The Sun.
London, England, 1856-05-23 00:00:00

[Same, mutcais nuttanlis, to the Count do Sartiges.]
He must say that was a very moderate and dignified state-
ment. But if that was the state of things in 1854, he
asked their lordships whether they had rea-on to suppose
that there would be any change of public opinion on
the subject, that civilisation would retrograde, that there
would be more hostility to commerce, or anything to
render our motives less stringent than those which im-
posed upon us, the necessity to determine upon this course
in 1854 ? If their lordships knew how the order in coun-
cil of 1854 was received by other powers, how much
im-
p atance they attached to it, their lordships would see
how dangerous it would be to trifle with the friendly
feeling thus excited, by renewing a declaration that
we would adhere to our old system. But, as he had
stated, we had never been in war anything but ;a prin-
cipal, we had never known what the application of our
own doctrine to us would be by other nations. Suppose
that France and the United States were at war in which
which we took no part, and that the French cruisers
claimed the right to intercept our commercial vessels
between this country and New York. Suppose a French
cruiser stopped a Liverpool vessel, and found 200 tons
of goods consigned to a firm at New York, and he took
the whole vessel and the cargo—he should like to know
what the merchants of this country would say to this
application of our own principle, and whether the people
of this country would not petition Parliament to render
the law more just. He thought, then, that it would be
quite impossible to revert to our former policy. The
great changes which were taking place around us
forbade our having recourse to that• policy again. And
Government thought that when they were under no
compulsion, and when their motives ceuld not be
misunderstood, it was wise and politic to make the de-
claration that they had—that they would not recede,
but would abide by what they had done, thereby miti-
gating‘the miseries of war, and prelucing friendly feel-
ings among the nations of the earth. He thought that
the law of nations was founded upon two principles,
the jus nature, the principles of rea :on and justice, and
the communis COP3CiI3I(3 pentium, and he said that the
law both prescribed and justified the declaration that
_1
they made. Their lordships were called upon to express
their regret that the plenipotentiaries assembled in that
council should have announced t'leir abandonment of the
privilege without the knowledge or assent of Paniarneet
If there was one principle of our constitution which
was universally admitted, it 'was the right of the Crown
to cenclude treaties with other countries without tee
knowledge or assent of Parliament ; and the obvious rea-
son wee, that if they had to procure the sanction of Par-
liament or any other autho ity before they made a treat y
they would never make a treaty at all. If they had re-
quired that ass ,‘nt to the particulars of the treaty of Paris,
.sr even the basis of it, did they think that that treaty
would have ever been signed ? He could tell their lord-
ships that it was not a very easy matter as it was, but
if a thousand additional persons had been called in, with
the assistance of the daily press, it would never have been
signed. There was no doubt aeout the right and preroga-
tive of the Crown to sanction a declaration of this kind,
which did not require the ratification of Parliament. He
had read a list of the various treaties entered into with
various countries renouncing this principle, and to not
one of them was the sanction of Parliament sought, nor
had the prerogative of the Crown been questioned till this
evening Lord Stowell said the Crown could declare gene-
ral hostilities, and could limit their operation. If the sane
tion of Parliament were required now, it would have been
as much required to state the principle two years ago as
it would be now to renounce it. But the sense of Parlia-
ment was taken upon it by an hon. and learned gentleman
belonging to Doctors'-commons, who asked the house to
resolve that to renounce the right would be inconsistent
with the honour and security of this country. After a
short debate, however, the house was counted out. This
would show that the sanction of Parliament was not
considered requisite. Their lordships were called upon to
express regret that the plenipotentiaries had so far de•
parted from their attributes as to have suddenly aban-
doned, without the previous sanction of Parliament, the
principles so long and so strenuously maintains d.
He thought their lordships would have some difficulty
in expressing regret that all the plenipotentiaries should
have renounced the principle to which all their Govern-
ments objected without the sanction of the Parliament of
Great Britain. They adopted precisely the precedent to
which the noble lord had alluded, in which the plenipo-
tentiaries assembled at the Congress of Vienna agreed
to that memorable declaration by which they affirmed
that the slave trade, which had so long desolated Africa
and degraded Europe, was accursed, and they agreed
amongst themselves, with the sanction of their Govern-
ments, that the most strenuous exertions should be made
to prevent that traffic. If they (the plenipotentiaries of
Paris) bad confined themselves within the strict line of
their attributions, they would have lost the opportu-
nity, when the representatives of the principal powers
of Europe were met together, of discussing as
far as possible the various important matters unconnected
with Russia. Not a word would have been said about
Italy from the principles laid down, in the discussion of
which important results would ensue. Not a word would
have been said about the principle of mediation, whereby
they had interposed a fresh obstacle to war, and had
thereby done a great service to humanity. They re-
nounced a principle which he believed it was not for the
interest of England to maintain. At the same time
Francis renounced a principle to which we had long ob-
jected, thus placing our maritime law on the same foot-
ing. Their lordships must bear in mind that these pro-
positions must be taken in their entirety, and he said
that to abolish privateering was more than equivalent to
giving up a claim to a principle which it was impossible
for them to maintain. The abolition of privateering was
of far more importance now than in former times, in
consequence of the changes produced by steam. In
former times', when both merchant vessels and pri-
vateers were propelled by wind, they were on a level,
but now a merchant sailing vessel was at the mercy of
the smallest privateer moved by steam. He thought,
therefore, that the abolition of privateering would be of
the utmost advantage to commerce. He thought they
might congratulate themselves on giving up a privilege
which they could not maintain, and that they had abo-
lished privateering, thereby mitigating the miseries of
war, and promoting a cordial feeling among nations. If
he had been able to show that all precedents had not
been in favour of the principle which the noble lord had
maintained, and that this principle could be given up
without serious injury to England, whereas the attempt
to uphold it could only be regarded as an act of hostility
to other nations, he thought their lordships would agree
with him that this motion should be negatived.
The Earl of CARNARVON said the noble earl had
mixed up the two questions of the right of search and
privateering, whereas they stood on entirely different
grounds. The noble earl seemed to evade the main question
brought forward by his noble friend, who had asked whe-
ther the abandonment of this principle was permanent.
Was it a mere bargain between the parties, or was it a
mere understanding between the governments whose
plenipotentiaries were present, and was it necessary to
incorporate it in an order in council, or to have an act
of Parliament ? The noble earl had spoken of the uncer-
tainty of the law. Ho wee surprised that a member of
the English Government should admit that there was
any uncertainty, for if there was one fact clear it was
this, that the whole stream of authority was in favour of
the principle, which they bad always maintained and
acted upon. The noble earl said that the abolition of pri-
vateering was a fair equivalent to us for our concession,
but in the answer of the Secretary of the Government of
the United States it was distinctly stat td that the 1.11 ited
States would never relinquish their rights.. He could un-
derstand the doctrine cf a party in this country who
argued that the sea was open to all nations, that com-
merce would find its own level, and that it should be un-
tramelled by laws and restrictions ; but this concession
did not go far enough to meet the views of these gentle.
men, He contended that the AA principle of self-preserva-
tion entitled us to seize the goods of our enemy if we
found them on board a neutral vessel, and that since we
not only paid the neutral compensation in such a ease for
the damage and delay which he might have incurred, but
paid him also the amount of the freight which be would
have received for carrying the goods, there was no hard-
ship done to the neutral, but that he was only debarred
from an advantage which would have operated to our de-
triment ; we only prevented him from making a profita-
ble speculation out of the war, and trading on our enemy's
behalf. The neutral might buy and sell with the bellige-
rents, and the property which be brought to or carried
away from the enemy's shores, if it were bona fide neu-
tral property, was not interfered with ; it was only when
his neutrality became a fraudulent neutrality that his
neutral claim was forfeited. The authorities cited by the
noble earl the Foreign Secretary were within the last
fifty years ; and the opinions of raen, however eminent,
should be distrusted when they were expressed in the
midst of exciting dispute ; but the calm and dispas-
sionete judgment of oldeir authorities, contrary to
the natural feelings and preiudicies of the men who pro
nounced that judgment, was of more weight ; as that
of Grotius, for instance, who, though a Dutchman, af-