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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING-, IVIA.ROR 18, 1862,

F entoni proclamation. His noble friend did not on that
0( "casion make any attack upon the Piedmontese Govern-
or Ant, except in the hypothetical sense of the proclamation
wing been issued by the Government. The noble earl
eihaply asked for information, and where was he to get that
information but from her Majesty's Government ? (Hear,
' hear.) He also had asked for information in very moderate
language. But how was he met ? The Duke of Argyle
jumped up--(laughter)—and treated him as a person who
was attacking the Government, who was asking an 'raper-
tent question, or who was making a still more imper-
tinent assumption. The noble duke said to him
-very much what used to be said to them at
school, " Ask no questions." Their lordships knew the end
of the adage. (Laughter.) And the noble duke supported
the truth of the adage by immediately giving their lord-
ships a piece of false information himself-- (renewed
laughter)—for he stated that there was no truth in the pro-
clatnation, that it had never been written, and, in fact, that
-he had been told on good authority that there was not a
word of it true. He regretted very much the spirit which
noble lords opposite exhibited, for he was scare that the
conduct of the Opposition during the whole of the session
should teach the Government not to take every observation
that fell from them as spoken in a party spirit. The noble
earl had just said, tho'c the English Government could not
be condemned for any acts of cruelty that took place in
Italy, whether, sanctioned or not by the Piedreontese Go-
vernment. In that he perfectly agreed; but from the be-
ginning o,i their taking office they so far identified them-
selves -.vith the prosperity of Italy that they had given all
their moral support to the union of the Italian states, and
ha-a gone further, and approved of a descent of Garibaldi,
first upon Sicily, and subseqnently in a much more ques-
tionable attack upon Naples. Therefore the English Go -
•verntuent were so far identified with what had passed in
Italy, that if events occurred such as would bring disgrace
upon the cause they supported they were entitled to bring
the weight-ef their advice and counsel to bear upon the
Government of Italy. Although he perfectly agreed with
the noble earl's policy of non-interference in Italy, he
thought-an olTPortunity of promoting the good of Italy had
been los. t wtten the Government did not agree to the French
propconticin for preventing Garibaldi from coming into Na-
ples. It should be remembered that in the early days of
Itali:411 agitation unity was not mentioned. It was merely
th'd dream of a set of pedants, who took the map of Italy
Catd arranged the kingdoms as if they were planning it on a
dinner-table. Thai was the way in which the idea first
began, and with its introduction the Italians grasped the
shadow and for a long time postponed the substance of
liberty. It appeared to him that a kingdom might be
formed out of the northern provinces, because the people
were identical in race; but the noble earl might depend
upon it—and he (Lord Malmesbury) spoke on the best in-
formation—that the Piedmontese were as much hated in
Naples as ever the Austrians had been hated in Piedmont
Like the ancient Bretons in Brittany, the motto of the
Neapolitans was, " Potius mori, quam fcedari." He could
:not help asking the noble earl whether he was not mis-
taken in the flourishing account he had given of the way in
which political prisoners were prosecuted and treated in
the new kingdom of Italy. He had received an account
from a gentleman who had just returned from that country
of what was taking place, and he would, with their lord-
ships' Permission, read it to the house. His correspondent
said ttuit after the letters of Messrs. Gladstone and Edwin
James—he apologised for coupling the two names—he had
Leen anxious to see how matters were arranged in the prislins
tinder the present regime, and he believed no one in England
'had any idea of what was going on in the prisons. He had
gone down to see a friend who was confined in the prison of
Santa Maria Apparente, and he found there:the Comte di
Cristan, who had been five months confined for political
offences. The young man was so highly thought of by
his captors that a general's commission had been offered
to him, but he had refused it and had now been five
months in prison, where he could not get a trial, nor even
a sight of the documents which were to be used by the
prosecution, He (Lord Malmesbury) had risen for the pur-
pose Principally of making this statement,which he had, he
coul'ff assure the noble earl, from the very best authority.
}Fa entreated the noble earl, if he was anxious for; the
liberty of Italy, to show that he had no sympathy with atro-
cities such as he had described.

Lord WODEHOUSE did not wonder that the noble earl
should feel sensitive with respect to the comments which
had been made upon his foreign policy. On the Ministerial
side of the house, however, there was no disposition to ac-
cuse him of any partiality. Both Governments had, so far
as mere non-interventiott went, pursued the same policy to-
wards Italy; and the difference between their lines of con-
duct was this, that the present Government gave to the
Italians the amount of their moral support which the Go-
vernment of the noble earl (Lord Derby's Government) had
not done, tie fully endorsed all that had been said of the strict
imPartirAlity of Lord Derby's Government, but with respect
to the. noble marquis that was not the case, for he every fort-
night brought down to the house an amount of details raked
together from everyquarter—a complete 011 a Podrida of the
faults and failings of free Government, and it was remark-
able that until lately the Opposition had carefully avoided
identifying itself with his views. The noble earl had said
that it always has been his desire to see a free Government
in Italy, and he drew a distinction between union and con-
federation, but he overlooked the fact that, connected with
the classical association which clung around Rome, was
that of a united Italy,
The Marquis of CLANRICARE, referring to the &seas-
sination of Colonel Aviti at Parma, a circumstance men-
tioned by the Marquis of Normanby in his general charge
of cruelty against the Piedmontese authorities, denied that
it was committed either directly or indirectly by the Italian
Government, but was the barbarous act of an infuriated
mob.

The Marquis of NORMANBY having briefly replied,
the motion was agreed to in regard to any papers in the
possession of her Majesty's Government,
After which their lordships adjourned.

. HOUSE- OF COMMONS--.YESTERDAY.
The SPEAKIIR took the chair at four o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The Caledonian Railway (Deviation, &c.) Bill
Icas read a third time and passed. The following
bills were considered and ordered for third reading :
Groat Northern Railway (No. 1) Bill, not amended—Great
Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill—London and
Blackwall Railway Bill—Much Wenlock and Severn Junc-
tion Railway Bill—Tranmere Improvement Bill (changed
from Tranmere Local Board).

PETITIONS.
Several petitions were presented against the Revised
Cs le of Education, in favour of an alteration in the Inter-
national Maritime Law, in favour of a reduction of the duty
on fire insurances, against thelopening of public-houses on
Sundays, in favour of an amendment in the Irish poor
law, &c.

THE MURDER OF MR. PRAYTER. 1
In reply to Sir H. WILLOUGHBY,
Sir G. GREY said that the judge who tried the unfor-
tunate man who committed the murder in question, was of
opinion from his eccentric conduct during the trial, that he
was insane, and communicated this impression to him (Sir
G Grey). He directed an inquiry to be instituted, and
from the certificates of four Medical men, who
visited the prisoner in Newcastle Gaol, there
could be no doubt of his insanity. He had
accordingly written to the visiting justices of the gaol,
calling their attention to the facts, and reminding them
that they were bound to see that the prisoner did not in-
jure himself or other persons while he was in gaol.
PUBLIC INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE asked the Secretary to the Trea-
sury whether, in the return No. 402, of session 1861, re-
lating to public income and expenditure, the public expen-
diture in each year was stated at the amount estimated im •
mediately after the close of the year, or at the amount
ascertained by actual audited accounts ?
Mr. F. PEEL was understood to say that the accounts
were not made up in either of the ways alluded to by the
hon. merubm
Adc iIEsT OF OFFICERS OF THE UNITED
STATES AT TANGIER.
Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Under Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs whether the Lieutenant of the Sumter,
and ex-consul of the United States at Cadiz, who were
arrested on landing from the Ville de Malaga steamer
by the United States Consul at Tangier, were taken
down to the harbour, and embarked as prisoners
Ou board the United States frigate the Igo ;
'Whether the Moorish Government did not protest against
1114 Proceeding, and only yielded to the threat of the United
State,
k w Consul that ho would strike his flag; and, whether
was the opinion of her Majesty's Government that the
Jurisdiction with which, by the existing capitulations or
treaties, European consuls were invested over their country-
men in Mah,,,,ed
cial co
coun gniza,ceor an countries, empowers them to take judi-
aalleged political offences committed in any
try: an
other
aius ;if not, whether the British Government
would take re
tett our faithful ally, the Moorish
Government, from 0
sur,
irl
Mr. LAYARD Ztedftingement of its independence
been betrayed on a formsome errors into which he had
in consequence of mis-
information received frorriltalftt
authorities at Madrid had bem C )wley. He said the
quesizitrunicated with, and ho
trusted that the gentlemen in.
would be released.
i
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
secNreItaRELAND.
Sir E. GROGAN asked the Chief
the
er Ireland
if he intended to bring forward a bill, during
session, for making the reputed fathers of illegitimatereesheinit,
dreg in Ireland responsible for the maintenance of such
children ? _

Sir It. PEEL said he had given notice for to-mon-ow of
a motion for leave to bring in a bill on the subject.
CITY BENEFICES.

Viscount ENFIELD asked the Secretary of State for
the Home Department whether the provisions of the Union
of the City Benefices Act, passed in the session of ISM,
had yet been put into operation; and, if not, inquired the
reasons for such delay ?
Sir G. GREY said he could give no specific information
on the subject, with which Government had no power at
present to interfere.

THE BOARD OF INLAND REVENUE AND
BANKERS' CLERKS.
Mr. DISRAELI moved to inquire of her Majesty'e
Government, whether any change had taken place in the
Grigituddee4ion (1812) of the Board of Inland Revenue,

that voluntary gratuities to bankers' clerks should not be
assessed under the income tax act; and the cause of that
change, if any ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
this matter had been referred to the Bond of Inland
Revenue, who considered that the gratuities alluded to
should be subjected to the income-tax.

ford, that offensive language had been used towards the
1 shipowners. He 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
spinners or landowners. (Hear) 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 injury 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 set the hon. member for Liverpool—nor for the inte-
rest of the cause they had at heart would he advise him to
press this motion to an actual division. (Hear.) Ho had
not brought it forward to emtarrass the Government, or to
do anything hostile to them—(hear)—but to afford Parlia-
ment a fair opportunity for free discussion. That discussion
had taken place, and the question had been hsndled with
various ability on both sides, but he must say, with great
candour, on all hands. (Hear.) He thought, however,
that the noble lord at 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 believing that they ,
would be glad to do so. (Oh, oh.) There was no doubt
of the United States; 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 up 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 he had been a
thousand times, as the friend of 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 the house 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 fbr I3irmingham 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 tkat 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 he 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 doe-
trine of reprisals was found() 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 reverses 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
1 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 sense of
public duty, still it would be throwing a great temptation
in their way—(hear)—and it would diminish very much
the inducements they now had to range themselves on the
side of an honourable peace—(hear, hcar)—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;tioue and arbitrary powers cherished designs of aggran-
disement, on which the interests of the ueople in the pre-
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. (Hoar.) It was in the power of 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
wore now asked to do was 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 P (Hear.)
The people of England did not look the danger in the face
as if they Were afraid. (Hear, heat.) 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 pteblotts, which we were unwilling to sever;
but there was not the least sign of craven apprehension et-
hibited, or any dread that the moment Ntlb entered upon war
with the declaration of Paris about neck our power would
be gohe. Ile 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. lie 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 whetb er 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 arise.
Before it was made Lord Clarendon stated at the conference
that under it privateering was to bo 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
placed 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 he 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 batter 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 those who have supported it in the course of the
debate. If such a resolution were passed and the Government
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 arguments of the gentlemen who have taken
part in the debate. That would in general be a difficult mat-
ter, but I confess that in the present case it would puzzle
the most sagacious Government to know what course to
pursue—(hear)—because one-half of those who have sup-
ported the resolution, and 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. (Hear.) Those
are two objects totally different, indeed diametrically oppo-
site, and between which 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 Commoas 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 lino 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 shown
that it was the doctrine of every other maritime Power, and
that if we had persisted in maintaining the opposite doc-
trine, and s e had gone to war with any great maritime
State, we should inevitably have run the risk of adding to
that war a dispute with the other maritime Powers which
would have led to another armed neutrality. There is a
principle upon which, as it appears to rue, this doctrine
must stand. We have lately maintained, at the risk of war,
that a merchant ship at sea is a part of our territory, 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 same 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 I'aris 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 land. 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
weisht 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
difference 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 ho has road. 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.
stroy 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 IEO7 when the French army kesieged Dantzic,
then a Prussian town, France being at war with Prussia,
after a long 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-
made 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
can be imagined. Their provisions for the
troops quartered on them. Sickness and disease are begin-
winter which
already
setting in, have been consumed by the
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 ho says :
" The country (that is Hesse) continues in a deplorable
condition. There is no commerce of any kind, and conse-
quently no money. I am 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 are
some thousands of persons in a complete state of destitu-
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."
This account was given to me by a person who is well in-
clined towards the Elector and his Government, and who
added that it would require at least 10 years to restore that
part of the electorate to its former condition. (Hear, hear,)
That is just a single specimen of the result of war by land,
and then gentlemen ran awal with the notion that in W 5.
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 alwaysdestroyed in the necessary operations of war, and that in
those cases compensation is not given 1-)y those who destroy
it. By 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 when it is 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 war 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 from those
who were authorised to Wm it by land. By land 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 pen:titled and acknowledged
practice. We agreed at last to the ',repeal that pri-
vateering by sea should no longer be a legitimate node of
carrying on war, and that future wars should be carried
on only by regularly organised forces acting under the
authority and command of a respoireible Government.
That part of the arrangement has so far been storied out
that privateering--Se regards those parties who acceded to
the Declaration—has been, and will be discontinued. But
these Declarations do not apply to the States which did not
accede to them. The United States of America have not
acceded to the abolition of privateering, and, undoubtedly,
if we had the misfortune, as was not unlikely a short 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 has been passed
upon a remark of my right hon. friend the Secretary 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 thae 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 tip, yet declared that if it had been for the in-
terest of his country—departing from 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 hare
not that security ftofn belligerents that in time of war they
will observe the conditions laid down in peace which you
have from neutrals. When you make Litt engagement s'ith
a neutral, if it is not kept by him you have the resource of
war, but when you are at war you have shot your bolt, and
you can do nothing mote. It must rest on the honour of
the belligerent, and on his 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 established. 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 setup
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-
perity 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 on board-- (hear, hear)—who, if they are 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 yees 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 atm to go free. Suppose you were
at war with France, you could not atop 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 are 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 es they best can." (Laughter.) Therefor,
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 be respected at sea,
you cannot maintain a blockade. You enfere 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 points 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
hear.)
pur-
poses of war. (Hear, We are all agreed that war
is a thing to be avoided, I hope that this country will never
i be engaged in any unjust war. Bt.t as long as human
nature is human nature ; as long as manklad are ambitious

tyrannical, and oppressive, especially if they believe the
may be so with impunity or without suffering for it, so
long will a nation like this, whose subjects are scattered
over the face of the globe, living in and engaged in com-
merce with every community of the world, and relying on
the Nth of treaties with their Governments, so long will
this country be liable to causes of just quarrel from time I
to time with foreign nations. And the more remote
the nation the more likely it is such causes of quarrel
will ariee. In such cases the navy is the only arm by
which you can extort redress. You cannot send out
military expeditions to conquer the country that
has done you wrong. You can only obtain redress by means
of your /rely. 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. That 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 resource
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 transactions 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 en 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, end with the very conflicting and contradictory
support it ha received from the house. (Laughter.) I think '
the hon. gentleman himself must be at a loss to know what
is the sense his resolution is understood to bear. (Laugh-
ter.) 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, herring 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 b 3 two opinions as
to the importance of the subject. (Hear, hear.) In my
mind it is the most 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 see that any fear was ex-
pressed by the merchants of this country of the cense•
quences of the changes that hay) 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. fly the declaration of Paris, wehave
given up the cardinal principle of our maritime power.
(Hear% hear.) I do not think the noble lord hae 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 docks 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 cover 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 States might 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 tinor" 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 be 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 my 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 implied to hostili-
ties by land might be extended to hostilities by sea, so that
private property might no longer be 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.) Here is the noble lord, 20 years Secretary-at-War,
15 years Foreign Secretary, and at the , time when be
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 he warns the house that they are asked to adopt "a
suicidal policy," he 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, he world will remember that he
went down to Liverpool to recommend a "suicidal policy,"
and they will cry " Wolf, wolf, wolf I" when otherwise
his words might have saved the Capitol. (Cheers and
laughter.) Now, what are we to do in our present position ?
The noble lord says wo 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.) That appears to me a visionary proposition.
(Hear.) I cannot myself dissociate the interests of nations
and of Governments. 1t seems to me dangerous to do so. It
may make rich sJcieties, but will surely make weak States.
(Hear.) I cannot believe that armies and navies can flour-
ish when they are no longer bound up with the iutereote

now
and passions of the community. If a sOcie ty founded on
such principles were long persisted in I see b.* he possibility
of immense corruption, and I can hardly donV that the tnd
would be that in some part of the world some n, an of force
—some conqueror, with some new system of tactiCs or new
kind of artillery—would take advantage of ,such a flourish"
ing but deaf community, which would then vanish with A
rapidity which it is difficult now to conceive, aiti
d give place
to a society established on very different princ‘!ples froze
those which have now the ascendancy in the excelhent
town
of Liverpool. (Cheers and laughter.) But, viewitig the
matter in the most practi;eal light, I cannot see how Y°tl
can maintain your system ci blockades if you concede Eh'
principle which the hole menetier recommends, and which
the noble lord a few years baCk so warmly supported.
(Laughter.) If you cannot mainta:'n your system of block'
ades it seems inevitable that your nava I power must cease to
be an aggressive power, and must only eaist for defensive
objects. (Hear.) Then, what is the position of a countri
like England in the event of war with a great continen
Power possessing great armaments if her fleets canonly
on the defensive ? Why we should sink into utter insigni&
cance. (Cheers.) We should have no powe,- to assert out
authority. Although we might be carrying on a thriving
trade, we might all this time be working only 10 r others;
and while we were sacrificing everything to the ackumulie
tion of treasure we must ultimately be the victims of sole°
strong Power influenced by different principles from Wel
which governed our system. I cannot, therefore, suppet4,
the views of the hon. member and those heretofore advocated
by the noble lord. Those views are, as I think, most danger,
sus. Ido not want to see the community entirely severed 113
sentiment from those who govern it. Patriotism depends a°
much on mutual suffering as on success, and it is by that es'
perience of all fortunes and all feelings that a greathatiooll
character is created. Although I am still willing to ad"
mit the inconveniences, the diffionities, and dangers that
beset our position, especially from the unfortunate lose ei
the cardinal principle of our maritime ::ode at Paris, yet t
rest my confidence on the patriotism of my countrymen see
the good fortune of a country that. I believe to be destined
to remain great. (Hear, hear.) Although, theeefore, I de,
not attempt to obtain by the first alternative thet relies
from the difficulty which the treaty has entailed upon 118 r
yet I cannot agree with the noble lord in treating with the
derision he has done the suggestion that the treaty of Pam
is one that is never to be changed. (Hear.) The obserity
lion of the Secretary of State for War as to the consequence
of war upon the treaty appears to me to be perfectly just,
although it has the recommendation of haying been long
accepted. No one doubts that war terminates a treaty
between belligerents, although this is a treaty that content'
plates the action of war between belligerents. But there
is
one point which the right hon. gentleman entirely omitted.
It is true that war terminates a treaty between belligerent°,
but only belligerents. (Hear, hear.) If we went to Or
with Russia, both PoweFs being parties to the declaration,
the treaty of Paris is not termineed, because there are other
parties to this arrangement besides Russia and England
Therefore the war would not relieve us from the de.claration
of the treaty of Paris, because the rights of all the other
signatures to the treaty would continue to exist. Thep
may assert their claims on us, and make those claims tl'e
foundation of a declaration of war. (Hear, hear.) 0°
right hon. gentleman was too quick in assuming that there
was a chance of getting rid of this precious bargain. (k
laugh.) He has no longer to supply the funds for a War;
and we remember how ho supplied us with funds durille
the Russian war. (A laugh.) Of course, the Govera'
ment might, as part of the programme 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 obtsillA
relief and the shipowner redress from the mistakee
improvidence of the statesmen who have been entrufit7i
with this affair. I know that the noble lord 'O4
treat any suggestion with derision that proceeds frol
these benches. But I have an authority which ought to
weigh with him, and which he ought to follow, for no cos
was more impressed with the mischievous and improvidell,
character—the alarming character, of the declaratien
Paris, especially the principle that the flag covers the care
than the present Secretary of State for Foreign AffsirE'
(Cheers.) The noble lord is a practical man, and when he
gives an opinion ho is generally prepared with a rueasureetei
carry it into effect. (A. laugh.) This highly -esteen
nobleman thus expressed himself in regard to the declarit:
tion of Paris :—" I cannot but think (he said) that, in p'ejtv
of principle, the declarations of the treaty of Paris ought I'
be altered. (Cheers.) The whole matter is most unsatisrse°
tory, and has a most grave bearing on our national• suPre;
macy." (Cheers.) If that were the opinion only of ieeP;
Russell, who has so long served his Sovereign, who has sad
so many years in her councils, and has led this house 0
so much ability, it would be highly valuable and ought
influence an assembly like this. But the house will rental*.
bar that the nobleman who expressed thisopinion is &Olt
ster of the Crown, and who as Secretary of State for Foreig'
Affairs would be entrusted with the management of till°
business in any negotiations that might take Place;
(Cheers.) Ido not know what the present occupations e"
the Cabinet may be, or whether they are so multifarious ee
those of the House of Commons, but if they are not raw
employed than we are—(a laugh)—l would suggest to h.c.r.
Majesty's Ministers for their next subject of mz,
eetin
to
consideration of the- means, to use the language of er
Secretary of State, how the declarations of the treaty e•
Paris may be altered. (Cheers.)
Mr. HORSFALL made a few observations in reply, and
expressed himself satisfied with the course the discuss'on
had taken. He then, in deference to the suggestions made
from both sides of the house, withdrew the reetien'
The report of supply was brought up and read'i. so the
The other orders of the day were disposed e
house adjourned at a quarter to 2 o'clock.