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

• On the other hand, we were bound by oar
enemy's ships.
were entitled to confiscate the goods of neutrals on board
d
ofto
eonenuatraseelsteoenobemoay%
peecwtetrhee
lawil e moef
sns ahtiiposn ;
e nti goodst
led.
bteutrewe
i-
egoods on board neutral ships. It is evident, therefore,
that with regard to neutrals, the French rules of mar
1 time war clashed with our rules. It is easy to see
that if each power had insisted upon adhering to its
own rules of war, it would have been impossible for
the cruisers of the two powers to act cordially in con-
cert. For instance, suppose that two cruisers, one an
English the other a French, had been sailing together in
the Baltic, and that each had received instructions to act
according to the national rules of reprisal—the French
according to the French rules, the English according to the
English rules. Suppose the two cruisers had met a neu-
tral ship, carrying from and to a non-blockaded port a
cargo of roods and merchandise of the growth and manu-
facture of Russia, but not contraband of is ar; both cruisers
would have stepped the ship, their reipective officers would
have visited it, both would, in the first instance, have
asked the same questions, both would have ascertained the
nationality of the ship ; both would then have enquired
whether there was ' any contraband of war on board,
finding none the French officer would then have said to
the master of the ship, "By the French law of nations,
and also by virtue of a treaty between France and your
sovereign, I have nothing more to do on board your ship,
and I wish you un bon 'voyage." Not so the English
i °Beer. After his French comrade had taken leave he
iwould have carefully awl minutely searched the ship, he
would have found that it was laden with goods and user-
' chaudise of the growth and manufacture of Russia, he
I would then have inquired to whom the property belonged,
how it had been acquired, and on what terms, and if he
suspected that any portion of it belonged to a Russian
subject; if he fancied that the purchase of it from a Rus-
sian subject had not been completed according to the
strict and technical rules of English law, the English
officer would have been bound to detain the neutral ship,
would have been bound to take it to an English port, to
be adjudicated upon by English judges,
according to the
English law; then perhaps the cargo would have been
condemned, and the English officer and his crew might
have acquired considerable wealth by the confiscation
refused to touch. Thus the French cruiser would have
of property which the French officer and his crew had
permitted the ships of every neutral state—those of the
United States., of Spain, of the Northern Powers, of the
South American Republics, etc.—to pass free, though
full of valuable goods belonging to Russians, whilst the
English cruiser, sailing in company with the French one,
would have reaped a rich harvest of prize and booty by de-
taining every one of those ships except such as belonged to
Spain, which we are henna by treaty to respect. On the
other hand, I should observe that if a Russian ship had
been captured by the French cruiser the French would have
been entitled, by their law of nations, to confiscate all pro-
perty on board the Russian ship, to whomsoever the pro-
perty might have belonged, whether to subjects of Russia,
of the United States, of Spain, &c.; but had our cruiser
captured a Russian ship we should have been bound, by
our law of nations, to restore all property of neutrals on
board that ship, not being contraband of war, to their
owners, provided they were not Spanish subjects. There-
fore, it is self-evident that if France and England had in-
sisted upon adhering to their respective codes of maritime
war, the difference in their rules of taking prizes and booty
would have sown the seeds of dissension, jealousy, and ill-
will between the crews of their respective fleets, anti ren-
Idered cordial co-operation in maritime war impossible.
Neutral states would likewise have had good reason to
complain if the cruisers of England and France, sailing in
company, had acted upon opposite rules of maritime war.
For the consequence would have been to inflict upon neu-
trals the penalties both of the French and English codes,
without granting them the immunities of either. For in-
stance, neutrals have frequently considered that the se-
verity of the English rule of confiscating enemy's goods on
board neutral ships, was in some degree mitigated by the
lenity of the English rule respecting neutrals' property
found on board enemy's ships. On the other hand, neu-
trals have held that the lenity of the French rule, " free
ships free goods," was paid for to a certain extent by
the severity of the French rule, " enemy's ships enemy's
goods." Now, if a French and an English cruiser,
sailing in company, had acted upon the rules of their re-
spective codes of maritime war, the French cruiser would
have confiscated neutral property on board Russian ships,
and the English cruiser would have confiscated Russian
property on hoard neutral ships ' • and between the two the
unfortunate neutral would, as I have already said, have
, suffered the penalties of both codes of maritime war, with-
, out enjoying the immunities of either; and neutral status
would have had grounds of complaint at least as valid as
those which gave birth to the celebrated armed neutrality
of 1780. It was therefore of paramount importance that
the French and English rules of maritime war should, if
possible be assimilated, at least for the present. There
were three modes by which this result might have been
accomplished. Either France might have yielded to Eng-
land, and adopted the English rifles of maritime war, or
England might have yielded to France, and adopted the
French rules of maratime war ; or both powers might
have made as they did make, mutual concessions. Now,
neither power could have yielded entirely to the other,
and have adopted the other's rules of maritime war with-
out doing wrong. For though both powers were entitled
to waive rights, neither power could with honour have
disregarded obligations. For instance, France could have
waived her right to confiscate neutral property on board
Russian ships, and England could have waived her
right to confiscate the property of Russians on board
neutral ships ; but France could not with honour
have disregarded the obligation imposed upon her by nu-
merous treaties, as well by her law of nations, of respecting
the property of Russians on board neutral ships, nor
could England have set aside the obligation imposed upon
her by her law of nations, of respecting neutral property
on board Russian enemies. Therefore the only hon-
oara,bie compromise which France and England
could have made with regard to their rules of
maratime war, must have been based upon a
mutual waiver of rights, and a strict fulfilment of obliga-
tions; this is the compromise which has been made. France
waived hefright of confiscating neutral property on board
Russian ships; England waived her right of confiscating
Russian property on board neutral ships. The rules of
maritime war of the two nations are now the same. We
can cordially act together against the common enemy, and
neutral states have no grounds of complaint against us.
Russia has imitated our example. May that example be
followed by future belligerents in future wars. (Cheers.)
For if the precedent set by this war should lead to the
abolition of pirate-war on the ocean, and to the establish-
ment of the maritime rights of neutrals on the firm and
solid basis of reason and justice, whatever other results
this war may bring about, it would be noted for these re-
sults in the history of the law of nations as a step in civi-
lisation and a benefit to the hunker race. I have shown
on the assumption that a belligerent state ought to have
the right of confiscating enemy's property on board a neu-
tral ship, that it was right and proper for this country to
waive for the present that belligerent right. I have like-
wise shown that the opinions current among the m-'jority
of civilised nations are in favour of the rule " free ships
free goods." Therefore I infer that reasonable doubt may
be entertained of the truth of the proposition contained in
the resolution of the learned gentleman, and consequently
that the house ought not, by agreeing to the motion of
the learned gentleman, to pledge the honour of the coun-
try to uphold for ever the position that " the goods of an
enemy in the ship of an enemy are lawful prize." Lastly,
I will assume, only for the sake of argument, that the
position in question is indisputably true. Nevertheless
the house ought not to assent to the resolution of the
learned gentleman, unless he can show that some great,
positive, and practical good would result from the house
agreeing to it. For we are not a body of publicists, assem-
bled for the purpose of discussing and determining abstract
questions of international law ; but a body of practical
men, whose duty it is to act or determine how the Govern-
ment of this country should act in existing circumstances.
Oar resolutions should, therefore, have for their end and
aim immediate action. And consequently it would be un-
wise and inexpedient to limit our freedom of action, or that
of our successors, by laying down abstract rules of action
without some well-proved necessity for so doing. Now
what great positive and practical good does the learned
gentleman expect to obtain from the house agreeing to his
resolution ? Does he wish by means of it to compel future
Governments in future wars to insist upon confiscating
enemy's goods on board neutral ships? But if the circum-
stances of future wars should be the same as those of the
present war, future Governments should act as we have
acted, for I have shown that we have acted rightly. There-
fore, if his resolution were to prevent them from following
our example, it would be mischievous in the extreme. On
the other hand, if in future wars it should be right and
proper to insist upon every belligerent right appertaining
to us by the law of nations, the resolution of the learned
gentleman is not wanted to enable us to do so ; because we
have not renounced nor surrendered any belligerent right
appertaining to us by the law of nations For in the de-
claration of the 28th of March last, in which her Majesty
was graciously pleased, by the advice of her responsible
ministers, to declare that " to preserve the commerce of
neutrals from all necessary obstruction, she was willing for
the present to waive a part of the belligerent rights ap-
pertaining to her by the law of nations." Her Majesty
did not renounce or surrender any one of her belligerent
rights. For I need hardly assure the learned gentleman
that to " waive for the present a right," and to surren-
der it, are two quite distinct things. Bur, the learned
gentlemen is not content with her Majesty's declaration to
neutral states. He asks this house to make a declaration
to neutral st Iles in a tone and spirit very different from
that of March last, and in my opinion in a very objection-
able tone and spirit. For what does he ask the representa-
tives of the people of this country to declare to neutral
states ? He asks them to say, in so many words—" The
peculiar circumstances of this war have induced us reluct-
antly to relax the principle that the goods of an enemy in
theas
esohmippeof l a friend prize. The force of events
h
our belligerent right of confiscating Russian goods on board
led us, against are
lawful
our aill to waive for the present
Your ships. Yet, be assured, we have no intention to make
any Permanent concession to your wishes, or in any way
it would be
tte,4areyknowled.ge the justice of your demands ; on the con-
in_ , we maintain that the right in question is so clearly
circumstanZs
our multi renounce or surrender
-‘,7thrted with the law oenations, and so interwoven
me renown, that to
or honour of
this count inconsistent with the security _
dignified. In ugnage
in spite of; t.herefore we are determined, whenever.
your
protests." Such remonstrances and in defiance of your
Permit, rigorously to enforce that right,
we should carefully abstain from and
up our minds to dealingwhat
,with other states, we ought to make
and to fret, and tothing one
day,
would be neither politic nor
we will do. To do one sfume,a from threats and boasts of what
just to do, and do it ; but
thing another day, and to vapour, and to
swear that we will do quite an-
othermighty nation. Suchwould be conduct unworthy of a
Falstaff's ragged regi conduct would best become one of
emu
And •
learned gentleman, I must with every respect for the
terms of his resolution, I was saalymow:ien I li:stened. to tho
of the language of Ancient Pistol, s
who,il-resistibly reminded
leek under the influence of Fluelle' whilst eating the
this leek L will be horribly revenged. ilesactudgel, swore " By
" Free ships free goods," is the leak of thaenlieke I swear."
man, the eating of which he would swear most need gentle-
revenge in future wars by the merciless confiscation h'
rribly to
goods of every enemy in the ship of every fri'ati.on of the
trope that the house will not be his co-jurors.ee'. I only
hear.) lam convinced that the house ought not to con. e
sent to the resolution of the learned gentleman. For,".
have shown that it contains a proposition condemned t
by
the majority of civilised nations—one of doubtful truth, to
the upholding of which the house ought not to plelge the
honour of the country ; that the resolution, if carried, may
be mischievous, can never be useful, and is both impolitic
and undignified. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. gentle-
man concluded by moving the previous question.
Mr. R. PHILLIMORE, assenting to the wisdom of the
course pursued by the Government in waiving the belli-
gerent rights of the Crown, could not agree with many of
the .propositions of Sir W. Molesworth, between whose I
speech and the declaration of her Majesty there appeared,
he said, a remarkable discordancy. He expressed his sur-
prise that Sir William should have taken his interpreta-
tion of international law from treaties, instead of justice
and commentators, and observed that, if his doctrine were