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

TEE SUN, LONDON, IVEDUSWAY
_tVENING, MARCH 12, 1862.

motion. But the hon. gentleman, as soon as he became
aware that he (Mr. Horsfall) had signified his in-
tention to renew his motion of last year,
with the greatest courtesy waived his own right,
stating his readiness to second the present motion. It would
be in the recollection of hon. members who took an interest
in the subject of international maritime law that when he
(Mr. Horsfall) first gave notice of this motion last session
the present unhappy state of things in America did not
exist, and he could not, therefore, have contemplated then
any more than he contemplated now, provoking a discussion
upon the merits of American union or of Southern independ-
ence, (Hear, hoar.) He was glad to have that opportunity
not of speaking his own sentiments only but the sentiments
of a large majority of those whom he had the honour to re-
present, when he said that ho most cordially approved of
the strict lino of neutrality which had been taken by her
Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) His object in mooting
this question at all was to show to the house the very un-
satisfactory state in which our international mercantile law
at present was. Early last session he put a questionto the
noble lord the Foreign Secretary, who was then in that
house, as to what steps her Majesty's Government had taken
with the view of carrying out the recommendations of the
shipping committee of the preceding year upon this subject.
The noble lord replied with great frankness that her Ma-
jesty's Government had done nothing ; and from the tone of
the reply the inference was naturally drawn that it was the
intention of her Majesty's Government to do nothing. It
would be readily supposed that such an answer as that was
anything but satisfactory to those who had taken a deep
interest in this question, and who felt that the unani-
mous recommendation of a committee of that house,
which had sat during a whole session of Parliament, and
which was presided over by the President of the Board
of Trade, deserved greater consideration than appeared to
have been given to it. (Hear, hear.) He would not weary
the house by taking it back into the past history of our
varying international law : his object was to call the atten-
tion of the house to the practical bearing of the law as it at
present existed. But he must remind the house that ante-
cedent to the year 1854 there could be no question of the
fact that privateering was recognised as a principle of inter.,
national law ; there could be no question of the fact that
neutral goods on board a belligerent vessel were liable to
capture, and there could be no question that goods the pro-
perty of a subject of a belliepro.s v.— a .
vessel were also liable to capture. (Hear, hear.) This was
felt to be a great hardship, and in that year his right hon.
friend now the President of the Board of Trade, but who
was then unfettered by office, brought forward a motion
with the view of committing the house and the Government
to the principle that from that time forward a neutral flag
should make neutral goods. His right hon. friend did him
the honour to ask him to second his motion, and he had
great pleasure in doing so, and took occasion to urge upon the
attention of the Government the necessity of at the same
time putting an end to privateering. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord the Foreign Secretarystated that d ocuments would
be issued declaring the views of her Majesty's Government
upon the subject, and in a fortnight from that time the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade had the satisfaction of seeing
an order in council issued, in which it was declared that—
" To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all necessary
obstructions, her Majesty is willing for the future to waive
a part of the belligerent rights appertaining to her by the
law of nations. It is impossible for her Majesty to forego
the exercise of her right to seize articles contraband of
war, and of preventing neutrals from bearing the enemy's
despatches, and she must maintain the right of a bellige-
rent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade
which may be established with an adequate force against the
enemy's forts, harbours, or coasts. But her Majesty will
waive the right of seizing enemy's property taken on board
a neutral vessel, unless it be contraband of war. It is not
her Majesty's intention to claim the confiscation of neutral
property, not being contraband of war, found on board
enemy's ships; and her Majesty further declares, that being
anxious as much as possible to lessen the evils of war, and
to restrict its operations to the regularly organised forces of
the country, it is not her present intention to issue letters
of marque for the commissioning of privateers." That was
the first step in the cause of liberal legislation with regard to
our international maritime law ; but two years after that, in
1856, the conference took place at Paris. The parties to that
conference were England, France, Prussia, Russia, Austria,
Sardinia, and Turkey, and the conclusions which were come
to were these :—" Privateering is and remains abolished.
A neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of
contraband of war. Neutral goods, except contraband of
war, not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. Block-
ades, to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, main-
tained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the
ooaat of the enemy. The present declaration shall not be
binding except upon those powers that have acceded or shall
accede to it." Subsequently almost every other power ex-
cept America gave in its adhesion to those principles.
Assuming, then, that that was the acknowledged maritime
international law, the questions which naturally presented
themselves to their notice were these—what will be the
effect of this declaration in the event of war? and what has
been its effect in the time of peace ? Those who know any-
thing of the shippers of goods from this country, and of the
importers of produce, knew at least,that they were men of
common sense, and that they would not ship a single
package of goods 131 a vessel liable to selLui u if they had the
opportunity of shipping it in one which was not liable to
seizure. (Hear.) The operation of this law in the event
of war—say with France—would be that every British
ship must be laid by in British ports—no shipper of
goods would ship in the vessel of a belligerent when he
had the power of shipping in a neutral vessel ; neutral ves-
sels would get greatly enhanced freights, and what was
worse still, our British seamen would be drafted from the
British ships lying by, not into her Majesty's navy, but
into the neutral vessels which could and would afford to pay
a much higher rate of wages than ever had been or ever
would be paid in the Royal Navy. (Hear, hear.) Such
would be the result of the present law in the event of war,
and it was a most serious matter for the shipowner, tlr
manufacturer, and the country. But what had been the
effect already in time of peace ? Those who were acquainted
with the shipping interest of this country knew full well
the effect of a mere rumour of war, as was the case a very
short time age, when it was supposed that we might have
been involved in the difficulties then existing between
France, Austria, and Italy. Supposing a rumour of the
kind, however improbable, reached a distant port, say Can-
ton or Calcutta, and that there was a first class British ship
and a second class American vessel lying there, the effect
would be that the American vessel would get 50 per cent.
more freight than the first class British ship. (Hear, hear.)
This was a most important point, and he was anxious to
refer, in justification of what he had said, to the evidence
of competent authorities taken before the shipping commit-
tee. Mr. Allan Gilmour, one of the largest shipowners in
the world, said the principle that the flag under which a
ship sailed should exempt the goods she carried from cap-
ture would operate very prejudicially to British shipping
in the event of a war in which Great Britain was engaged,
and that even now it was very prejudicial to the British
shipowner, because the very rumour of war or difficulty so
enhanced the rate of insurance of British ships that Ame-
rican and other foreign ships had a decided preference. The
witness was asked whether he could suggest a remedy,
and his reply was, " The only remedy is to have an inter-
national law to do away with captures entirely. I do
not know of anything else." (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Or, in other words, to place the ship upon the same footing
as the goods. Mr. Beasley, of Liverpool, in his evidence,
confirmed these opinions, and, as an instance of the effect
of the existing law, mentioned that last May he had a ship
in China which was built at great expense, the order to
the builder being merely, " Build me a ship to beat any
mortal thing afloat"—(a laugh)—to bring the first cargo of
the season. But at that time the Italian difficulty arose,
and in the fear of England becoming involved, the mer-
chants of China determined to ship in American ships, and
paid h higher freight than they would have had to pay in
first-class British ships. Two American ships obtained
£2 a ton more than Mr. Beasley's. The evidence of Mr.
Grooves, formerly chairman of the Shipowners' Associa-
tion, confirmed the statements of the other two witnesses
as to the injurious effect which the declaration of Paris
must have upon British commerce in the event of a war,
or a rumour of war, in which this country might be en-
gaged. This question was in fact ono of great national
importance, affecting not merely shipowners and manufac-
turers, but the whole country. It was also a question of
finance. They knew that in war times merchant ships re-
quired convoy, and he asked whether the men-of-war
would not be much better emplo3 ed in fighting the
He would not look upon it as a question of humanity, al-
though a good deal might be said upon that score. Same
people said, " Make war as bad as possible, and every one
will bo glad to have it over." But that was not the gene-
ral feeling of the country, nor was it the feeling of her
issue
letters when in her order in council she declined to
letters of marque in order to restrict the miseries of war as
much as possible. Neither was it the feeling of the noble
lord, who on his visit to Liverpool stated to the assembled
merchants that the Government were not inattentive
to other interests besides the grand transactions of
war. It was satisfactory, his lordship said, that at the com-
mencement of the Russian war we made arrangements
which,withcut diminishing our force against our opponents,
yet tended very much to diminish the pressure of the war
upon the mercantile community. His lordship also ex-
pressed a hope that these relaxations might be still further
extended, and that private property would no longer be ex-
posed to oppression on either side. (Hear.) If, his lordship
added, we looked to the example of former periods,we found
that no powerful country was ever vanquished by losses in-
flicted on individuals, as it was always the fleets and armies
that decided the great question. He (Mr. Horsfall) desired
no better testimony to the truth of his position than the
Queen's order in Council and the admirable speech of the
noble lord. (Hear.) They were told that naval officers
would object to being deprived of their prize money ; he
would not insult the naval officers by entertaining such a
supposition for a moment. Ho believed they were actuated
by far more patriotic motives. They were told, further, that
treaties were broken when war commenced, but this was
based on the declaration of Paris. On the subject of blockade
he felt bound to say that the sentiments of those he had the
honour to represent were in favour of respecting the block-
ade. He knew there was great difference of opinion on the
subject, but his own views were in favour of the blockade.
Returning to the main question referred to in his resolu-

tion, ho thought America had not been fairly dealt with
They were told that America would not give up the right of
privateering. Why ? Because she contended that we should
put ships and cargoes on the same footing. Theban. member
read some extracts from the blue books, to show that Presi-
dent Pierce had expressed his views to the Paris Congress;
also extracts of Lord Russell's letters to Lord Cowley, in
which the noble lord declined to apply the terms of the con-
vention of Paris to the case of the civil war in America, and
continued. Ile was there merely to state the views of the
mercantile community. He knew there was great jealousy
of motions of this kind by executive governments, but the
noble lord would permit him again to refer to the speech
already quoted, in which the noble lord seemed to give him
(Mr. Horefall) an express invitation to bring the subject
before the house. The noble lord said, " The Government
always feels deeply indebted to the great commercial com-
munities, which are kind enough to impart to us from time
to time their suggestions for the remedy of existing evils.
We know well that no executive government can be so per-
fectly informed of all the detailed operations of commerce
as to be able without such assistance to devise those mea-
sures which may be best calculated to set free the industry
of the country and to give the greatest development to com-
mercial enterprise." (Cheers.) It was in answer to that
invitation that he ventured to trespass on the attention of
the house, and he asked it to affirm the resolution which he
had to move in the name of the commerce of the country,
and in the name of humanity, civilisation, and justice.
(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had expected
some discussion before he was called upon to explain the
views of the Government. It was not to be doubted that
the question was one of great importance and demanding
their most serious attention. But whatever might be the
opinion of the Government, it would of course be impossible
for them to act without consultation with other nations.
He would not stop to occupy the time of the house in en-
tering into a prolonged attempt to discuss the policy of the
law. He believed that the law was well understood and
defined, and his hon. friend had left him but little to say,
because it appeared to him that his hon. friend had satis-
fied himself in the main with a correct statement as to
what was the present state of the law. His hon. friend
had stated truly that privateering was a belligerent right,
and that ships ut tbo enemy were liable to capture, but he
Aid not st.+o correctly that neurz.l roods in the enemy's
ships were liable to capture. Perhaps he might have boon
misled upon this matter by the proclamation issued by her
Majesty, in which it was stated that it is not the intention
to claim the confiscation of neutral property not being con-
traband of war, if found on board enemies' ships. It might
have been a very just and expedient proceeding to make the
declaration, that all neutrals whose interests might be con.
cerned might be aware of the terms and conditions upon
which the country would carry on a war ; but the hon.
member was wrong in inferring from it that the goods of a
friend on board the ships of an enemy, were, previous to that
date, liable to capture and confiscation. So long ago as 1753
these propositions were laid down by the highest authori-
ties in this country, viz., by the Judge of the Prerogative
Court, and assented to by the Advocate-General and the
Attorney-General, afterwards Lord Mansfield. First, that
the goods of an enemy on board the ships of a friend may be
taken ; secondly, that the lawful goods of a friend on board
the ships of an enemy ought to be restored; and thirdly, that
contraband goods going to an enemy, though the property
of a friend, might be taken as prize, because the supplying
an enemy with things with which to carry on the war was
a breach of neutrality. Now, coming to the declaration of.
Paris, it would be found that it contained two proposi-
tions which expressed the ancient or former law, and two
only which expressed the altered state of the law, The
first and second propositions introduced new law, and the
first was, "privateering is and remains abolished," and the
second was, "a neutral flag covers enemies' goods with the
exception of contraband of war." The last was the main
burden of the complaint of the hon. member. The third
proposition was, " that neutral goods, with the exception of
contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an
enemy's flag." That was a mere statement of antecedent
law, just as was the last proposition, "that blockades to
be binding must be effective," With the exception he had
stated, he quite agreed with what the hon. gentleman had
said as to the law, and he contended that his speech contra-
dicted that portion of his motion which stated that the law
was ill defined, for the hon. gentleman had himself clearly
defined it. The law, whether right or wrong, was not in-
volved in any doubt or obscurity, but was free from the
imputation passed upon it by the hon. member. He would
not occupy any considerable portion of the time of the
house in adverting to the other part of the honourable
gentleman's motion. He said that the consequence of the
adoption of the declaration of Paris would in many cases of
war be to give an advantage to neutrals carrying enemies'
goods over the ships of belligerents. No doubt such must
be the case, although he could not agree that the necessary
adoption of this rule would be to put a stop to the carrying
trade of the belligerents, seeing that if one of the belligerents
was strong at sea, and particularly if mistress of the seas,
the naval force of that power would be able to defend and
protect its mercantile flag, and thus the subjects of the
stronger belligerent power would carry their own goods in
their own ships. Of course it followed that the stronger
belligerent would be able to practically annihilate the coin-
moroo of the weaker belligerent; whilst its own commerce
would compete with neutrals who would have the benefit of
the declaration of Paris. This declaration was a concession
to neutrals, and he would not discuss the policy of that change
but would only observe that he did not understand his hon.
friend to suggest a doubt whether it was prudent on the
part of this country to accede to that change, so much as
to contend that we ought to go further in case we should
be in a state of war. The exemption for which his hon.
friend contended had no reference to neutrals at all, and it
was one which neutrals would rather should not exist, for
they would prefer their monopoly. What was contended
for as an exception in favour of the subjects of a bellige-
rent power, whose ships it was proposed should receive
protection, so that they could so carry in their own ships
their own goods. Certainly such a change in the law
would go very much beyond any relaxation in the rigour
of the maritime code which had been suggested by
writers upon international law. He did not say because
the proposition was novel that therefore it was not entitled
to great and serious consideration; but whilst he admitted
that it was worthy of consideration, it was, he submitted,
a question whether the house should take upon itself to
express an opinion in conformity with the motion of his hon.
friend, the more especially as anything done in that direc-
tion must be done not by any one Government, but by the
general concurrence of those nations who were likely to be-
come belligerents. Ho had said that this doctrine had not
been broached until lately, but ho would so far correct him-
self as to say that it appeared from a statement by Benjamin
Franklin that a treaty was entered into between the United
States and Prussia in 1785, in which there was an article in
accordance with what Franklin called his " Quaker no-
tions," it being agreed that the merchant ships of the con-
tending parties should not be liable to capture, but this
article was not inserted in the renewed treaty in 1799 be-
tween the same powers, and certainly from that time down
to the present he was not aware of any serious proposition
having been made between the two nations to mitigate the
old rigour of the maritime law. He felt that he ought to
apologise for having entered so much into the question of
policy, and he would conclude by stating that as to the
matter of law he was relieved from any labour by his hon.
friend having timself so well defined the law—he had in
fact disposed of that part of the motion, and there was no
good reason for calling upon the Government to take any
action in reference to the question of policy.
Mr. LIDDELL said the hon. and learned gentleman had

regretted that the hon. member for Liverpool had limited

his argument to only one portion of this great question, and
he (Mr. Liddell) joined with him in that regret, but when
the hon. and learned gentleman went on to state that the
maritime law was not involved in any doubt or obscurity, he
would ask him whether he thought that the law of contra-
band was not involved in obscurity,and also whether the law
of blockade was not at this moment involved in doubt.
There was a blockade now in force about the legality of
which there were great doubts, and there were doubts as to
what was and was not a privateer. By the declaration of
Paris, by which we for the first time admitted the prin-
ciple that free ships make free goods, we no doubt made a
great concession, which necessarily told most against that
country that had most ships. But not only that, we, at the
very moment we had constituted a naval reserve, gave a
direct premium to every man of that reserve by the pros-
pect of the higher wages he would receive by going into the
service of a ship belonging to some neutral country. He
would give the opinion of an authority on this subject—
that of Earl Russell, who, no longer ago than June, 1857,
in a debate which arose on the motion of the hon. member
for Sunderland, said, " I am afraid we must be bound by
the declaration. 1 am afraid that the consequences are so
serious as to show that such a declaration was very impru-
dent; but I agree that England ought to uphold her mari-
time superiority. The whole matter is most unsatisfactory.
The state of this question is to me most alarming, but I do
not see that a breach of faith would at all mend our posi-
don." He (Mr. Liddell) agreed with the noble load that
we should not mend our position by a breach of faith; for
if we did there would again bo a combination against us of
all the European Powers. Tho policy of America was not
to interfere in European politics, and in case of any Euro-
pean war in which wo should be engaged, she would be
neutral, and take the benefit that would accrue to her from
that position. Ile wanted to know why, having abandoned
the position of our maritime code, for which we had fought
so stoutly, we should not take full advantage of the conces-
sion that we had made. He believed that it was for the in-
terest of England that we should carry on our commerce
during war with our own ships. Why should we not
study the interest of our manufacturers, and at the same
time prevent ruin from coming on our shipowners ? WhY
should we study the interest of neutrals by saying we
would only allow our commerce to be carried on during
war by neutrals instead of carrying it on ourselves? This
country lost largely by issuing the orders in Council
which were intended to counteract the effect of the Milan
and Berlin decrees. That policy of our Government de-
prived us of exports to the value of ten or twelve million!
a- year. Nor did we obtain either glory or profit by block
ading the ports of Russia when we went. to war with
that country in 1854. The result of that blocl:llnedwiatse thatwo3
the tallow, and hemp, and linseed of Russia
through neutral ports to this country and that the Ruse i'll

prodUcer did not suffer so much as the consumer in this
country, who, in consequence of the produce having to be
sent a roundabout way, had to pay an enhanced price.
Formerly a neutral was debarred from carrying on in time
of war any trade that he could not engage in during the
continuance of peace. But, by the commercial policy which
we had latterly adopted, we had thrown open every branch
of the shipping business to the mercantile marine of the
whole world: No one would therefore be so foolish, if we
were at war, to employ ships that would be liable to cap-
ture. (Hear.) President Pierce, in his message for 1856,
stated that Ittissitts France, Bremen, and Hamburg were
disposed to accept the principle of granting immunity to
private property in time of war. The proposition was
therefore by no means so novel as it might seem, but teen
if it was new, that was no reason why it should not be right.
(Hear.) England, let him remind the house, had a much
greater stake in this question than any other power, for
there was none that at the breaking Out of a war was likely
to have nearly as much property at sea. We had relin-
quished the substance; and let us therefore seek no longer
to retain the shadovs, and thus reject the opportunity of
protecting from rapine and robbery the property of her
Majesty's subjects. (Loud cheers )
Mr. COCHRANE had learned one thing from this de=
bate, namely, that it seemed to be generally agreed the
course which had been taken et the Congress of Paris was a
mistake. (No.) So far as he could folio* the arguments
of his hon. friend it appeared to be that because we had
blundered on that occasion we shottld go still further in
the direction of our original error. As had been remarked
by Lord Russell, on the 9th of March, 1857, the maritime
supremacy of England wee a great preventative of war, and
the effect of the proposed change Wottld be to render that
supremacy nugatory. On the same occasion the Noble lord
was followed by Sir Charles 14apier, who expressed his
hope that the country would not abandon her maritime
rights and allow other nations to trade without restriction
in the time of war. It seemed, as he had said, to be agreed
that the declaration of Paris had been a very unfortunate
step ; and how it had happened that the interests could have
been so compromised by Lord Clarendon without Parlia-
ment being consulted, was to him perfectly incomprehen-
sible. The hon. gentleman who had introduced this subject
seemed to think that war ought to be carried on in the most
amicable manner that could be conceived—that it ought in
fact to be waged in kid gloves ; but that watt not the spirit in
which we had built our Warriors and Black Princes—had
constructed our immense engines of war, and armed otir
troops with rifles that would carry any distance. (Hear.)
The 3d article of the declaration of Paris was that "neutral
goods, except contraband of war, were not liable to capture
under the enemy's flag ;" and it appeared to him that that
might materially affect the energies of our naval officers.
He would not speak of it as a matter of prize money, for he
thought the hon. gentleman was quite right in his indignant
repudiation of any such consideration. But instances had
occurred in which an active officer, unwilling to weaken his
crew by putting men on board his capture, had burnt the
ship. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) That was a sacrifice
of prize-money, and therefore aproof of disinterested energy.
But if there happened to be £lOO,OOO or £200,000 worth of
neutral property on board, no officer would venture to burn
the ship, for he might thereby make himself liable for the
loss of the goods. (Hear, hear.) If the proposition of the
hon. gentleman were carried out the naval supremacy of this
country would be at an end. What was the course pursued
by Lord Nelson in 1804 ? Before war was declared with
Spain he issued an order that all ships and vessels belonging
to his Spanish Majesty (except vessels carrying corn) should
be forthwith seized and carried into the ports of Gibraltar
and Malta. He (Mr. Cochrane) thought the declaration of
Paris was one of the most unfortunate arrangements for
this country that could have been made.
Mr. BOWYER said ho thought the question lay in a
very narrow compass. This country being a great naval
power it was perhaps desirable that the rights of belligerents
should be as widely extended as possible, therefore it was
very questionable whether it was prudent to involve this
country in such an engagement as the declaration of Paris.
(Hear.) Be that, however, as it might, that declaration
was now an accomplished fact. (Hear.) But what was the
principle of warfare on land ? If an army was marched into
a country, and conquered it, that army did not interfere
with private property. (Hear.) The principle of interna-
tional law with regard to the conqueror al as, that he was
put in possession of the rights of the government of the con-
quered country, which rights might afterwards be the sub-
ject of treaty, but not of the property of private persons.
Ho (Sir G. Bowyer) never could understand why the same
principle should not be extended to maritime warfare, or
why the rights of private persons at sea should not be re-
spected in like manner. There was an additional reason for
this principle in the case of naval warfare. It was this,
that the conqueror could not acquire the sovereignty of the
sea ; why then should he be entitled to seize merchant ves-
sels? He could understand that it might be politic, if not
quite just, on the part of a great maritime power, not to
give up any belligerent rights at sea; but it seemed to be
only consistent with justice to say that merchant vessels
ought to be protected. At the same time he concurred in
the resolution so far as it went to say that this subject re-
quired the attention of the Government.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—The question which has been raised
to-night is of first-rate importance. (Hear.) It would be of
groat importance to a country which has not a powerful
national navy and a vast mercantile marine, but to Eng-
land, situated as she is, it, is of paramount importance that
this question should receive a right decision when discussed
in Parliament. I trust that, whatever may be the result of
this debate—whatever may be the fate of the motion sub-
mitted by the hon. member for Liverpool—we shall not
come to any precipitate conclusion, or one of which we may
hereafter have occasion to repent. (Hear.) The hon. gentle-
man has proposed " that the present state of international
maritime law, as affecting the rights of belligerents and
neutrals, is-ill-defined and unsatisfactory, and calls for the
early attention of her Majesty's Government." The terms
of his motion are as general as it is possible to frame them.
They bring under review the whole state of international
maritime law, as affecting the rights of belligerents and
neutrals. Hence they involve the question of privateering ;
they involve the question of the neutral flag covering the
enemy's goods ; they involve the question of the sanctity
of private property on the sea. But the hon. member, in-
stead of making his speech coextensive with the terms of
his motion, directed his arguments to one single point—
viz., that the enemy's flag should cover the enemy's goods.
That is the whole extent of the speech which he made, and
the recommendation which he offered to the house.
Mr, HORSFALL—What I contended for was that all
private property should be respected. (Hear.)
Sir G. C. LEWlS—Precisely ; that the private property
of the enemy should not be taken out of the enemy's ships.
By the Declaration of Paris neutral goods are sacred under
the enemy's flag.
Mr. BRIGHT—And the ship also.
Sir G. C. LEWIS—Very good ; the argument is that the
ship should be sacred as:well as the goods under the
enemy's flag. Such is the proposition of the hon. member
for Liverpool, and that being so, it seems to me that the
more correct course, as far as this house is concerned, would
have been for the hon. gentleman to move an address to the
Crown, requesting her Majesty to use her influence with
foreign Powers for the purpose of making the principle
that the enemy's flag should cover the enemy's ship and
goods a maxim of international maritime law. That would
have brought the question which the hon. member has
argued fairly under the consideration of the house ; but at
present any gentleman who thinks, for instance, that pri-
vateering ought to be continued, or that the clauses of the
Declaration of Paris ought to be repealed—who, in short,
entertains views entirely opposed to those which have
been advanced to-night—might with perfect propriety
say to the honourable member for Liverpool, "I do not
agree with your speech, but 1 approve your resolution, and
therefore shall vote for it." (Hear, hear.) It seems, there-
fore, to me that if the hon. gentleman succeeded in carry-
ing his resolution he would not necessarily give effect to his
opinions. The Government would say, we are not bound
by the speeches of individual members, wo must look to
the general terms of a resolution, and act accordingly.
Therefore, I say, if he wished to establish this principle,
that the ship and goods of an enemy are to be respected in
war by the belligerent, he ought to have embodied that pro-
position in a distinct resolution and submitted it to the
house; he would then have raised a distinctive issue on
which we might have acted. (Hear, hear.) But I must
say that the proposition which he has submitted is—not un-
fair, but most inconvenient. I have no doubt h 8 thought
it was a convenient mode of raising the question, and per-
haps, when he same to embody his principle in terms, he
was afraid to look it in the face, and therefore preferred to
take refuge in generalities ; but I must repeat, I can hardly
conceive a more inconvenient course than that which has
been adopted in bringing a very important principle under
the consideration of the house. Well, sir, there have been
many occasions on which the rights of neutrals and belie
gerents with regard to maritime war have been agitated in
Europe. In the first place, there was the celebrated armed
neutrality of 1780 ; but the principles laid down in that year
by Russia, and concurred in by other Powers, were entirely
confined to the flag covering enemy's goods, and also
mainly, I think, to the question of blockades ; but I feel
confident that if any gentleman will examine the negotia-
tions, the conventions, and treaties of that period he will
not find a single trace of the principle that a belligerent is
not to be permitted to capture the ships or goods of his
enemy. In 1800 the same question was again revived, and
again there is a total absence of such an assertion ; and the
reason is perfectly obvious—the armed neutrality of both
those years was a representation of the interests of neutrals.
Neutrals have no interest in the principle which the
hon. member recommends to the acceptance of the house,
One hon, gentleman, indeed, who spoke treated the ques-
tion as ono involving the interests of neutrals ; but it is im-
possible to conceive a greater mistake. Neutrals, so far as
thel have any interest, have an interest directly the oppo-
site. If they wished to become the carriers of the world
they would naturally wish that the ships and goods of the
belligerents should be exposed to risk. Therefore, I say
neutrals as such have no interest in the question. Then,
there is another reason why on these occasions the armed
neutrality did not start this question. Those who advised
that state of affairs were persons acquainted with the prin-
ciples and elements of international law; but I must be per-
mitted, with great respect to the hon. gentleman, to say
that his speech seemed to overlook the most fundamental
doctrines of international law, because you InaY 41" u a

compact with a neutral State that in time of war you will
respect the neutral flag. For instance, we have now a
compact with France and other continental Powers that
we will act on the principle that the neutral flag covers the
enemy's goods, sa that if we were to seize American goods
under the French flag we should be guilty of a violation of
engagement with France. Therefore by international law
you can make a valid engagement with respect to the prin-
ciple that the neutral flag covers enemy's goods; but when
you go to war with a nation, war puts an end to all treaties
and engagements in the nature of a treaty. (Hear, hear.)
Therefore if we had unfortunately, a short time ago, found
ourselves involved in hostilities with the United States, and
if we had previously had a treaty with the United States
recognising the principle that belligerents were to spare
one another's mercantile marine, the very act of war would
have put an end to that treaty, and it would have been in the
I discretion of either Yoder Whether or no they weal d act on
that principle. Suppose you make such an engagement, ho 7
are you to rely on the honour of a belligerent observing it, be-
cause by the concert of all civilised nations you may alter
all the principles of international law ? It is conceivable,
for example, that by the genet al agreement of nations the
principle for which the hon. gentleman contends might
be established, but it is inconceivable th.tit a treaty between
two belligerents which is in derogation of the general prin.
ciples of international law should bind them during the
continuance of war. An hon. gentleman referred to the
Declaration of Paris ; he said it was not a treaty but a de-
claration, and therefore it must be abandoned in the event
of war. Now, I entirely dispute that inference or state-
ment. I presume he means to say that it is binding in re-
spect of neutrals in time of war. No doubt we are bound
in respect of France or Russia if we are at war with the
United States ; but it is an absurdity to suppose that if we
were at war with France or Russia it would have any bind-
ing effect upon us, except in regard to our honour. (Hear.)
All I say is, it is not binding by international law. We
are not bound to assert extreme belligerent rights, but with
out any such treaty we might say we will not capture the
mercantile marine of an enemy. Well, the hon. gentleman
the member for Honiton spoke with great censure of the
Declaration of Paris, and said we were in such a position
We must either advance or recede—our present position was
untenable. We had made a declaration restrictive of our
power of carrying on a maritime war, and we should find
it necessary to violate that engagement. He objected that
before the Crimean War by pwelumatlon we modified our
belligerent rights, and the hon. member for Liverpool road
from the proclamation the passages which were equivalent
to the Declaration of Paris ; therefore, when the war was
ended and the declaration of neutral righte was
raised in. Paris, it seemed the proper and natural course for
otr Plenipotentiary to agree to this principle, which had
been consecrated by the Executive Government at the
commencement of the war, of which Parliament
had full notice, end td which Parliament had
at ho time objected. If it had been thought that
the principle that the neutral flag shall not cover
the goods was essential to the effective conduct of Merl-
time war by this country, why was it abandoned at the
commencement of the Crimean War, and nd Voice raised
against it during the continuance of that war ? The hon,
gentleman overlooked that important element. The hon.
member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) did not alto-
gether seen' to approve of the modus operandi of the hon.
gentleman who made this motion ; he seemed to be aware
that there was some difficulty in establishing a binding en-
gagement between two belligerents ; and with respect to the
case of America, it is said that the Government of the
United States is willing to assent to this principle combined
with certain others. But if the United States of America
approve so highly of the principle of not capturing enemy's
ships and goods, why don't they establish that principle
with respect to the Southern States? (Hear, hear.) Here
is a fine opportunity for the Ciovernment of Washington
acting on that principle. (Hear, hear.) There is a war
actually waging in which they are involved, why not act
on that principle at once? No doubt it is said that the
Southerners are rebels, but in the exchange of prisoners and
in the matter of the blockades they have been treated in all
respects as belligerents. If that be the case, why does not
the Government of Washington show its forbearance in not
capturing enemy's goods? (Hear, hear.) I strongly sus-
pect that the exasperation which exists between those two
contending Powers renders any such forbearance utterly
impracticable. The hon. member for Northumberland seems
not altogether to trust to this plan of mutual forbearance by
belligerents during war, and he proposes that England
should call a congress. (Mr. Liddell—lnvite a congress.]
Well, that we should invite the nations of Europe to meet
in congress and that we should submit to this congress the
question raised in to-night's debate. But, then, he an-
nexed a condition which 'I am afraid, if strictly fulfilled,

would render the convening of the congress a somewhat
remote event, because he said that it was a necessary con-
dition that the parties composing the congress should not
be actuated by any special or national interests, but have
solely in view the general good of mankind. (Laughter.)
My little acquaintance with the history of congresses does

not lead me to anticipate that it is extremely easy to form
a congress upon that condition, and I am afraid if we wait

until a congress be formed in which the members are wholly
regardless of the interest of their own respective nations
and are devoted to promoting the universal happiness of the
world, the meeting must be postponed until the Greek
Kalends. (Hear.) His proposal no doubt is a philanthropic
and well-meant proposal, but it only shows the difficulties
with which the subject is encumbered, and the necessity of
further consideration before the house can with any pro-
priety agree to the adoption, I will not say of the hon. mem-
ber's resolution, but of a resolution embodying the result of
his arguments. As to the resolution, I really do not know
that I feel any difficulty in saying that any branch
of international law is ill-defined, because every branch
must be ill-defined, as it is not law laid down by any Legis-
lature, and is only to be collected from the decisions of the
courts of different countries, and the writings of different
text writers. In a certain sense international law may
always be said to be ill-defined. At the same time I really
believe that if any part of international law is better de-
fined than another, it is the question relating to procedure
in seizing differ ent classes of goods belonging to different
nations, and particularly since the Declaration of Paris.
There is another part of the question, upon which the hon.
baronet the member for Dundalk much insisted, and which
I know he has often brought forward in discussion. It is
mentioned in an able pamphlet, which I have no doubt
many hon. members have read, and unless it receives exa-
mination is calculated to make an impression on the mind—
I allude to the statement that we ought to assimilate the
laws of maritime to the laws of land warfare. If the house
will permit me, I will examine for a few moments what
strength is due to that argument. It is said, in the first
place, that all private property is spared in land warfare. I
must begin by meeting that assertion by a most formal denial.
(Cheers.) I say that by the laws of land warfare, as recognised
by the most civilised nations and according to themost recent
practice, private property is not respected. It is respected
only so far as it suits the present convenience of the bellige-
rent armies. I believe there never was an army under more
strict discipline in which the commander was less disposed to
permit excesses by the soldiery, or in which there was a
greater disposition to spare the country which was the
theatre of the war, than the Duke of Wellington's army
during the Peninsular war. What was the practice of that
army P When they arrived at a village at night the proper
officer told out a certain number of houses, the roofs were
stripped off, and the timber was used as firewood for boiling
the men's suppers. That certainly was not very remark-
able respect for private property. (Hear.) Such are the
necessities of war. The army must have food, and the food
must be cooked. They cannot carry fuel with them, and
if they cannot carry fuel they must take it. With regard
to the armies of the French empire, anybody who has only
a superficial acquaintance with the subject must know the
extent to which the system of plundering conquered coun-
tries was carried. I do not believe that there is on record
a single campaign in which private property has been re-
spected. No doubt, it is respected to a greater extent in
recent times than in the warfare of the middle ages. Since
the Thirty Years' War and the wars of Louis IV. there is
no question we have advanced considerably by the forbear-
ance of the belligerent Powers, and more humane and more
civilised maxims have prevailed. But it is not by treaties
or compacts between belligerent Powers, or by such resolu-
tions as this, that this result has been produced. It has
been produced by the general softening of manners and the
general improvement of humanity. We may hope that
similar results will be produced in maritime warfare, but
they will not be produced in the manner which the hnn.
member points out. (Hear.) In the first place, I deny the
truth of the principle that private property is respected
in
land warfare. There is another important distinction be-
tween land and maritime warfare, upon which the whole
question may be considered to turn. conquerWhenwyhdoeunthyatengine
ouhava
country you conquer its Government, and e
conquered its Government you have conqre
I
by which the country can be plundered. (Laughter.) Per-
haps the language whicy I have used may be somewhat
homely; nevertheless, it does express the exact truth.
(Cheers.) And if any gentleman will inquire what hap-
pened in Berlin during the French occupation, after the
battle of Jena, and the French conquest by Napoleon, he
will learn that the French possessed in the Prussian Go-
vernment a most efficient engine for plundering that country.
I remember hearing at Berlin in 1832, from persons well
informed upon the subject, that there were still provinces
of the Prussian monarchy in which the breed of agricul-
tural horses had not been restored. I use that as an illus-
tration of the way in which the Government raise contri-
butions in a conquered country. With regard to the sea
there is no similar engine. There is no Government which
exercises any power at sea. The sea is merely the high-
way of nations. It is not the subject of Government or of
sovereignty. and the only way in which a belligerent can
exercise any control over the property of enemies floating
on the sea is by capture by means of armed ships. With
regard to the question of assimilating land warfare and sea
warfare, the real assimilation was effected by the declara-
tion of Paris, when this country surrendered the right of
private warfare--when this country abolished privateering.
(Cheers.) There is the real analogy between land and sea
warfare of which the hon. gentleman is in search. We
do not permit a single private individual to go out on a
plundering expedition. We confine the contest to the
army of the State. At the same time, we do not restrain
that army seizing private property whenever such seizures
may be necessary We do not allow a private person to
plunder on his own account. We used to allow him to
plunder on his own account at sea by granting letters of
marque. That principle we have abandoned; and if un-
fortunately a war had happened with the United States, I
do not think it likely we should have had recourse to the
system of privateering against the United States, although
they were no parties to the declaration of Paris. (Hear,
hear.) I think this country has definitively romanced

the principle of privateering....7.=-
ready to agree to assimilate' land
that thwatarefaxrteentanl llt a im
d
raarwarfare ; but I do not assent to the hon. gentleman's proaao;
sition that the armed ships of a country are not to be allover
to take merchant ships. With our fleet at Portsmouth. or:
Plymouth to allow enemies' ships to go in and out free from-
suit:
capture seems to me to be carrying the doctrine of forbear-
ance in time of war to an absurd point. (Hear, hear.) It
is almost like interdicting ourselves from the use of gun:
powder or ordnance in time of war. Of course, we may
rf
we think fit renounce the right to capture merchantmens,
not by privateers, but by our armed ships, if the opinion of
the civilised world condemned the practice. But I think
the house would come to an unwise and premature decision
if—upon a vague generality, a mere formula which really
might admit of any construction, but which is to receive a
peculiar interpretation from the speech of the hon. member
who moves the resolution while it may receive various in-
terpretations from the different persons who support it—
they were to call upon the Government to subscribe to a
principle liable to such formidable and weighty objections.
(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. BOWYER wished to explain that, when he said
that in warfare on land private property was respected, he
did not mean to say that then.) might not be excesses com-
mitted against private propety in such warfare, or that in
cases of necessity violations, more or less, of the rights of
private property might not take place. IN hat he intended
to say was, that in warfare on land private property was not
systematically seized, condemned, and sold, as it wag in
warfare at sea.
Mr. T. BARING—Sir, I have listened with some sur-
prise to the speech of the right hon. gentleman the Secre-
tary for War. The right hon. gentleman, speaking of the
Convention of Paris, not only referred to the possibility of
that convention being broken through in time of war and
necessity, but went further, and said that no compact and
no treaty made in peace is binding in war. Now, as I un-
derstand it, the Paris Convention was made in time of
peace in order to provide against some of the worst evils
and horrors of war.
Sir G. C. LEWIS (interrupting)—This is so important 0
point that I should be sorry if any misunderstanding arose,
What I meant to say, and what I believe I did say, wee
this—that I believed the declaration of Paris to be binding e
as between this country and neutrals during the existenc
of war, and to be equally binding with a treaty, though it
was only a declaration ; but that if we were at war with any
of the parties to that declaration, then, like other treaties,
it would cease to have a binding effect as regards that bel-
ligerent. (Hear, hear,)
Mr. DARING continued—That convention was made
laOtween six or seven States, including the great maritime
Powers of. Europe. I believe the only great maritime Power
of the world not included is the United States. Therefore
it would operate in time of war upon them all except the
two belligerents. But does the right hon. gentleman mean
to say that we are now to discuss whether that was a wise
provision or not? The Attorney- Geneial would not enter
into the discussion of the merits of the Pejo Convention;
he treated it as an accomplished fact, which must be ede
hered to. And being now the law, as far as regards tb.o
Governments that were parties to it, the question for us is,
how will it act on cur mercantile navy and our a
c you holomraerce?
As I understand ike matter, by that convention d
neutrals' goods harmless wherever they may be found, an
you also make the neutral flag cover enemy's goods. What'
then, would happen in case of a war between this country
and France ? Is it not evident that the whole of your carry-
ing trade would pass into the hands of neutrals? (Har.) e
You repealed your Navigation Laws. Ido not now blame
you for that. lam always for cautious and gradual pr.-
gress; but when once a step is made I am not for going
back. But in time of war the neutral flag would, I repeat,
carry all your commerce, and your ships would be placed
at a great disadvantage as compared with every other
maritime Power in the world. I cannot, therefore, help
thinking that it is a wise thing to consider this subject in
time of peace. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that
there is great inconvenience in discussing a question
of national policy upon a resolution like this, and I
hardly know what reasons induced my hon. friend to couch
his motion in these terms; but I take it that his object
was to elicit the opinion of the Government of this house.
He seeks, I apprehend, not to bind the Government to any
particular course, but that those of us who agree with him,
as I do, should express to her Majesty 'a Ministers what
I believe to be the feelings of the commerce ef whit
country (hear)— rte
ng
other
then
the hands of the Government in negotiating w
Powers. (Hear, hear.) It is a question, no doubt, for
negotiation with other Powers, and must be left its the
hands of the Government. Whether the motion ought to
be in the form of an address to the Crown or of a resolution
is is really a matter of very minor importance, and certa
would not call for the decided opposition which has bees
offered to this proposition by the right hon. gentleman.
The right hon. gentleman will not listen to it at all. 0°
says, "You might as well agitate whether there shall be
I privateering or not, or whether you will upset the whole
Declaration of Paris, as even entertainthis question." And
he quarrels with my hon. friend the member for Liverpool
for not agitating questions which we all thought settled,
Again, he says, "You make a general motion and confine
your speech to a particular point." Why, it is that par"
titular point to which we are desirous to press on the at-
tention of the Government. (Hear.) lam as anxious eSt
any one for the supremacy of the softf this country, bla
I cannot understand how you can ad that supreroacar
by damaging your commerce and your shipping interest;
(Hear, hear.)l Do you mean to say that your navy would ko
less elective if it were not bound to protect your mercantil
marine, or that you would have less naval force to emplo
n..
y
against your enemy if it were freed from the duty of co
voying ? Why, what country has most commer
What cce afloount '?"
la.
most property to be seized ? Surely England.
would. gain most by the preservation of that property
England. (Hear, hear.) You say that your object in war la
to injure your enemy. What country would bo s
Ito
m muds.
injured in war through her commerce as England?might
have been a question, before the Declaration of Paris was
signed, what course we ought to have taken. But there is
not the slightest doubt in my mind that if you wish to bow:
fit your commerce, and at the same time to increase con
efficiency as a belligerent at sea, you ought gravely to.
eider the motion before us. (Hear.) The right hon. gelatT„.
man says that the Duke of Wellington burnt house: ti‘
Spain. Well, but you don't want to take a merchant
inoy,
for fuel—(hear, and a laugh)—and therefore the right k I'l
gentleman's argument entirely fails. The right hon. gc!..";
tleman adverted to the suggestion of a Congress, and 07
that if you are to expect a meeting of diplomatists to It:
eider the welfare of commerce you must wait till the Gree,a;
kalends. For my part I quest not see why a Congress sholnl
not meet and discuss thison in the interests both 0'
commerce and of Europe. I do not know what course 111/
hon, friend will follow, but I have heard with regret the
announcement that the Government will not entertain till
question, and that they will not do it because the Units°'
States did not adopt this principle towards the Southern
States. Why, that is the case of a struggle between t'W°
great sections of one country, and not an international die-
pute. It therefore constitutes no ground for opposing the
views of my hon. friend. I firmly believe that, sooner r
later, this principle will prevail. (Hear.) It may be re'
yet
sisted by the present Administration, ar.tl I had cer;
tainly thought from the speech which my hon. friend quote°,
that it would not have encountered opposition from the
noble viscount's Government. (Hear.) I thought fore
that language that the noble viscount had seen that it woo
necessary to moderate the horrors of war and that the Go'
venament was disposed as much as possible to protect ill°
private property of their own countrymen as well as of °there.
But, whatever course the Government may take as to the
resolution of my hon. friend, whether they object to it aster°
general or not put in proper form, I am confident that the
time will come when the house will not turn a deaf car to;
the prayer which is addressed to it by the great majority 01
the commercial interests of the country. (Hear.)
Mr. COBDEN moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord PALMERSTON—I have no objection to the tar
• tion of my hon. friend, for I think this is a question of UlO
greatest possible importance to the interests of the country
and one, therefore, which requires to be fully discussed'
would
der levelf or
afatat Liverpoolblo blow
ot
(Hear.) My own opinion is—and I hope that it will be the
opinion of the house—that the principle which the hon.
try and would be an act of trecommends,political
if
suicide.carried
*:.
naval power of this co
therefore entirely concur in the motion for adjournmen"
(A laugh.) We shall be perfectly ready to assist the boll'
member in fixing a day for resuming the debate.
Mr. BRIGHT—I hope the noble lord will give us
whole night, for it is a great disadvantage to have an inr
portant question like this brought on after some other sub'
ject has been discussed. (Hear, hear-) The noble lord 10
expressed a very confident opinion on the question vatut e°
much at variance with that quoted by the hon. gentle
opposite. I hope when he rises to address the house on the
main question that ho will revert to his old opinion.
(Hear,)
Lord PALMERSTON-4 am willing to let the debate
come on the first thing on Monday night next. (Hear.)
The debate was then adjourned until Monday night.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
Mr. 11. SEYMOUR, in moving for a committee to lir
quite into the present state of the Ecclesiastical Corniniv
sion, and report to the house whether: the ecclesiastical ro'
venues could not be mere advantageously administered 0.1.:4
the interests of the Church than they were at present, se,t
that as the motion was not opposed he should not feel "
necessary-to detain the house. The hon. gentleman, after
tracing the history of the Ecclesiastical Commission troll
its foundation through the .eerie-ea almn cm; WhiCh
li
been made in it, and referring to the various committees
which had sat on the subject, said his object was toe take
up the inquiry where it had been left by the last ony'
mittee in 1856. He wished the committee to bacilli°.
thereettxehederct oiwss easstpuhtpffieeod
npioietmnwmtpeertng
rsotvvoeeoumsfntedetndhs improvements
loc:ovit;
how the revenues had been administered since that time
r°
mittee,b andes rh G.
derived w.
GREYfarthinkingonmy assented
thathso
eef
n•
worthy of consideration.
suggested
hgrooegf
inquiry;.e but it must be admitted that immense benefit hr,,
Ecclesiastical Commission.
Mr. DEEDES would not oppose the motion, but objected
to the co •rn mittee, that such interference from time to tiro°.
must impede the action of the Commission; it ought n_
to ey
be interfered with unless some real reason could o°'
shown.
Mr. KINNAIRD said that though his hon. friend atie„.
satisfied with the working of the Commission, a large bou
of persons in the House were very much dissatisfied Wiw
it.
Mr(Hear.)
. BOUVERIE said belief tbat
there was a general
the commission wanted sifting, but agreed in thinking they
the motion was premature.
The motion was then agreed to.
SAVINGS BANKS.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT obtained leave to introduce a bill
to amend the laws relating to the security and °ea
manage
of savings banks, and said that he proposed to introduce IL
new regulations, but simply to enforce upon all local balls,'
regulations which , already obtained in almost all well-
managed institutions.
COURTS OF JUSTICE BUILDINGS BILL. fo
Mr. COWPER, in asking for leave to introduce a bill
0
enable the Commissioners of her Majesty's Works to 0;
quirea site for the erection and concentration of courts 0i
justice and of offices belonging to the same, said, at till'
hour (quarter to 1) he should confine himself to statini
that substantially the bill was the same as that which
passed through the house last session, and was stopped'-
the House of Lords for want of time.
Leave was given to introduce the bill, which was gibe'
quently brought in and read a first time.
The Register of Voters Bill was read a second time'
The Officers' Commission Bid was read a third time.
The house adjourned at 5 minutes to 1 o'clock

LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO
THE SUN Office, N°
°f No. Strand, .
Strand,
the Precinct of the Savoy, in the Comitygiddlesex.—Weduciday, Maul 12, WO% .