The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-05 00:00:00

PRICE..... ....4d.

:D ....5eL

BELLIGERENT RIGHTS A 7 SEA.

LIVERPOOL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
In reversal of the policy of the council of the
Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, the members last
week, at a general meeting of the body, decided
against the expediency of the abolition of commer-
cial blockades. On Wednesday the members again
assembled at the public salesroom, Liverpool and
London Chambers, for the purp„se of considering
the action of the council with reference to bellige-
rent rights at sea. The council has on several occa-
sions expressed their opinion in favour of the pro-
posal to exempt private property at sea from
capture ; and, as considerable opposition has been
manifested to this proceeding of the council, great
interest was felt in the issue of the discussion.
There was a large attendance of members of the
chamber, including many of the principal gentle.
men on 'Menge. The chair was occupied by Mr.
Thomas Chilton, president; and he, in 6pening the
proceedings, explained the position of the question,
and suggested that the discussion should be taken
de novo in order that full consideration might be
given to the subject.
Mr. JOIIN CAMPBELL moved" That this chamber
adheres to the views expressed by it in its memo-
rials to the Board of Trade of the 19th of January,
1860, and to Lord Palmerston on the 3d of Feb-
ruary, 1860, and in its petition to the House of
Commons on the 6th of March, 1862, in favour
of the proposal to exempt private property at sea
from capture." He said when the war broke out
between France and Austria in 1859 an opinion
was generally entertained, not only in this country
but throughout the world, that England would,
sooner or later, become involved in the struggle.
The consequence of that opinion was that a consi-
derable war premium was demanded from those
merchants who desired to provide against war risks,
and a decided preference was given to America and
other neutral countries, especially where the cargoes,
as from India and China, were of great value. This
attracted the attention of the shipowners of Liver-
pool. If that were the consequence of a mere fear
that England would be dragged into hostilities,
what would be the position of England when en-
gaged in active hostilities ? It seemed to them
sufficiently clear that the premium of war insurance
would rise to an unheard-of price, because the risk
of capture would be greater than before the use of
steam had added to the facilities, not only of priva-
teers but of armed cruisers, to capture merchant
ships. These considerations made it clearly the
duty of the shipowners, looking not only to their
own interests, but also those of the merchant, that
they should ascertain the views of the Government
on the subject. A deputation, introduced by Mr.
Horsfall, waited upon Lord Palmerston, who said
he thought there was no chance of the Cabinet
adopting their views. Thus repulsed by the Go-
vernment the case was laid before the Chamber of
Commerce, and that body resolved to memorialise
the Government on the subject. The result of the
operations of the single. Confederate steamer Ala-
bama had been to cause hundreds of thousands of
tons of American shipping to be transferred to British
owners at extremely low prices. He pointed out the
very different position which England in case of war
would occupy; how infinitely more intensified would
be the calamity that would befall our shipowners if
we were at war with a country capable of fitting out
hundreds of Alabamas ; the British shipowners would
be exposed to great danger in the capture of their
vessels, especially in long voyages. The effect of a
war with a great maritime Power would be to de-
prive British shipping of employment, and to cause its
transfer to neutral countries; our great steamship
lines would be obliged to withdraw their ships from
trade, or transfer them to a neutral flag. Mr.
Campbell carefully analysed all the objections to the
proposition, denying that its adoption would inflict
injury upon the national power of Great Britain, or
that, if the principle were agreed to, it could not be
acted upon or enforced in time of war. He con-
tended that the consequence of a great maritime
war would be to seal up in our harbours the great
bulk of our mercantile marine, and to throw the
carrying trade of this country into the hands of
neutral and competing Powers.
Mr. LAMPORT seconded the motion. He ex-
plained that he did not then consider the question
of the'' immunity of private property from capture
at sea," as he considered that subject had been finally
settled by the Treaty of Paris; but that they had
rather to consider the addition of a slight provision
to that treaty which appeared to have been over-
looked by those who had drawn up the terms of the
treaty. In supporting this proposal it was neces-
sary to show that they, as shipowners, or persons
interested in shipping, were deeply interested in
advocating the change ; they were also bound, in
advocating their own interests, to show that they
were not asking for anything opposed to the gene-
interests of the country, for whatever were the
consequences, whatever the ruin inflicted by war,
they were bound to submit to those chances—they
were bound to submit to that ruin, if it could be
shown that their (the shipowners') sacrifice was for
the general benefit. (Hear, hear.) But they were
net to be wantonly sacrificed or needlessly ruined—
they were not to be ruined unless the general in-
terests of the country required it. (Cheers.) He
denied, however, that such sacrifice was necessary,
and, quoting the evidence given before the Select
Committee of the House of Commons, showed that
British trade was most seriously injured by the
mere dread that this country would become
involved in hostilities. He contended that
during war the carrying trade of Great Bri-
tain would in a great measure be transferred to
neutral Powers ; that the British shipping would for
many years, even after the restoration of Peace,
be at a great disadvantage ; and that the result of
war, instead of sending merchant seamen into the
Royal navy, would be to secure their employment
in neutral mercantile marine, which would by the
high freights they could command outbid the pay-
ments offered by the British Royal navy.
Mr.PATTEBSON moved and Mr. ARNOTT seconded
an amendment—
" That it is inexpedient to prosecute further at
present the question of the exemption of private pro-
perty at sea, intimately connected as it is with the
law of blockade and others incident to a state of
warfare, upon which the Chamber seems indisposed
to commit itself to a deliberate opinion, without
further consideration."
This amendment was lost by a large majority.
Mr, J, SPENCE, who, on rising, was received with
loud applause, then moved an amendment upon the
original motion to the following effect
" That to abolish the right to capture merchant
:
ships of the enemy plainly leads to the abolition of
commercial blockades; that this Chamber has re-
cently affirmed that it is not this country's interest
to abrogate the established right of blockade, and
now resolves not to further any alteration in inter
national law that tends directly or indirectly to im-
pair the efficiency of our naval forces in time of
war

Mr. Spence pointed out the close connection between
the two questions of commercial blockades and of
exemption of private property at sea, and dwelt on
the inconsistency of the Chamber now affirming
their opinion in favour of the exemption of private
property at sea, when they had already decided
against the expediency of abolishing blockade. The
strongest argument,
he said, that was adduced in
favour of the principle advocated by Mr. Campbell
was that property on land
i was protected from cap-
ture, and that, therefore, t was a great evil and a
great injustice to shipowners that they should be
exposed to a risk and loss from which other pro-
perty was protected. That, he thought, would be a
great hardship and injustice if the fact were so. But
it was not so. Property on land did enjoy a certain
amount of protection from two principles which had
no bearing on the case of war at sea_ One prin-
ciple was that of humanity. A general at the head