The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EYE NINA" MAEOII 18, 1861.

ford, that offensive language had been used towards the

shipowners. lie was no advocate of protection to the ship-

ping interest, but he thought they were entitled to so much
consideration as any other great public class, be they cotton

sPtilers or landowners. (near) The facts stated in the
petition of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce could not
be contradicted. We had agreed to make war less burden.

some to ourselves and to our enemy, but we had done it in

a manner which would inflict serious ir9u.ry. on an important

class of the public. He thought that this resolution re-
commended itself to the country and to the house. He did
not ask the hon. member for Liverpool—nor for the inte-
rest of the cause they had at heart would he adyise him to
press this motion to an actual division. (Hear.) He had
not brought it forward to emtarrass the Government, or to
do anything hostile to them—(hear)—but to afford Parlia-

incnt a fair opportunity for free discussion. That discussion
had taken place) and the question had been hsndled with
various ability on both sides, but ho must say, with great

candour, an all hands. (Hear.) He thought, however,

that the noble lord Rt the head of the Government had been

precipitate In the expression of the opinion he had declared,
and he trusted that before long we should have a Govern-
ment willing to take this matter into consideration, if
foreign nations were willing to do so; and he (Mr.
Bright) had •the best reasons for befit:eh:lg that they
would be glad to do so. (Oh, oh.) There was no doubt
of the United &ates ; of Prussia, he believed there was
no doubt ; and, for himself, he had no doubt of France.
When the people of this country had made tip their minds,
and when Parliament, to enable Government to act,
there would be no difficulty with any foreign country.
He (Mr. Bright) might be pointed at, as ho had been a
thousand times, ae the friend a peace ; but hewould rather
be the friend of peace in the humblest position than the
friend of war in the highest. (Hear.) If the house would
accept freely and frankly the principles submitted to them
by the hon. member for Liverpool they would confer on the
people of this country a great advantage, and on themselves
endless renown. (Cheers.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he quite agreed
with the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham that
the debate on the question before thehouse had been carried
on with great fairness and candour, and that the speech
which the hon. gentleman had delivered was no exception
in this respect. The speech of his hon. friend the member
for Stamford (Sir S. Northcote), was in favour of the pro-
posal of the hon. member for Liverpool, but yet his hon.
friend seeing the extent to which the principle would lead
him, if it were adopted, said he could not bring himself to
the determination to vote for it. It appeared to him that the
arguments urged in support of the motion of the hon. gent.
the member for Liverpool, rested entirely upon the treaty of
Paris. The hon. member for Birmingham had quoted the
memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of Liverpool for the
purpose of showing that the principle that was applied in the
treaty of Paris to goods carried by neutrals, would apple with
equal force to the vessels of belligerents, and that the
effect of it would be to inflict injury on our shipping in-
terests. As to the first argument he (the Solicitor-General)
justified the waiving of the right to seize neutral goods on
the ground that neutrals were entitled to the greater con-
sideration at our hands, and also that if we enforced our
rights with neutrals we might be led into a war with them
and draw them into it with us however unwillingly.
That was the reason for the declaration on this subject in
the Treaty of Paris. The other reason urged in this matter
was that in the transfer of our carrying trade to neutral
vessels we did so to the prejudice of our own shipping inte-
rest. He thought that the statement of the evils which had
resulted from the declaration of Paris had been exaggerated;
and ho would place before the house the other side of the
question, showing the difficulties which would arise from
the proposition of the hon. gentleman the member for Liver-
pool. While we gave up certain belligerent rights to neu-
trals in the declaration of Paris, it was wrong to say that
we introduced any new principles on that occasion into the
law of nations. One of the most important principles of in-
ternational law was, that in a state of war the interests of
the Government and the people were bound up together.
All jurists were agreed that the property of individuals was
responsible for the liabilities of the nation. The whole doc-
trine of reprisals was founde I on that principle ; and on it,
no doubt, the law of maritime capture rested. Mr. Justice
Story was of this opinion when he said that " all contracts
made during war between the subjects of belligerent Powers
were void," and that " this doctrine could not be shaken
without uprooting the principles of international law." This
was not an arbitrary doctrine, but a principle which in-
volved the highest and most momentous considerations.
He dreaded to think what might be the effect in the
interests of patriotism, of a political war, and a com-
mercial peace. (Hear, hear.) If *anything could sap the
patriotism of a people it would be that. (Hear, hear.) The
earliest writer to advocate the principles of the hon. mem-
ber for Liverpool was one in the last century, end he said
that as a class it was the merchants who had the least
patriotism. That, however. was happily not the case with
British merchants. (Hear, hear.) But their patriotism
had not been evoked by a system of political war and com-
mercial peace, but by the opposite system under which they
suffered with the national eeverses in the time of war, and
looked forward to the restoration of peace for a recurrence
of their prosperity. (Hear, hear.) He thought that the
patriotism of the merchant classes would be placed in dan-
ger if they did not suffer with the rest in time of war—
(hear, hear)—and if they had not an interest in the resto-
ration of peace. He yielded to no man in his love of peace
—not even to the hon. gentleman who had last spoken; and
he echoed his sentiment when he said that he would rather
be the meanest lover of peace than the most honoured ad-
vocate of war—(hear, hear)—except when war was under-
taken for the maintenance of the national honour, or when
it was undertaken in self-defence. (Hear, hear.) But
the interests of the people in war ought never to be severed
from the interests of the Government; for the greatest
check upon protracted and unnecessary wars was the
burden which they imposed upon the people. (Hear,
hear.) If they could get rid of or diminish those burdens
upon the people, wars would then go on, and the armies
of the enemy might march, as the hon. gentleman had said,
as " a peaceful cavalcade," and ships could act for defensive
purposes only upon the sea. Merchants might pass and
repass between France and England during war, land their
cargoes and carry on all the operations of their daily life ;
and, if this were the case, could it for a moment be ima-
gined that they would feel the same interest as now in the
prevention of war, or in the restoration of pease. (Hear,
hear.) In this country the people had such an influence
on the Government as to impose a great and serious check
upon unnecessary war; but the interests of large classes of
the people in the restoration of peace would be greatly di-
minished by the plan proposed by the hon. gentleman. Un-
der such a system the shipowners would not have an in-
creased interest in the maintenance of peace; and, though
he did not believe that the shipowners of this country al-
lowed their private interest to overpower their tense of
public duty, still it would be throwing a great temptetion
in their way—(hear)--and it would diminish very much
the inducements they now had to range themselves on the
side of an honourable peacc—(hear, hear)—if we were to
have a political war and a commercial peace. This system
would have a still worse effect in other countries where am-
b'tioua and arbitrary powers cherished designs of aggran-
disement, on which the interests of the people in the pie-
servation of peace proved the most powerful check. (Hear.)
Wars would become chronic in such cases, the people would
become less vigilant, and the taxes on which princes must
depend would be more easily supplied by the mere continu-
ance of trade. (Hear.) It was in the powerof any Government,
when it could be done consistently, to relax the severities
of war as we had done during the contest in the Crimea;
and now that privatering was abolished in maritime war-
fare, it would be more than ever in the power of the Govern-
ments to prevent excesses. They were told that what they
were now asked to do wai to reduce maritime warfare to the
principles on which war was conducted upon land ; but this
was not so, for there was nothing in the present mode of
conducting war upon land analogous to an abandonment of
the power of exercising belligerent rights against merchant
ships at sea. They had lately been threatened with the
danger of war with a foreign Power not bound by the de-
claration of Paris, and therefore at liberty to exercise the
power of privateers. Was there in this country among our
merchants any flinching from the emergency ? (Hear.)
The people of England did not look the danger in the face
as if they were afraid. (Hear, hear.) The merchants of
Liverpool and of other parts of the kingdom uttered no
timid accents. We desired peace not because we were afraid
of war. (Hear.) We rejoiced that peace was preserved, be-
cause we were bound to those with whom war threatened
by ties the most precious, which we were unwilling to sever;
but there was not the least sign of craven apprehension ex-
hibited, or any dread that the moment we entered upon war
with the declaration of Paris about neck our power would
be gone.' He believed that the merchants of this country
knew perfectly well what were the prospects before them,
and they looked those prospects in the face with no less bra-
very than their forefathers did on other occasions. From
these facts he gathered encouragement, and he believed that
he was not wrong in placing faith, notwithstanding the de-
claration of Paris was in as full force as ever, in the patriot-
ism, the resources, and the elasticity of the country.
Mr. WALPOLE felt that a large part of the argument
of the Solicitor-General was conclusive upon the topics to
which he addressed himself. He should not dwell upon that
part of the argument of the hon. member for Birmingham
which treated the abolition of the right of capture of private
property at sea as a necessary consequence of the Paris treaty.
The question was whether they could stand upon the Paris
declaration. That declaration had been entered into under
circumstances which ought to lead them to be very careful
how they laid down abstract principles out of this house
which had never been sanctioned by Parliament. It was a
declaration suggested originally by the French Minister,
and adopted by Lord Clarendon, with the intention and
upon the supposition that all nations were to observe it, or,
at all events, that a similar declaration was to be laid down
for their guidance. The declaration itself pointed to this
result, and the inconvenience which would otherwise misc.
Before it was made Lord Clarendon stated at the conference
that under it privateering was to be abolished by the na-
tions of the world. This, however, not having been as-
sented to by other Powers, caused this country now to be
piaati in considerable difficulty. In the case of a war with
the United States, for instance, England would be bound
hand and foot by the declaration, and would not be able
even to remonstrate with the • United• States if they con-
tinued their system of privateering. Could such considera-

tions be allowed to prevail without putting matters on a
better footing ? It was with the view, if possible, of better-
_ _

ing them that ho had risen. All :they could do at present
was to protest against a declaration, the making of which
exposed this country to extreme danger. He wished to ask
the noble viscount at the head of the Government Whether
the one-sided declaration of Paris—one-sided as regarded
two great maritime powers—should not, if possible, be
amended and placed on a better footing,whether that decla-
ration between nations should not be made applicable to all,
and not be divisible and divided, in order that all countries

might exercise their powers, of course with humanity and

justice, to secure the end, aim, and object of all war.
Lord PALMERSTON—It is generally admitted that
nothing can be more inconvenient than the proposal to, or
the adoption by, this house of a general abstract resolution.

and I think the resolution of the hon. member and the

debate which has followed amply illustrate the truth of

that position. The hon. member has proposed a resolution
excessively vague in words, which points to no specific ob-

ject, the meaning of which can only be collected from the
speeches of awe° Who have supported it in the course of the
debate. If such a resolution were passed Ind the Oovernra ent
of the day were called on to.act upon it, they could onlyguess
as to what course they would have to pursue, and that upon
looking at the afgureents of the gentlemen who have taken
part in the debate. That et-otild in Metal be a difficult mat-
ter, but I confess that in the present casd it NV(Aild ptteAle
the most sagacious Government to know what course to
pursue—(hear)—becauee one-half of those who have sup-
potted the resolution, arid the hon. gentleman who moved
it, have for their object to exempt private property at sea
from capture; but the other half concurring have another
object—to reverse the declaration of Paris. (Elear.) Those
are two objects totally different, indeed diametrically oppo-
site, and between whieh the Government, if called on to
act as they would be by the concluding passages of the re-
solution, would be utterly at a loss as to which of the two
courses the House of Commons wished them to adopt. I
think that is of itself a sufficient reason why this resolution
should not be affirmed by this house. If this house has de-
cided upon the line of policy which it wishes to impose on
the Government, it ought to embody that line of policy in a
resolution with clear, precise, pointed, definite results, and
leaving the Government under no embarrassment as to the
course which the house wishes them to pursue. Then the
Government would have to choose whether it thought fit to
adopt the resolution or not; and then, if the Government
thought it was against the interests of the country, the
course any Government would have to follow is so plain that
it needs no explanation. I will deal first with the declara-
tion of Paris. It has been fully explained that the only new
point, as far as we are concerned, in that declaration was
that which declared that an enemy's property
should be free from capture in a neutral bottom.
The other points in the declaration were old-esta-
blished practice. The declaration as to blockades
was only recapitulating Acts well-known and taken as facts.
My hon. friend the member for Birmingham has very ably
and very fully shown that it was a wise and politic measure
on the part of the Government to adopt the principle that
a neutral flag should cover enemy's goods. He has sh own
that it was the doctrine of every other maritime Power, and
that if we had persisted in maintaining the opposite doc-
trine, and es e had gone to war with any great maritime
State, we should inevitably have run the risk of adding to
that war' dispute with the other maritime Powers which
would have led to another armed neutrality. There is a
principle upon which, as it appears to me, this doctrine
must a
etnainerthalnVteshhiap at sea is a part of our territory, that
lately maintained, at the risk of war,
that
that territory cannot be violated with impunity, that,
therefore, individuals cannot be taken out of a merchant-
man belonging to a neutral country. The Berne principle
may be said to apply to goods as well as men, and if it be
granted, as we do grant, that a belligerent has no right to
take out of a neutral ship persons who are enemies, so also
it follows that the neutral must always be respected, and in
the case even of enemy's property on board, ought not to be
violated. But the ground upon which the Government assen-
ted to that declaration was, as has been well stated by the
hon. member for Birmingham, that in the altered state of
things and in the present relative positions of the great
maritime Powers of the world, they felt that persisting to
maintain a doctrine which no other nation maintained,
would incur the risk of involving this country in hostilities
with more than one Power if we came in conflict with any
one Power. The right hon. gentleman who has just sat
down said, if we were involved in a war with the United
States the Declaration of Paris would place us in an em-
barrassing difficulty, because the United States did not
happen to agree to them. One of the conditions of the De •
claration of Paris was that they should apply only to the
States which became parties to them, and therefore, in so
far as the United States were not parties to the
Declaration of Paris they would not apply to any
parties who engaged in war with the United States. But,
with regard to the 2d Article, which said that the flag should
cover the goods, that has always been the principle
which the United States has maintained, and, therefore, no
difficulty arises between England and the United States
upon that article. It requires no additional declaration to
bind them to an observance of that article, because that has
always been their doctrine, and the fact that it was their
doctrine led us to think that it was more prudent and wise
to adopt, in common with other parties, the declaration of
Paris. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that to
go back to the parties who assembled at Paris and to ask
them to rescind those resolutions, is a course which no
gentleman can seriously think the Government is likely to
adopt, or that, if adopted, the Government is likely to
get the other parties to agree to it. Then we come to the
other subject, namely, the proposition which is made by the
hon, member for Liverpool, that we should agree that pri•
vete property by sea shall be exempt from capture. It is
said that it is a logical deduction from the declaration of
Paris. I deny that proposition. The declaration of Paris re-
lated entirely to the relations between belligerents and neu-
trals. The proposition of the hon. member relates to the re-
lations of belligerents to each other. It is a matter totally
distinct, resting totally on different grounds, and I cannot
see any logical connection between them. The hon. member
for Birmingham has been kind enough to attach some value
to opinions which I expressed some years ago at Liverpool.
The attention which he has been pleased to pay, and the
which he has been pleased to give, to my opinion, induces
me to hope that he will with me alter the opinion which was
then expressed. (Laughter.) The passage quoted as
having been part of what I said at Liverpool related to
two matters. First of all, to the exemption of private
property at sea from capture ; and, secondly, to the assi-
milation of the principles of war at sea to the practice of
war on lend. lam perfectly ready to admit that I have
entirely altered my opinion on the first point. (Hear.)
Further reflection and deeper thinking has satisfied me
that what at first sight is plausible, and 1 admit that it is
plausible on the surface, is a most dangerous doctrine, and
I hope that the hon. member will be kind enough to give
weight to my thoughts and also come round to those second
thoughts, which are proverbially the best. (Cheers and
laughter.) With regard to the assimilation of war by sea to
the practice of war by land, I think that, as far as it was in
the power of the Government by arrangement with other
Powers, we have accomplished it. For what is the main
diffe,rence between the practice of war by sea and by land?
It is said that the practice of war by land is to respect pri-
vate property. Everyone who holds that doctrine must for-
get everything which has passed within his memory, and
everything which he has read. It is well known that when
armies are in an enemy's country they take everything which
they want, and very often destroy what they do not want,
for the mere purpose of destruction: Not only do they de.
strop what they do not want and take what they do want,
but they go further and levy heavy contributions upon the
places which they occupy. I will relate two instances at
different periods of time, which shows the continuity of the
practice. In 1807 when the French army besieged Dantzic,
then a Prussian town, France being at war with Prussia,
after along siege Dantzic surrendered. The French destroyed
in the first place all the suburbs. They took a great many
things which they wanted for their own purposes, requisites
of clothing, and so forth, and then they levied on the town
a contribution of 30,000,000 f. Was that respect for private
property ? Who were to pay those 30,000,000 f. except the
inhabitants, and how were they to pay it except out of their
private property. That is one example of many showing
that it is not the practice in war by land to respect private
property. Take another instance at a much more recent
period— in the year 1850 or 1851. There was a contest then
in the Electorate of Hesse Cassell between different German
Powers. What was the state to which they reduced that
unhappy country ? I will, if the house permit me, read ex-
tracts from letters addressed to me at that time by a diplo-
matic officer, who went to look at the country at the period
and after that contest—a contest which did not last long,
and between German armies, not animated by hereditary
animosity or difference of race, but acting simply in the
ordinary operations of war upon the theatre of hostilities.
This is what he stated on the 17th of November, 1850 :
" It is deplorable to consider the inevitable consequences
of this immense concentration of foreign troops in Hesse, of
which your lordship no doubt is already informed, but the
sufferings of the poor inhabitants is likely to exceed any-
thing which can be imagined. Their provisions for the
winter already setting in, have been consumed by the
troops quartered on them. Sickness and disease are begin-
ning to appear, and I believe, although the report is en-
deavoured to be put down, that the cholera has appeared in
several.places."
That was the condition in November. In the following
March he says :-
4, The country (that is Hesse) continues in a deplorable
condition. There is no commerce of any kind, and eonse-
quently no money. lam assured that in that part of it
occupied in the beginning of the winter by the Federal and
Prussian troops, everything is destroyed, and that there aro
some thousands of persons in a complete state of destitm
tion. Not only were their cattle and stores all consumed,
but their horses even taken, so that the ground cannot be
tilled, and in the interior of the houses and cottages the
furniture of all sorts was used for firewood."
clined towards the Elector and his Government, and who
given to mo by a person who is well in-
aTdhdiesda
that
ni
tt
would
w
part of the electorate to its former condition. (Hear, hear,)
eaus require at least 10 years to restore that
That is just a single specimen of the result of war by land,
and then gentlemen ran away with the notion that in war
by land private property is respected. Why, it is perfectly
well known that it is taken whenever it is wanted, that it
is destroyed frequently out of wantonness, that it is always
destroyed in the ueeessery operations of war, and that in
those cases compensation is not given by those who destroy
it. Dy sea it is said private property is taken, but it is taken

in a different Manner and with more order and regularity.
Private property by sea is not made prize until it is adjudi-

cated by a competent tribunal as a legal and proper capture:

By land it is taken at the moment ;hen it 19 wanted, and
as it may be wanted. I was about to say that we have

assimilated, er endeavoured at least to assimilate, the prac-
tice of wat by sea to the practice of war by land. What
was the main difference Of the two? Not that private pro-
perty was not taken by land as it was taken by sea, but that
by sea it was taken by a different set of people ftom those
who were author iced to take it by land. By laqd no indi-

. _
vidual was allowed to make war unless he belonged to a
regularly organised army, and was in the service of a
state. If people made war on their own account on land,
they were taken and shot as banditti. Nothing, was more
common in Spain than for the French to take the peasants
and shoot them without the slightest hesitation if they
were not embodied as military. It is a well known fact
that to carry on a war by land the people must be in the
service of an established authority. Not so by sea. Pri-
vate war on the ocean was a permitted and acknowledged
practice. We agreed at last to the proposal that pri-
vateering by sea should no longer be a legitimate mode of
carrying on war, and that future wars should be carried
on only by regularly organised forces acting under the
authority and corn: dnd of a responsible Government.
That part of the arrangemeht fees so far been carried out
that privateering—as regards those titiiiieic who acceded to
the beclaration—has been, and will be discottfindedi But
these Declaratiete do not apply to the States which did not
accede to them. The "United Rates of America have not
acceded to the abolition of privateering, and, undoubtedly,
if we had the misfortune, as was not unlikely a rbo't time
ago, to be engaged in war with the United States, we should
not be bound to abstain from privateering unless the United
States should also enter into a similar and corresponding en-
gagement. (Hear, hear.) Much criticism haes been passed
upon a remark of my right hon. friend the Sscretary for
War, that war puts an end to treaties. Undoubtedly war
does put an end to treaties, and even to declarations of this
sort---(hear, hear)—and in the event of war you would have
to rest upon the honour and good feeling of the parties who
had agreed to them in time of peace. We have had a recent
instance to show that that principle is admitted and acted
upon, and that such declarations are not always likely to be
observed by Governments; because the President of the
United States, maintaining, as he did; that the capture of
those two gentlemen on board the Trent was at variance
with the unvariable and acknowledged principles of the
United States, and allowing that it was therefore his duty
to give them up, yet declared that if it had been for the in-
terest of his country—departing trot/ his own principles
and from the admitted doctrine of the United States —he
should have felt it his duty not to give them up. (Laughter.)
My right hon. friend is quite right in saying that you have
net that security from belligerents that in time of war they
will observe the conditions laid down in peace which you
have from neutrals. IV hen you make an engagement pith
a neutral, if it is not kept by him you have the resource of
war, but when you are at war you heere shot your bolt, and
you can do nothing more. It must rest oh the honour of
the belligerent, and on hs respect for public opinion, though
you have always this remedy—that you may say you will
not conclude a peace with him unless you have ample re-
dress and restoration for the injury done in the war in con-
travention of the principles previously establ;shed. It is
said that the principles laid down at Paris would be fatal to
our commerce and to the shipping interests; but the very
arguments used by hon. gentlemen who take that view ne-
gative the first part of the assertion, because they say our
commerce would go on without any interruption whatever,
and all that would happen would be that the channel through
which it flowed would be changed, and that commerce would
be carried on through the neutrals with much greater
safety than in our own ships. If that be so, so far as our
commerce is concerned, there is no ground for complaint.
(Hear, hear.) It must be admitted that that principle would
increase the inconveniences which the shipowners would
feel when war broke out. But, unfortunately, it is of the
nature of war that it cannot be carried on without embar-
rassment, suffering, and loss to all parties concerned. If
you make war without any suffering and any loss to any
party whatever, it would become mere child's play, and it
might last for ever without coming to any result. (Hear.)
It is said that all our commerce would immediately be car-
ried on by neutrals, but how is that made out ? I presume
it may be asserted that the commerce of the world is carried
on by the ships of the world, and I believe our commercial
ships form a large proportion of the ships which carry on
that commerce. Suppose that our ships were thrown out of
employment, where will you find ships to take their place ?
Ships are not things which can be created on a sudden ; it
takes time to create a mercantile marine. I forget how
many millions of tons we have in our merchant shipping,
but supposing the whole of them were all at once confined
to our harbours, where will you find neutral ships to take
their place, and to carry on the commerce which they
now carry on ? We are, I hope, the most powerful naval
State, and we have, I hope, a fleet which in the event of
war would be superior to any adversary with whom we
might be engaged. (Hear, bear.) The ships of that ad-
versary would either in a very short time be confined
to their ports, or they would come out and suffer de-
feat; and when we had established our maritime supre-
macy at sea, then the danger to our merchant service
would in such proportion be diminished. (Hear, hear.)
This really is only another instance of an attempt to set up
the assumed interest of one class of persons against the
general interests of the country. We have had a great many
examples of that in years past, and in all those cases the
persons who objected to a particular arrangement on the
ground that they imagined that it was injurious to their
interests found afterwards in the end that they were mis-
taken, and they have actually shared in the general good
which resulted from that arrangement. When free trade in
corn was established, the agricultural interest contended
that they would be ruined, and great efforts were made to
prevent the adoption of that measure ; but the agricultural
interest has since found that it prospered with the pros-
per ity which that change produced. Our manufacturing
interests also contended that by admitting foreign manu-
factures our manufacturers would be ruined, but instead of
that our manufactures have increased in the very propor-
tion that we have admitted foreign manufactures. This
very interest—the shipping interest—is also an instance.
They contended most elaborately and eloquently that the
change in the Navigation Laws would be their ruin, but
the contrary has been the fact, and our shipping has in-
creased ever since by reason of that change. The shipping
interest now ask for the establishment of the principle con-
tained in the resolution of the hon. member for Liverpool,
because they imagine that it would relieve them of the
pressure of war; but in the same way it can be shown that
the remedy which they seek will, in fact, be detrimental to
the general interests of the country, and that they would
share in the injury which the country would sustain if
that were granted to them which a short-sighted view
of their own interests induces them to think of impor-
tance. An island like this, with an army which is not
large enough to be sent to a distance across the sea for
any great operations of war, must mainly rest for re-
dress upon its naval power being exerted in destroying
the commerce and commercial ships of its antagonists, and
in taking their crews prisoners. Gentlemen have argued
this question as if it were simply a matter of ships and
goods ; but they forget that when you take an enemy's
merchant ship you take not only the vessel and cargo, but
also the sailors onboard— (hear, hear)—who, if they aro al-
lowed to return safely to their own ports, are an additional
source of strength to your enemy. Suppose—what I hope
may be far distant—that we were at war with France.
That country sends annually some 15,000 or 20,000 sailors
to the different fisheries as nurseries for her war navy.
Suppose we were blockading Brest, Toulon. Cherbourg, or
L'Orient, if the principle of the hon. member for Liverpool
were adopted, we should have to allow the fleet of 20,000
sailors to pass with impunity through our blockading squa-
dron to man the enemy ships lying in the port before us.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore it is not simply the injury done to
the enemy by the capture of his property and vessels which
you have to consider, it is the injury you can do him by
thus crippling his war navy, and depriving him of a certain
number of men who would otherwise man that navy, and
enable it to come out and give you battle. (Hear, hear.)
My opinion, therefore, distinctly is, that if you give up that
power which you possess, and which all maritime States
possess and have exercised—of taking the ships, the pro-
perty, and the crews of the nation with whom you may
happen to be at war—you would be crippling the right arm
of our strength. You would be inflicting a blow upon our
naval power, and you would be guilty of an act of political
suicide. (Hear, hear.) If you allow the cargo to go free,
you must allow the men also to go free. Suppose you were
at war with France, you could not stop a merchant ship
and take the men out of her while you let the vessel
and cargo go. You could not say, "We will respect
the cargo and respect the vessel, but you haue sailors,
and as the mercantile marine is that which feeds the war
navy, sailors aro part of the enemy's • power, and, there-
fore, gentlemen, we cannot let you go into port—we
must take possession of you, and allow the ship and cargo
to get home as they best can." (Laughter.) Therefore,
according to the principle of the honourable gentleman,
you would be compelled to let any number of sailors pass
into a harbour, to man a fleet there, that might come out to
encounter yours, and offer it battle. (Hear, hear.) With
this principle you would really almost reduce war to an
exchange of diplomatic notes. (Hear, hear.) If you admit
the principle that private property must bo respected at sea,
you cannot maintain a blockade. You enfore a blockade by
confiscating the ships that break it; how can you do that
if you assert that private property at sea is to be respected ?
You may say that ships shall only be taken in case they
break the blockade. But what is it? That is not a ques-
tion so clear that an infinite number of questions may not
arise upon it, It may be alleged that a ship has not broken
the blockade; it may be a question how far she was from
the port, and in what degree her approach to it proved an
intention of breaking the blockade. Many "pa'aits of this
sort would arise, exceedingly difficult to establish; and you
would get into insuperable difficulties if you went the
length of saying that private property is to be respected at
sea, and only to be taken In the case of breaking a blockade.
I repeat, if you adopt the principle of the hon. gentleman
you will cripple the main arm of your strength for all pur-
poses of war. (Hear, hear.) We ere all agreed that war
is a thing to be avoided, I hope that this country will never
be engaged in any unjust war. But as long as human
nature is human nature; as long as mankind are ambitious

tyrannical, and oppressive, especially if they believe the
may be so with impunity or without suffering for it, so
lone will a nation like this, whose subjects are scattered
aver the lace of the globe living in aryl engaged in com-
merce with every communily of the world, and relying on
the f ith of treaties with their Governments, so long wi
tl
this country be liable to causes of just quarrel from time
to time with foreign nations. And the more remote
the nation the mato likely it is such causes of quarrel
will arise. In su6. cases the navy is the only arm by
which you can estTeort redrew. You cannot send out
military expeditjdns to conquer the country that
has done you wrong. You can only obtain redress by means
of your navy. It may be said you may bombard a city
or a town. But that is not a practice that anyone can re-
commend you to adopt. Thet is worse than taking private
property on the sea, for you destroy the property of people
who have had nothing whatever to do with the cause of
quarrel between the two countries. You have no iesource
in cases of this sort but the power of your navy. Then,
what class of persons in this country have most interest in
maintaining the power of obtaining redress for an injury ?
The shipping and commercial interests, who have the most
numerous transactiima with foreign countries, and who are
more likely than any others to be objects of injury and
wrong ; they are the classes for whom this country is most
likely to be called on to demand and obtain redress. (Hear.)
Under these circumstances, I should hope the hon. gentle-
man will be satisfied with the debate that has arisen on his
motion, and with the very conflicting and contradictory
support it has received from the house. (Laughter.) I think
the hon. gotitieman himself must be at a loss to know what
is the sense his resolution is understood to bear. (Laueeh-
tor.) I should hope he Will be content with the mysterious
vagueness in which it has been enveloped and the doubtful
result of the opinions elicited in the debate that has arisen
on it. (Hear.) I hope he will be satisfied with the discus-
sion ; he has made a very sensible speech, barring some of
its opinions and arguments—(laughter)—a speech to which
I listened with very great pleasure. I hope the hon. gentle-
man will be Content with the discussion he has raised on the
question, and withdraw his resolution. (Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI said, 'whatever variety of opinion exists
with regard to the motion, there cannot be two opinions as
to the importance of the subject. (Hear, hear.) In my
mind it is the moat important subject that can engage our
attention. In importance I put it far beyond the question
, of Parliamentary Reform, even when that question was a
reality. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) That question referred
to the disposition of political power in England ; the pre-
' sent question affects our national power throughout Europe
and the world. (Hear, hear.) Now, how has this question
arisen ? No doubt it is raised by the Declaration of Paris
in 1856. The Solicitor-General says that when an appre •
hension of war arose, he did not seo that any fear was ex-
pressed by the merchants of this country of the conse -
quences of the changes that have been made in our maritime
law ; that they were ready, with inherent and hereditary
courage, to meet the emergency before them. I cannot agree
with the hon. and learned gentleman, except in giving credit
to the merchants and shipowners for their courage. I think
it is in consequence of the apprehension of war with a
powerful State, that it is in consequence of that panic, this
discussion has arisen., By the declaration of Paris, wehave
given up the cardinal principle of our maritime power.
(Hear, hear.) I do not think the noble lord has been suc-
cessful in imputing to the shipowners that this is a discus-
sion got up merely about their individual interests. I am
sure that is not the case. There is a general impression
that the great change made in the maritime code may be,
perhaps must be, the cause of serious results to the mari-
time power of this country. (Hear.) It is not at all a ques-
tion of the shipping interest only ; it concerns the whole
maritime strength of this country, if it is true that we have
acknowledged the principle that the flag of a neutral covers
the cargo. This must divert the commerce of the country
in time of war into neutral bottoms ; and that I believe will
have dealt a serious blow to our maritime strength. Our
maritime strength will follow the carrying trade. If the
carrying trade leaves the shores of this country, the mari-
time population will go with it ; and if we have not a pre-
ponderance of the maritime population we cannot have the
preponderance of naval power. (Hear.) The noblelord says
we have got the ships, and as ships are not built in a day how
can any other nation obtain the carrying trade ? But these
ships, if not used by us, will not be locked up in decks and
harbours. No doubt, where the profits are good and the risk
nil, the ships will find new masters. I have not heard any
argument in the debate that has met this point of the case,
though it is a most important consideration. Did you take any
step, by the Declaration of Paris, relinquishing a cardinal
principle and impairing our maritime strength ? That is the
real question. It is on interests superior to that of the ship-
owners that we are now discussing the subject. The noble
lord has treated this question in an extraordinary manner.
He first gave certain abstract reasons in favour of the
change. It is very surprising that so experienced a states-
man, born and bred in the school of politics that attached
so much importance to this point of our maritime cede, the
school of Liverpool and Canning, should suddenly find
there are abstract arguments against its existence. I must
do the noble lord the justice to say that he did not dwell
much on that point. He admitted that the real causes of the
change have been placed more clearly before the house by
the hon. member for Birmingham. It was because, on the
eve of a war with Russia, we feared the assertion of the
principle that a neutral flag does not cever the cargo might
involve us in embarrassments with the United States. (Hear,
hear,) The noble lord recognised the accuracy of that de-
scription. If that be a sufficient reason for the course taken,
see how it has operated with regard to the very Power for
which the sacrifice was made. As the house has been re -
minded, we might be at war with the United States, and
the United Stateasnight at the same time, by virtue of the
principle that the flag covers the cargo, carry on the whole
of their trade in neutral vessels, while they poured forth
thousands of privateers to prey upon our merchant shipping.
(Hear, hear.) In giving up this cardinal point, therefore, for
a, to a certain degree, visionary apprehension, which could
not bo put to a practical test, we have, without having
effected our object, placed ourselves absolutely at the mercy
of the United States, if, which God forbid I a war should
ever take place between the two countries. That being
the position of affairs, we have now before us a
motion which has been described as the natural
consequence of our relinquishment of this cardinal
principle of our maritime policy in the Declaration
of Paris. The noble lord denies that it is a natural con-
sequence; but he forgot that he was the first great autho-
rity to announce that it was so. (Hear, hear.) Why, when
the Declaration of Paris was signed and peace proclaimed,
the noble lord travelled 200 miles to a considerable city, and
was the first person who called the attention of the country
to the inevitable connexion between this renunciation of our
old principle of maritime policy, and the policy recom-
mended by the hon. member for Liverpool. The noble lord
now says, " I have changed my opinion. I cannot deny
that when peace was proclaimed I went down to Liverpool
to receive the congratulations of my friends and stimulate
the spirit of may party, not by a hurried but by a well-con-
sidered and mature manifesto, and that I said that the prin-
ciples which were adopted at the Paris Conference might
perhaps be still further extended, and that in the course of
time those principles of war which were applied to hostili-
ties by land might be extended to hostilities by sea, so that
private property might no longer bo the object of aggression
on either side." Now, I want to know what more the hon.
member for Liverpool has said ? (Cheers.) These opinions,
indeed, exceed anything which the hon. gentleman has re-
commended. The hon. gentleman has not dared to put in
a resolution that which the Prime Minister of England an-
nounced in a speech. " But," says the noble lord, " I have
changed my opinion." Well, a man has a perfect right to
change his opinion. We do not grudge the noble lord his
change of opinion on these vital subjects, but then the
noble lord's opinion upon any subject can hardly be such
a leading authority as it was before. (Hear, and laugh-
ter.) Hero is the noble lord, 20 years Secretary-at-War,
15 years Foreigri Secretary, and at the time when lee
made this declaration Prime Minister. For 40 years he
must have been meditating and manipulating kindred sub-
jects to this. (Hear, hear.) Whether the flag should
cover the cargo, every question affecting privateering,
every form which a diplomatic declaration can assume
must have constantly occupied the mind and meditation
of the noble lord. Yet, upon the most important of these
subjects the noble lord, holding a most responsible
situation and making a well-considered speech, which,
from the manner and the time of its delivery, was more im-
portant even than a debate in this house, because it was a
declaration to a nation—the noble lord comes to the same
conclusion as the hon. member, and yet tells us now that
he has entirely changed his opinion. Yes, the noble lord
may change his opinion ; but let me tell him that when he
rises again, and when questions of this high importance are
brought under the consideration of the House of Commons,
and ho warns the house that they are asked to adopt " a
suicidal policy," ho will not exercise that influence upon
public opinion which he possessed before the hasty expres-
sions that he has now recalled. What ? " A suicidal
policy I" Is that the policy recommended by the hon. mem-
ber for Liverpool ? Why, it is the policy which the noble
lord himself completely planned and partially perpetrated.
(Cheers and laughter.) I deeply regret this, because I
know that there have been and may again be occasions of
national difficulty when the warning voice of an experienced
statesman, of the talents, popularity, and authority of the
noble lord would sink deep into the public mind, and would
exercise a great and salutary influence upon public opinion.
But, alas I that is all over. (Cheers and laughter.) How-
ever ruinous the proposition, however revolutionary the
schemes, however vast the danger that may assail the
State, though the noble lord may be deeply impressed
with all these perils, though ho may feel deeply and
think deeply, and though there may be no risk of his
changing his opinions, the world will remember that he
went dowa to Liverpool to recommend a " suicidal policy,"
hanisd
wthoreTis wmililghertyha"vleVoslafv,
emd-oltfilewcolafpl;
t'
lw. h e(nchotherwise
laughter.) Now, what are we to do in our present position ?
The noble lord says we have two alternatives. I will
take first the proposal made by the hon. member which the
noble lord at Liverpool advocated with so much eloquence.
(Laughter.) 'eoat appears to me a visionary Lproposition.
(Hear.) I cannot myself dissociate the interests of nations
and of Governments. I t seems to ine dangerous to do so. It
may make rich societies, but will surely make weak States.
(Hear,)
cannot believe that armies and navies can flour
I ish when they are no longer bound up with the interests

and passions of the commun it, V. If a sonic ty founded on
such principles were lo n•g Pe rsi'sted in I see the possibility
of immense corruption,
nd I can hardly doubt that the end,
would be that in sohie part
.f ate world some .man fore:
—some conqueror, with sou tt3 new system of tactics or news
kind of artillery—would tak "-.advantage of such a flourish-.
Vs
ing but dead community, wh. would then vanish with a
se to conceive, and give place
rapidity which it is difficult no
to a society established on vei Y different principles from
those which have now the ascent Itsncy in the excellent town
of Liverpool. (Cheers and laug 1.• ter.) But, viewing the
you concede the
matter in the most practical I cannot see how you
can maintain your system of blocskali es.if
principle which the hon. member rea amends, and which
the noble lord a few years back so warmly supported.
tr system of block-
(Laughter.) If you cannot maintain ym.
wer must cease to
..
ades it seems inevitable that your naval po
st for defensive
be an aggressive power, and must only e,.
objects. (Hear.) Then, what is the posit-ie•/1 of a country
lik'o England in the event of war with a great
posse? possessing great armaments if her flee ts cansonly a tt
on the dOfensive ? Why we should sink into utter
insignifi
cance. (Ciseers.) We should have no power t`o assert our
authority. A Ithough we might be carrying on a thriving
trade, we might all this time be working only for others;
and while we were sacrificing everything to the accuroula-
tion of treasure we m,lst ultimately be the victims of soma
strong Power influenced by different principles from those
which governed our cyst, mn. I cannot, therefore, support
the views of the hon. membeir and those heretofore advocat
rd
by the noble lord. Thoseview 's are, as I think, most danger-
ous. I do not want to see the co.vanunity entirely severed in:
sentiment from those who govern it. Patriotism depends as
much on mutual suffering as on success, and it is by that ex-
pe:ience of all fortunes and all feelings that a great nation al
character is created. Although I am still willing to ad-
mit the Laconveniences, the difficulties, and dangers that
beset our position, especially from the unfortunate loss of
the cardinal priluciple of our maritime code at Paris, yet I
rest my confidence' on the patriotism of my countrymen and
the good fortune of ss country that I believe to be destined
to remain great. (M-Aar, hear.) Although, therefore, Ido
not attempt to obtain by the first alternative that relief
from the difficulty which the treaty has entailed upon us,
yet I cannot agree with the noble lord in treating with the
derision he has done the sugy,ostion that the treaty of Paris
is one that is never to be chan,g ed. (Hear.) The observa-
tion of the Secretary of State for War as to the consequessec
of war upon the treaty appears to me to be perfectly just,
although it has the recommendatfot"t of having been long.
accepted. No one doubts that war terminates a treaty
between belligerents, although this is a treaty that contem-
plates the action of war between belligeren ts. But there iss
one point which the right hon. gentleman eutirely omitted.
It is true that war terminates a treaty between belligerents,
but only belligerents. (Hear, hear.) If we went to war
with Russia, both Powers being parties to the declaration,
the treaty of Paris is not terminated, because there are ether
parties to this arrangement besides Vussia and Englassel.
Therefore the war would not relieve us' from the declaration
of the treaty of Paris, because the rights of all the other
signatures to the treaty would continue to exist. They'
may assert their claims on us, and make tilose claims the
foundation of a declaration of war. (Hex?, hear.) The
right hon, gentleman was too quick in assumii.'g that there.
was a chance of getting rid of this precious bafgain. (A.
laugh.) He has no longer to supply the funds fox a war,
and wo remember how he supplied us with funds during
the Russian war, (A laugh.) Of course, the Govern-
ment might, as part of the pfogramme of the year, declare
war, in order to relieve us from the treaty. But there are
wiser and milder means by which the country may obtain
relief and the shipowner redress from the mistakes and
improvidence of the statesmen whcp have been entrusted
with this affair. I know that the noble lord will
treat any suggestion with derision that proceeds from
these benches. But I have an authority w.hicit ought to
weigh with him, and which he ought to follow, s:or no one
was more impressed with the mischievous and imps,ovident
character—the alarming character, of the declarah:97l of
Paris, especially the principle that the flag covers the ctusgs,
than the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs-
(Cheers.) The noble lord is a practical man, and when U,
gives an opinion he is generally prepared with a measure to
carry it into effect. (A, laugh.) This highly-esteemed
nobleman thus expressed himself in regard to the declara-
tion of Paris :—" I cannot but think (he said) that, in point
of principle, the declarations of the treaty of Paris ought to
be altered. (Cheers.) The whole matter is most unsat isfac •
tory, and has a most grave bearing on our national suyre-
macy." (Cheers.) If that were the opinion only of Lord
Russell, who has so long served his Sovereign, who has 0.11
so many years in her councils, and has led this house with
so much ability, it would be highly valuable and ought to
influence an assembly like this. But the house will remem-
ber that the nobleman who expressed thisopinion is aMini-
ster of the Crown, and who as Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs would be entrusted with the management of till°
business in any negotiations that miglst take place.
(Cheers.) Ido not know what the present o ccupations sf
the Cabinet may be, or whether they are so multifarious an
those of the House of Commons, but if they ar e not more
employed than we are—(a laugh)—l would suggest to her
Majesty's Ministers for their next subject of meeting til°
consideration of the means, to use the language Of the
Secretary of State, how the declarations of the trea.ly of
Paris may be altered. (Cheers.)
Mr. HORSFALL made a few observations in reply, a'
expressed himself satisfied with the course the discusssz
had taken. He then, in deference to the sugges
done ma
from both sides of the house, withdrew the motion.
Tho report of supply was brought. up and read.
a the
The other orders of the day were disposed of, anhouse adjourned at a quarter to 2 o'cloc2r.

COUN7RI 111A1EL• iS•

1•,

COLCHESTER—MARCH 15.
To-day a better supply of wheat, but trade rath.ersloyli
and late prices barely made. Fine barley
price, but is getting scarcer. Beans and maintains ,t,.!
peas were pot'
at late rates.
Wheat, white. 54s 68s Beans,Mazagan..36s 400
red 46s 64s middle & small.4oB 40
Barley
Oats • --s —s gray 38s 425

CHELMSFORD—MARcs 14.
A fair supply of wheat to••clay, with a dull market agaio•
Prices may be quoted at is to 2s under last week's rate'
Spring corn at late rates, and very dull.
Wheat, old white 27s 58s t eas, Partridge-...37s 410
new 468 65s White 39s 46
old red... , 26s 50s Boiling .. 41s 4786'
new 51s 61s Dun 36s 400
Batley 308 398 Ditto new ......--s .--°
Chevalier 3os 42s Beans, Tick, old ..35s 410
Grinding 24s 328 , now.. 35s 41°
Malt 6ls 678 narrow Ticks ..37s 430
Chevalier . 64s 698 new..37s teff
Oats 23s 30s Mazagan ..... .. 32s 358

GLO UTE STE R--MAncg 15.
A good supply of English wheat, which met a fair sale
at a decline of is per qr. Foreign sold slowly at is down'
Oats in limited demand, and prices nominal. Barley and
buns easier to purchase.

KIRKCALDY GRAIN—MARCH 15.
We had fair supplies to day of wheat and oats, bil,tt
small of barley. of best wheat and oats at previoa-
prices ; inferior is cheaper. Barley unaltered in price.
Wheat. Barley. Oats.
First. 42s Od 2240 d 20s Od
Second.. 48s Od 29s 6d. I 22s Gd
Third...6Bs Od 33s Od 20s Od

COAL DI
(Macs of Coal per Ton at
s. (1.

:ARKET.
t the close of the market

Byass's Bebside West
Hartley ...15 3
Wylam l4 6
Hastings Hartley l5 3
Holywell 14 6
Tanfield Moor Butes —l2 0
Hartlepool West Hart-
ley
Howard's West Hart-
ley ....15 0
Walker Primrose 11 6
Grey's West Hartley-14 0
Carway and Duffryn
Malting 23 6
Do. Anthracite 21 0
North Pelton 12 0
Cowpen Hartley 15 3
West Hartley l5 3

Walls:End.
s. a..
Eden l5 u,.,
Acorn Close ..16 u
Tursdale. . 12 0
South Kelloe.. ........ 15 6
Hunwick
0
Framwellgate
15
15 6
Cassop .........
S. Durham
14 0
Tunstall
Eouth Hetton 16 „6
Whitworth 14 6u '
Hetton .• l6 i,
Caradoc
South Hart1ep001......15
~;
Keiper Grange... 15 ``
. ..
ITaswell l6 6,
Peases West .14 un
Ridde11.....,
Wharricliffe l3 '
Heugh Hall 15 °
K elloe