. The hon. gentlema-a, after
tracing the history of the Ecclesiastical COrtltairsion from
its foundation through the various chum which had
been made in it, and referring to the vark s committees
which had sat on the subject, said hie r• •
.ibject was to take
u the inquiry where it had ho
--en Ir•it by ra'
enittee in 1856. He wished th the last co
m'
committee to inquire
how the revenues had been ad committee
and how far any of the su ered since that time ;
worthy of consideration, ggested improvements were
Sir G. GREY assented to
the appointment of the cow
mittee, thinking that there
were
inquiry ; bat it must be
been derived fro the
admitted that immense benefit ha"'
m e exercise of the
Ecclesiastical Commission. the powers vested in
Mr. DEEDES would not • etea
orpose the motion, but objected
to the committee, that Butch interference from time to tiree
must impede the action of the Commission ; it ()ugh; not
to be interfered with unless some real reason could mu
shown.
Mr. KINNAIRD said that though his hon. friend vigt
satisfied with the working of the Commission, a large, beg
satis
of persons in the House were very much dit •I} d it, (Hear.)
Mr. BOUVERIE said there was a general 'belief °lot
the commission wanted sifting, but agreed in tkiltinking 1j334 the motion was premature.
The motion was then agreed to.
SAVINGS BANKS.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT obtained leave to introduce a Ott
to amend the laws relating to the security and Inan'agenie.,3lo--
of savings banks, and said that ho proposed to inteoduo°_,k-a
new regulations, but simply to enforce upon all local_ beiTt-
regulations which already obtained in. a/ most all
managed institutions.
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDINGS BILL•. to
Mr. COWPER, in asking for leave to into, A„,-,0 a pi
enable the Commissioners of her Majestra ,FO4O to asi
ipire a site for the erection and concentrat; 0 of at
et
justice and of offices belonging to the sp, II id, at that
hour (quarter to 1) he should confine ne, sato
retina
that substantially the bill was the sari, -imself
whit 1101
that d
passed through the house last session,. as
the House of Lords for want of tim" and was stope-
Leave was given to introduce tle b. h Was tsubse'
quently brought in and read a 4:lrst which
The Register of Voters Bill Was , `me.
second Owe'
The Officers' Commission Nil 'ad a we.
The house adjourned at 5, raj,. 'vas aced a thio'clock I,
'lutes to 1
..611.••••••
• OM
LONDON : Printed a':,ed Published 0 YOUNG'
1- e mURD
of No. 112, Strand, Punter,-- NO 11,,
at T N- office, • g
ee Strand, the Precinct of ir
E 'n the COW., the .Q
Savoy,
1""aY1 MaciLl . 11302.. A