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

r

of an invading army would be exceedingly in-
. human if he were to deprive the whole of the inno-
cent, unarmed population of the country of the
means of subsistence and of their own houses, and
it would not only be a great hardship, but it would
Ihave no appreciable effect in bringing pressure to
bear upon the Government of the opposing Power.
In addition to that, there was a much stronger
principle of action—the principle of self-interest,
which was the only one they could safely trust in
time of war. (Hear, hear.) It was not the interest
of a hostile general to stir up the hostility of the
people of the land, because it would expose him to
a danger of the most imminent character. In point
of fact, to destroy private property on land would
be to stir up a hornet's nest out of which they could
extract nothing of great value, and would immedi-
ately suffer great inconvenience. (Hear, hear.)
The case of property at sea was very different.
There was no question of humanity at stake, no
adverse interests to encounter, and where, as on
land, private property was disseminated over a vast
surface, and exposed to a heavy cost of transport, in
the capture of property at sea they had, as it were,
a condensed portion of the wealth of the enemy, and
they had the power of at once passing that property
to their own credit. The number of ships was
limited, by the capture of which they had an effi-
cient means of bringing pressure to bear upon the
resources of the enemy, and of inducing the state of
mind which was their object in prosecuting hosti-
lities. The comparison of the case of property at
sea and on land was, he thought, altogether erro-
neous ; the two things were separate and distinct.
He held the argument with reference to private
property on land to be entirely fallacious. Were
they bound to respect property at sea because
it was their interest to respect private property
on land ? (Hear, hear.) Great Britain pos-
sessed the largest mercantile tonnage in the world,
and it was therefore argued by some that they
were exposed to the greatest danger from acting
upon the principle of capture of property at sea.
That argument seemed to be brought forward as if
a large mercantile marine was an evil rather than
an advantage. That he thought a wrong view to
take of the subject. He considered it to be a great
good to this country that we possessed great wealth
and great mercantile tonnage ; but it would be no
advantage unless our tonnage was efficiently pro-
tected. He maintained, however, that it was more
efficiently protected than any other marine, and for
this reason—that the true protection of the mercan-
tile marine was our naval power; and, as we pos-
sessed naval supremacy in case of war, we had the
power of blockading the ports of the enemy, thereby
practically excluding hostile ships from the sea, and
securing to British shipping a clear and uninter-
rupted highway over the ocean. (Cheers.) Mr.
Spence entered at some length into the provisions
of the Paris Convention, and explained his belief
that the position of England under the altered cir-
cumstances was still more advantageous in the case
of her mercantile marine. He referred to the case
of the last war with France, in which the great in-
jury to British shipping was occasioned, not by
regular men-of-war, but by French privateers; and
stated that by the provisions of the Paris Congress
that danger to British shipping was removed by
the abolition of the right of p:ivateering. The real
object of war, he urged, should be, not to slay a
certain number of the enemy—that was merely a
means to an end in bringing them into a frame of
mind to agree to peace. In the case of war with
America we might bring them into such a state of
mind either by sending soldiers and sailors to fight
them or through injury to their trade and com-
merce. Of the two was it not plain that the latter
was more humane ? and in the case of that country
it was evidently the more efficacious. (Hear, hear.)
During the last war with America the blockade of
her ports and the annihilation of her commerce al-
tered the original feeling of enmity that had caused
the war, and was found to be more patent and effi-
cacious than the adoption of the only means which,
if the council's views were adopted, would be left to
them. (Hear.) Mr. Spence ridiculed the idea of "free
trade in war," and contended that the best means of
preventing or curtailing hostilities was to make war
so dire and distressing as to make it repulsive to
all classes of the community. In the present state
of political feeling in the world there were strong
reasons why Great Britain should maintain intact
her naval power. He also condemned the policy of
the council of the Chamber as exposing Liverpool
to an amount of obloquy, for other portions of the
community would say it was based solely on self-
interest that impelled men to move in a direction
contrary to the interests of the people at large. He
also urged that the apprehensions of shipowners as
to the disastrous consequences of war were wholly
exaggerated and unnecessary, and that in case of
naval warfare this country would always possess a
great advantage over all others.
Mr. Bernard Hall seconded the amendment, which
was opposed by Mr. Charles Holland ; and after
some further discussion the debate was adjourned
for a week.