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

NAVAL PRIZES.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE rose to move that it is the
opinion of this house, that however, from the peculiar cir-
cumstances of this war, a relaxation of the principle that
the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful
prize, may be justifiable, to renounce or surrender a right
so clearly incorporated with the law of nations, so firmly
maintained by us in times of the greatest peril and distress,
and so interwoven with our maritime renown, would be in-
consistent with the security and honour of the country. The
hon. gentleman said it was his intention to call the atten-
tion of the house to the extraordinary deviation which had
recently been made from the principle by which Great Bri-
tain had hitherto been guided in her maritime affairs. That
principle was that the goods of an enemy in the ship of a
friend are lawful prize. There seemed to be a general opinion
thati h
now adopted by the Government, if en-
grafted eaPrifjoiteY r system of maritime law, would cause a great
h
In the miseries of war. He was of a different
p u
and it was because he was of that opinion that he
opinion,
n igtoen
was induced to trouble the house with the observations he
was about to make. The principle which he had stated,
and which had been abandoned, was laid down by all the
authorities. It was first laid down in the Corvolatn del
Mae-c, which had been confirmed by Grotius and Vattel,
It was erroneously supposed that the law of France was
less severe than that of England, but in fact it went much
further than the principle he had laid down, and even
confiscated a friendly ship with enemy's goods ou board.
There had been private treaties, hut these private treaties
had been made in such a way as to do no injury to this
country. They were made with France and with Hel-
-1 land, with whom we had been always at peace in naval
warfare. The first that the principle that free ships made
free goods was enunciated by that remarkably unscruplous
monarch Frederick the Great, who obtained, an exposition
des motifs, which, however, was completely answered. In
1788 the Baltic Confederation was formed, but we refused
to allow that principle. He thought he had established
his position as far as maritime European authorities went.
But there were American authorities. In 1793, Mr. Jef-
ferson, writing on this subject, said --" The general law
of nations was that the goods of an enemy were lawful
prize if found on the vessel of a neutral." There was also
a letter from Secretary Pinkey on the same subject, incul-
cating the same principles. There was also the opinion of
Chancellor Kent, who said :—" Neutral ships do not
create a protection for an enemy's property, which may
be seized if found on board a neutral vessel beyond the
limits of the neutral's territory." The same principle was
laid down by Mr. Wheaton, in his book. Then Chan-
cellor Kent said,—" There is also a marked difference in
the rights of war carried on by land and sea." But was
it true that continental proceedings formed a striking
contrast to our own ? What was the character of Turenne ?
"What was the character of Frederick the Great ? 'What
were the instructions given to the French generals during
the lash century ? The fact was that the injury committed
in continental war was often wonton and unnecessary,
whereas in maritime war it was absolutely essential that
that which alone could j ustify any war, that which would di-
minish the enemy's power should be done. There being no
doubt as to the authorities, let them now consider the rea-
son of the thing. He took, it for granted that those prin-
ciples should prevail which would render war less probable,
but if the principle that free ships made free goods was to
prevail, it would have a tendency to increase the probabi-
lities of war ; it ten.aed to make a neutral nation involve
other nations in Year because they then gained advantages
from which at other times they were excluded. What
principle was it that prohibited neutrals from carrying
contraband war, and on which they confiscated a ship
carrying j'aespatches, or which attempted to break a
ar ecltdur n
blockade, ? It was on the • •
allowed treasure
their
huetir
teehxnapetemnydetcol
allow a. belligerent to do that by a neutral which he could
principle that they would not
not by himself. But there was another principle. If
thr,re must be a war, surely it was desirable that the blood
returnsler
nojuw.
01
oydhahri
gur produceeoatt hmt greatestheaenoyhtoafi
nteiclie
iafd possibletvhaeny
tages of peace, which he would en'o it he was allowed to
carry on by neutral ships that commerce which he could
not otherwise carry on. He could perfectly understand
his hon. friends the membersfor Manchester and the West
Riding, who held the benevolent, but as be thought. the
mistaken principle, that war ought to be abandoned. If
they went upon the principle that their enemy should
have the advantage of peace while they were carrying on
war against him, then they should be • •stent to recall
consistent
their ships and isband their
army. For these reasons he
trusted that they would agree to his resolution.
Mr. T. .11.IITCRELL said he w
second the resolution,
Borne time ago to cto so, but he
could not concur in the first
part of it. He certainly had no
interest in objecting to the relaxations which had been made
by the Government. Quite the reverse. He believed there
was no man well acquainted with Russia who was not of
opinion that the greatest means of coercion that could be
employed against that country was closing the trade with it.
That country exported of late years about 15,000,0001.
worth of produce annually, a largo g portion of which went
directly in the shape of revenue to the large landowners ;
and if they stopped up that otttlet it was tantamount to
destroying the revenue of the landowners—the only class
that had any influence on the Government except the Em-
peror himself. The proper course we should adopt was to
stop the whole export trade of that country. Instead of
that considerable relaxations had been made. The First
Lord of the Admiralty had no doubt acted from the repre-
sentations made to him, but he (Mr. Mitchell) was con-
vinced that the course pursued was an erroneous one. In
December, when it was almost certain that a war would
take place with Russia, two of the most eminent merchants
went to Lord Clarendon and asked if it would be safe to
make the usual advances to Russian merchants. Lord
Clarendon, snore frankly than he should have expected,
told them it would be highly unsafe for English merchants
to make those advances. They did not make them, and
s that the value of goods iu Russia de-
the consequence wa
clined 20 per cent., and most of the Russian houses ab-
stained almost entirely from trade
_with Russia. A few
houses however bought a considerable quantity of goods at
t caused by the •
a reduction of 20 per cen •generalfeeling in
the trade, and by Lord Clarendon 's information, and when
war proclaimed they went clamorously to the Government
and said " We bought these goods before any declaration
of war ; we had no idea of war, and,we call on you to let
us take the goods away from Russia. A A
Period was gained
nn
to the 15th of May, and he believed that 115 vessels
went to Riga, and at least half the goods they were loaded
with were actually bought at Riga after the declaration of
war. Then it was intimated that a blockade was to take
place of Archangel, but it was not known when, and
vessels were being about, at this moment, to be sent to
Archangel to be taken away before the blockade. Then
with regard to the Black Sea, they had had a distinct inti-
mation that there would be a blockade of the Black Sea,
but no blockade had taken place, and neutr d vessels were
going there earning most enormous freights ; and while
English merchants had refrained from operations, a num-
ber of Greek merchants were buying up goods at rates
which would yield a high profit, and were loading these
neutral vessels which were getting freights, which ho had
no hesitation in saying would pay 50 per cent. on the cost
of the vessels. Ho spoke Of the feeling of trade, and ho
said if they were to have a blockade lot them know when
it was to take place, so that they might be put on the same
footing as their neighbours, and act accordingly. Now
with reference more particularly to the motion, there was
no doubt that to a certain extent they could not prevent
the transit of goods between Prussia and Russia, and if
they prevented the inspection of goods on neutral vessels,
the trade would be extended. The fact was, that goods
sent from Russia might be readily distinguished. He
happened to know that great fear was entertained that if
the right of search was exercised in these neutral vessels,
Russian goods would be recognised and seized. Another
alteration had been made. On the 11th of April a letter
was received either from the Foreign-office or the Board
of Trade (he rather thought
from the Board of Trade),
stating that any British merchant buying goods, the pro-
perty of an enemy, would be liable to have those goods
seized. On the 15th of April, only four days afterwards,
an order was made by the Privy Council, entirely abro-
gating this letter, and stating that they wero perfectly