The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-05 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, J ULY 5, 1854.

I AWE RI AL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.)

Their lordships assembled at 5 o'clock.
Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from a place
in Scotland against the Scotch Bankruptcy Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM repeated that the measure was
supported by the great majority of the mercantile classes
in Scotland.
The Earl of CHICHESTER presented a petition from
Lewes against the employment of dogs in drawing carts.

should be referred.; whether it should be a branch of the
Court of Chancery, or a separate court, though not alto-
gether resembling the Ecclesiastical Courts. Considering
that, this was a quies'iion of much importance, and consider-
ing the late period ,Jf the session, the Government had de-
termined not to proceed with the Testamentary Jurisdic-
tion Bill this sess'ion. (Hear, bear.) With respect to the
Divorce Bill he gather believed that the Lord Chancellor
proposed to mn..ke some alteration in it. The first part of
it was founde A on the report of the Commissioners on the
Law of Divexce; it was not connected with the other parts
of the report which referred to the Ecclesiastical Courts.
It was a separate question, and the Lord Chancellor was
of opirr.on that it might be taken separately; the Govern-
ment reserved their opinion on the other parts of the sub-
ject,

TRANSLATION OF THE CONVENTION BETWEEN

AUSTRIA AND PRUSSIA.
Lord W. GRAHAM begged to ask the Lord Presilent
of the Council, who is responsible for the translation of a
foreign document lately presented to this house, intituled,
" Additional Article to the Treaty between Austria and
Prussia, dated April 20, 1854," some important words
being omitted in the translation. In the 3d paragraph of
the convention it was stated that Austrian and Prussia
" wore united in the &fire to avoid every participation in
the war between Russia and Turkey, France, and Eng-
land " In the original German the words "if possible"
followed after the word " avoid, but they were not to be
found in the translation. He wished to know who was
responsible for the translation.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not tell the name of
the gentleman who made the translation. The convention
was translated in the first instance at Berlin, and certainly
this fault in the translation had been inadvertently over-
looked.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS.
Mr. SCOTT wished to ask her Majesty's Government
whether it was intended, in the present session, to intro-
duce any measure for the more effectual prevention of rail-
way accidents ?

kr. CARD WELL said that a bill was drawn on the
subject, but he had not had time to enable him to intro-
duce it ; and looking to the period of the present session,
he did not see any prospect of introducing it so as to pass
it into a law this session.
THE IRISH MILITIA.
Mr. ESMONDE begged to ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Department whether it was the intention of
Government to enrol the Irish militia; and if so, when it
was intended to embody them.
Lord PALMERSTON said it was the intention of the
Government to take steps to embody the whole or a por-
tion of the Irish militia. With regard to training, it must
be remembered that there was a difference between train-
ing and embodying; as embodying meant that the men
should keep their arms for the whole year. If the num-
ber of men enrolled was sufficient, the training would take
place, but he hardly thought there would be a sufficient
number for that purpose iu the present autumn.
FAIRS AND MARKETS (IRELAND.)
Mr. ESMONDE begged to ask the Chief Secretary for
Ireland whether it was the intention of Government to lay
on the table, during the present session, a bill for the re-
gulation of fairs and markets in Ireland?
Mr. KEOGH, in the absence of Sir J. Young, said it
was the intention of his right hon. friend to introduce such
a measure, but not to proceed further with it than to en-
able him to collect the opinion of the grand jurors in Ire-
land upon it.

TREATY OF ADRIANOPLE.
Lord J. RUSSELL brought up a copy of the despatch
written by Lord Aberdeen on. the Treaty of Adrianople.

free to buy goods in Russia, and to have them shipped
Now that had had a most important effect on the trade
; with Russia. Up to that period the English houses
connected with Russia, and who, he might say, had
nearly the whole trade of that country—and they were
most of them houses of 50 years' standing or upwards—he
happened to know had a very strong feeling indeed to do
nothing against the law of this country. Of course he
could speak for his own house, but he believed he could
speak for all the great English houses, that they had made
up their minds not to buy any produce of Russia which
would have been unlawful and could have encouraged the
enemy. They, therefore, as a body, determined to have
nothing to do with it. But on the 15th of April they
found it was lawful to engage in it, and from that
moment they did engage in it. It might be main-
tained that if English houses did not embark in the trade
foreign houses would, but practically that was not so. On
the frontier towns of Prussia there was hardly a house
possessed of large capital, and without the aid of British
capitalists it would have been utterly impossible for them to
have bought goods in Russia and brought them to Memel.
He had no doubt that the order of the 15th May had led to
English houses purchasing goods in Russia and bringing
them to Memel. The same trade was now going on, and
the Emperor of Russia was affording the merchants every
possible facility ; but he was speaking there as a British
subject, anxious for the speedy termination of the war,
and he had taken this opportunity of expressing his opi-
nion that these continual relaxations in the law, and this
utter state of uncertainty, were highly detrimental to
British commerce, and was so felt by all classes connected
with the trade. He did not say the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty was responsible, but he was orthe Privy Council
were. On these grounds he supported the resolution.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH—The resolution of th • learned
gentleman contains two distinct propositions. One is that
"from the peculiar circumstances of this war a relaxation
of the principles that the goods of an enemy in the ship of
a friend are a lawful prize may be justifiable." That is
one position. The other proposition is that "to surrender
a right so clearly incorporated with the law of nations, so
firmly maintained by us in the time of the greatest peril
and distress, and so interwoven with our maritime renown,
would be inconsistent with the security and honour of the
country." Therefore the motion of the learned gentleman
raises two distinct questions; one a practical question of
political expediency, the other a theoretical question of
international law. The theoretical question is whether
the subjects of a neutral state ought to abstain altogether
from carrying in its ships the goods of belligerents, and
herefore, whether a belligerent state ought t o have a
right of confiscating the goods of its enemy not contraband
of war on board the ships of a neutral state. Assuming
that the subjects of a neutral state ought to abstain alto-
gether from carrying in its ships the goods of a belligerent,
then the practical question of political expediency is, whe-
ther, in existing circumstances, it would be wise and politic
for this country to seize Russian goods not contraband of
war on board neutral vessels, or whether it would be more
politic and expedient under existing circumstances to waive
for the present that belligerent right. Now with regard
to the practical question of political expediency, the learned
gentleman has admitted in his resolution and likewise
in his speech, that in the peculiar circumstances of the
country a relaxation of the principle that the goods
of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful prize,
may be justifiable. I will assume, for the sake of argu-
ment, that the principle laid down is a sound one, and I
will endeavour to demonstrate to the house that in exist-
ing circumstances it would be wise and expedient for this
country to waive this right. But, first, I will consider the
theoretical question of international law. The learned gen-
tleman asks the house, by the terms of his resolution, to
declare that to renounce or surrender a right so clearly in-
corporated with the law of nations, so firmly maintained by
us in times of the greatest peril and distress, and so inter-
woven with our maritime renown, would be inconsistent
with the honour of this country. Therefore, if the house
were to agree to this resolution, it would pledge the honour
of this country to maintain for ever the proposition con-
tained in it. I think this house will not pledge itself to
any proposition of the truth of which a doubt may be en-
tertained. Therefore, in order to induce the house to en-
tertain the resolution, the hon. gentleman ought to prove
that the proposition is indisputably proved. The learned
gentleman has cited many learned authorities in favour of
the rule for confiscating an enemy's goods. He began by
tracing the origin of it from those dark ages that immedi-
ately followed the downfall of the Roman empire. Ho
quoted the Consolate del Mare, which was not drawn up
till the eleventh century. Then he quoted Grotius. But
many of the rules that were laid down by Grotius in his
celebrated work have become obsolete in consequence of the
progress of humanity, and nothing could be more bold and
meagre than the chapter in the great work of Grotius on
the rights of neutrals—l mean the third chapter of his
work. The reason is obvious. Grotius wrote at a period
when the rights of neutrals were little understood, and less
cared for. In fact, Grotius had only in one single place
distinctly referred to the right of confiscating an enemy's
goods. The only case where he quotes from the Consolate
del Mare in the fourth chapter, in which he merely quotes
it without asserting or denying it. Therefore I deny the
right of the honourable and learned gentleman to quote
the authority of Grotius in favour of the principle that
the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful
prize. The hon. and learned gentleman also quoted the
authority of Vattel, who is a very able writer, but in the
chapter in which ho treats of confiscating au enemy's
goods in a friend's ship, ho merely states that the rule in
question is a law ° of Europe without assigning any reason.
The learned gentleman likewise mentioned the names of
gentlemen learned in the law, but those gentlemen are apt
to assume that what is law ought to be law; but the hon.
and learned gentleman has omitted to mention a great
many authorities on this subject. What ought to be the
public law of nations, though it is in accordance with the
present public law of Europe. For the present public law
of Europe may, like the municipal law of many of its in-
dividual states, be imperfect in some respects, and require
amendment ; because the present public law of Europe has
derived its origin from two distinct sources, partly from
those abstract notions of what is right and just which form
what is termed the law of nature ; partly from the custom
and usage of nations in their intercourse with each other.
It is evident that those rules of the present public law of
Europe which are based on correct notions of what is right
and just cannot require amendment. Not so those rules of
the present public law of Europe which have been founded
on custom and usage ; for the custom and usage of na-
tions, especially with regard to war, have frequently
been at variance with correct nations of what is right and
just ; and the jusbelli which has chiefly been founded upon
custom and usage has differed in different nations and in
different sets and families of nations; it has varied in the
same nation at various periods of its history ; it has
changed with the change of the religion, manners, and in-
stitutions of a nation. Grotius says, " that is often, jus
queatium, in one part of the world which is not so in an-
other." According to Montesquieu "every nation has its
own law of nations, even the Iroquois who bea,-, their pri-
soners have one, they send and receive ambassadors, they
know the laws of war and peace, but the evil is that their
law of nations is not founded upon true principles." The
question is, is the rule of the English law of nations with
regard to the capture of enemy's property on board neutral
ships founded on true priuciples or not ? Though this
rule has been generally acted upon by European states in
their wars with each other, yet the majority of them have
maintained and still maintain, that the rule in question is
an improper one, and have constantly endeavoured by
means of treaties to expunge it from the public law of
Europe, and to substitute for it the rule that enemy's
goods should not be liable to confiscation on board neutral
ships. I will refer briefly to the arguments which have
been urged against the rule of confiscating enemy's pro-
perty on board neutral ships by the persons whom I will
call the advocates of the extension of neutral rights. They
say, that in the earlier periods of history and among the
less civilised nations, the rules of war were far sterner
than at present, that the maxim, that it is lawful for
a belligerent to injure his enemy by every possible
means, was acted upon to the fullest extent, that neutrals
scarcely existed, their rights were unknown, and the law
of war was the will of the most potent belligerent. But,
say they, the tendency of civilisation has been, and still is,
to mitigate the severity of the code of war, to establish
and enlarge the rights of neutrals, and to protect weak
neutrals against the tyranny of powerful belligerents ; that
this tendency has as yet, however, produced less change in
the rules of war by sea than in the rules of war by land ;
that at present the rules of maritime warfare are the same
as those which were practised in war by land in rude and
barbarous ages ; that for instance, private war by land
has been abolished, but private war by sea is still sanc-
tioned by the code of maritime war; that to seize the
private property of the peaceful subject of an enemy for
the sake of gain is repugnant to the usages of modern war
by land, and is an act which would meet with the con-
demnation of all civilised nations, but to do similar acts on
the sea, and even to hire foreign buccaneers with a license
to pillage peaceful merchants, are conformable to the pre-
sent rules of maritime war. Now, say the advocates of
the extension of neutral rights, though valid reasons may
have been assigned why the laws of war should be sterner
by sea than by land, why the rights of neutrals should be
more limited on the ocean than on the continent ; yet no
valid reason has ever been assigned for treating neutrals on
the sea in a manner that neutrals on land have never been
treated since the existence of neutrals was recognised.
(Hear, hear.) They affirm that the rule of capturing
euenoy's property on board neutral ships was introduced
into the public law of Europe at a period when the rights
of neutrals were little understood and less cared for, that
it was a misapplication to neutrals of the Roman law with
regard to the subjects of belligerents. For when the Eu-
ropean states which sprung from the dismemberment of
the Roman empire began to emerge from the barbarism
consequent upon the downfall of that empire, the want of
some rules to determine the conduct of sovereign states to-
wards each other began to be felt, and attempts were made
to frame an international law. The early legists who
made those attempts were conversant only with the Roman
law, and they adopted as rules of their public law ucanwy.
Roman I
maxims taken without alteration from the
rights) a grave error was introduced into the p Ists
thue interests
Europe, which has been very injurious to
In this manner (say the friends of the extension
a public law
of neutrals. For the Roman law was not _
the Roman
of nations, but only the municipal law oonly determined
determined
empire. 'Therefore the Roman law
sulsects of Rome
what ought to be the conduct of thelt hadj no concern
towards the enemies of Rome.
be the conduct of free
with the question of what ought
.to
porators of Rome pro-
fisiotal etd t o punish, their dis-
obedient n d independent neutrals.
The
lilt entitled to prohibit, their
hibited, and as sovereigns were en
an enemy, or carrying on board
subjects from trading with
of Rome. They p
_ las
yt
of
fl
their ships the goods of the enemiesn
provisions not only to their subjects
ished ,an ton of the goods and
which contained the goods of the enemies
even of the ships
of Rome. The sovereigns of Europe adopted the provisions
of the Roman law with regard to trade with enemies, but
whom they as sovereigns were entitled to command, but
they frequently extended those provisions to neutrals,
over whom they had no sovereignty whatever. It is self-
evident, however, that because a sovereign is entitled to
they applied those
issue certain commands to his subjects, ard to punish dis-
obedient subjects, it does not follow thet the OWN 5070,