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

TITE SUN, LOND-ON, FRIDAY EVIENINVr, MAY 23, 1R56,

but what is consistent with natural law, and we are taking
the best steps to put an earl to war. But before I leave
the -United States and the fear which has been expres,ed
that, hi the event of our persisting in the maintenance of
"oar ancient claim, the United States would refuse to re-
cognise it, let me read what Chancellor Kent and Profes-
sor Wheaton, who was lately American Minister at Berlin,
say upon the subject. Let me preluise it by saying that
all the Powers who entered into this solemn le.io- of ue neu-
trality to which they refer very soon abandoned prin-
ciples. Within 18 years every one of them had signed
treaties in which the principles of neutrality were com-
pletely given up. Chancellor Kent says,—

- "'The Baltic conventional law of neutrality was soon
abandoned, as not being sanctioned by the existing law of
nations, in every case in which the doctrines of that code
did not rest on positive contracts. During the whole course
of the ware growing out of the French Revolution the
Government of the United States admitted the English rule
to be valid, as the true and settled doctrine of international
law, and that enemy's property was liable to seizure on
board neutral ships, and to be confiscated as prize of war.
The two distinct propositions that enemy's goods
found on board a neutral vessel may lawfully be seized as
prize of war, and that the owls of a neutral found on board
an enemy's vessel were to be restored, have been explicitly
incorporated into the jurisprudence of the United States,
and declared by the Supreme Court to be founded ou the
law of nations. . . I should apprehend the belligerent's
right to be no longer an open question ; and that the autho-
rity and usage on which that right rests in Europe, and the
long, explicit, and authoritative admission of it by .this
country have concluded us from making it a subject of con-
troversy ; and that we are bound in truth and justice to sub-
mit to its regular exercise in every case, and with every bel-
ligerent Power who does not freely renounce it."
That is the declaration of one of the most eminent lawyers
of America as to the bounden duty of that country with
regard to the international law which we have always
maintained, and which he declares to be incorporated into
the law of the United States. Again, what does that high
'authority Wheaton say upon the same subject. He
says,—

" Whatever may be the true original abstract principles of
natural law on this subject, it is undeniable that the con-
stant usage and practise of belligerent nations, from the ear-
liest times, have subjected enemy's goods in neutral vessels
to condemnation as prize of war. This constant and univer-
sal usage has only been interrupted by treaty stipulations,
formiug a temporary conventional law between the parties to
such stipulations. By the general usage of nations, indepen-
dently of treaty stipulations, the goods of an enemy, found
on board the ships of a friend, are liable to capture and con-
demnation. The primitive law, independently of inter-
national compact, rests on the simple principle that war gives
the right to capture the goods of an enemy, but gives no
right to capture the goods of a friend. The right to capture
an enemy's property has no limit but of the place where the
goods aro found, which, if neutral, will protect them from
capture. We have already seen that a neutral vessel on the
high seas is not such a place. The stipulation that neutral
bottoms shall make neutral goods is a concession made by the
belligerent to the neutral, and gives to the neutral flag a ca-
pacity not given to it by the primitive law of nations."
Now, there is the doctrine laid down in supNrt of the
opinion of every British statesman, recognisifik the law
and the duty of neutral nations to submit to the right
which we claim to exercise. I look upon this question as
the most important which your lordships can be called on
to discuss, and depend upon it that the time will come, if
yon don't estimate its importance now, you will deeply
feel its consequences. My lords, I look upon this act of tlic
Government as cutting off the right arm, as it were, of the
country. I look upon it as depriving her of those natural
ad vantageswhich her great maritime power has given her in
war, and of the exercise of that superiority and those bel-
ligerent rights without which she is nothing. If she re-
mains nut the mistress of the seas she falls immediately
and naturally into the position of a third-rate Power.
France and England are the two greatest Powers of Europe
and God forbid that they should be separated. United,
they may secure or they may imperil the peace of the world,
bat separated they each have their peculiar means of of-
fence and defence. The means of France is her army, and •
the main resort of England must always be to her navy,
whether it be to defend her own coasts from aggression to
which, thank God, she has hitherto been a stranger, or to
enforce her rights upan foreign nations. By the navy you
must do it, and the more you circumscribe the power of
that navy the more you weaken the strength and influence
of the country. I confess that I was astonished at the ar-
gument of the noble duke, if indeed, I could be astonished
at any argument that he employs—that the stronger al
Power was at sea the less important was it, for her to main-
tain her maritime rights. The noble duke took the resolu-
tions seriatim, nod commented on them with various ob-
servations, more or less important, —I think most of them
less. (A. laugh.) I will not follow him through his observa-
tions, but I must meet his statement that theabaudonment
of the right which we have possessed was not an abandon-
ment of any right or power the loss of which would be
serious to this country. In order to test the value of that
opinion, let us take the recent case of the war with Russia.
Now, I want to know where you would have been in the
war with Russia if you had abandoned the principle of cap-
turing an enemy's gocds in neutral vessels, and had been
unassisted by the French military force. The only power
which you could bring against Russia was a naval power;
and if that had basin unsupported by military assistance,
what impression, I want to know, would you have made
up to this moment upon Russia? (Hear.) You might
have greatly distressed Russia by the m.antenance of your
maritime rights; you might, no doubt, have greatly incon-
venienced and annoyed her by a blockade of her ports;
but she sends her goods to Memel—you can't blockade
Memel, which is a Prussian port, and the commerce of
R sin is not interrupted by any naval operations of yours.
(Hear.) You conquered Russia, because. in addition to your
naval power, you had the assistance of the greatest military
power on the earth. If you had not had that assistance
would you have signed a peace with Prussia for the next 10
years, unless it involved more humiliating concessions than
you have made by the abandonme.3 of this right? What-
ever losses Russia may have suffered by this war, whatever
embarrassments she may have experienced, I hesitate not
to say that they are snore than compensated by the adoption
of that one article, gratuitously inserted by the French and
British plenipotentiaries, by which, in the words of Mr.
Pitt, you have sacrificed the maritime greatness of England
on the shrine of Russia. (Hear.) Suppose, which God
forbid, that a war should arise between this country and
France, what means have you of opposing France, except
closing her up hermetically and stopping her commerce?
Well, what are you to do ? You can't blockade the whole
coast of France ; but you ca I practically prevent her from
sending out one single bale of merchandise. Your new
law permitting French goods to go with impunity on board
neutral vessels comes into operation ; you have no block-
ade. France gives up her whole commercial marine ; she
makes her vessels into vessels of war ; she has seamen to
man them ; and, before your very face, she carries on her
whole commerce under the Prussian or American flag.
(Cheers.) You are powerless. Your power is gone. Your
right arm is cut off. Your only means of defence are
abandoned, anti abandoned too at the suggestion of France.
Was there ever a Minister so led by the nose ? Was there
ever a Minister who so deliberately walked into the trap
set before his face, and so tamely and gratuitously sur-
rendered the foundation of England's greatness? The
noble lord finds in it a subject for laughter; I hope the
country will find in it a subject for laughter some 10 years
hence. A noble earl has well said, " You ring your bells
now; you will have to wring your hands hereafter." You
are exulting over peace. You are ringing your bolls and
illuminating your town. I say the country does not see
the dangers to which it is exposed; bat depend upon it,
when painful experioace shall make the country wring her
hands and not her bells, she will know on whose head to
visit the consequences of the decline of her paver and
gre ttoesi. Igo then to the United States, Do you pre-
tend that 2,000 miles of seacoast can b 3 uninterruptedly
blockaded under whatever circumstances of wind or

•
weather? Do you mean to say you will apply that prin-
cipls to a war with the Unitel States? What will happen
with regard to the commerce of the United States ? The
United States is not titled, unless she enters into the con-
' veutien, to carry the goods of France; but supposing you
are at war with the United States, what is your position ?
France is a I arty to your convention, France has a perfect
right to carry puck like other neutrals, and France offers
to carry the goods of the United States, with which she is
at. peace, and claims to pass unquestioned unless she carries
coutraba id of war. Do you mean to accrds to that demand
or to refuse it? If you :accede you place yourself in this
posit
ion,—the trade and commerce of the United States
remain unieterrupted by the intervention of French neu-
trals, anal by the refusal of the Milted States to come into
the convention they maintain the belligerent right of pri-
vateering oo goods in your ships. Upon .the principle of
privateering, I can ouly,say Ishould cordially rejoice to see
it altogether abolished. It is to the interest of all nations
that it should be abandoned. It is can:wary to morality
i and international law, because traffic in war is carried on
not in the service of country, but for private gain ; and I
should desire nothing more than to see that principle aban-
doned altogether by the common consent of nations.
(Cheers.) I am not speaking of the three resolutions to be
moved by ray noble friend above me. but of privateering
properly understood. (Hear.) But if you tell me that the
abandonment of privateering is a conce:sion made to Eng-
land in order to get her to abandon a valuable right, I can-
not and will not accept it, because, abhorrent as the prin-
ciple and practice may be, if privateering were resorted to
by all nations none would gain more or suffer less than
England. (Hear.) You may say she has an extended
commerce. I t. ust that commerce will be more extended.
Hitherto, with her own right arm, and that navy which is
her mainstay, England has been able to protect and defend
'her commerce, without recourse to conventions, stipule-
thane, or treaties. (Cheers.) I cannot accept the surren-
der of privateering as a boon to England. I accept it cor-
dially and willingly as a concession to humanity, but not
as a great and pre-eminent advantage peculiar to ourselves.
Therefore I say, according to my reading of these articles,
you gratuitously and tamely, without application from
any Power, but upon the recommendation and following
in the wake of France, surrender a right which belonged
to us, which was established as a right by all jurists of
earlier days, which was recognised by all jurists of modern
times, which has been upheld by every statesman of im-
portance in this country down to the latest, and which it
was reserved for the present Government to throw away,
although Pitt and Grenville and Canning successively de-
clared it to be the mainstay of the naval power of England.
I know not what may be the judgment at which yourlord-
ships may arrive. I shall regret if this hasty, ill-considered,
dangerous act of her Majesty's Government shall receive the
high sanction of the assembly which I have the honour to ad-
dress. But whether it be so decided or not, I feel I have done
and will do my duty,and if I stood alone in condemning this
assumption of right, not to limit by treaty, but to recognise
and establish a principle of international law at variance
with the interests of the country and without its know-
ledge or sanction—l say, if I stood alone, I would support
the revolutions of my noble friend—l would divide the
house upon this question—l would give to every one of
your lordships the power of recl•rdieg your opinion as to
the policy, the wisdom, and the safety of these proceed-
ings. But, for my part, I solemnly protest—as deroga-
tory to the country, as inconsistent with its dearest inte-
rests, as fraught with danger to its future greatness and
power —ay ! and to its future safety—l protest against the
abandonment of rights, involved in that which, with all
respect for his personal qualities, I cannot but characterise
as the miserable Clarendon-Capitulation of Paris. (The
noble earl resumed his seat. amidst loud cheers.)
The Earl of CLA.REND'JN—It mac be inferred from
what the noble earl has said that I took part against the
independence of the Belgian press, and was prepared to join
with other Governments in its repression.
The Earl of DE ttßY—You signed that protocol. (Hear.)
The Earl of CLARENDON—The contrary is the case.
I defended the liberty of the press in Belgium as I do at
newspapers condemned by Count
home, and the only
Walewski in bringing the matter under the notice of the
Congress cannot be called a portion of the Belgian press,
but were those papers surreptitiously printed without the
names of the printers ou the Continent, for the purpose of
being smuggled into France, which preach the assassination
of the Emperor and the subversion of the present state of
things in France. Those are the newspapers which I con-
donated, and those are newspapers which I think will bet

elndeu3ned by every friend of the liberty of the press of
England. (Cheers.)

Earl GREY confessed that, after hearing the explanation
of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the course taken by
her Majesty's Government, he thought the noble earl (Lord
Derby, in endeavouring to satisfy their lordships that they
ought to agree in passing a solemn Parliamentary censure,
had undertaken a task too great even for his distinguished
abilties. Amid all the eloquent declamation of the noble
earl he listened in vain for any argument to show that the
course taken by the Government was open to objection or
justified the vote of censure implied in the resolutions.
The objection of the noble earl was twofold ; first, he ob-
jected to the manner in which the Government had entered
into the consideration of the question ; and, secondly, he
objected to the substance of the engagement itself. It was
satisfactory to find, with regard to the manner, that the
noble earl had seen reason to modify the opinion which he
expressed in the debate on the treaty of peace. On that
occasion he contended that the declaration should not have
been signed without the previous assent of Parliament.
Ho had now abandoned that ground; he had recognised
the constitutional power of the Crown to bind the country
by engagements contracted with foreign Powers ; and had
admitted that it was not fitting that the purport of such
engagements should be discussed beforehand in Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) The constitutional principle undoubtedly
was, that the advisers of the Crown were responsible to
Parliament for the measures which they recommended the
Crown to take, but that it was the prerogative of the
Crown to take those Measures without the previous assent
of Parliament. Nay, as the noble earl had further ad-
mitted, it was within the constitutional power of the
Crown to declare from time to time in what manner and
to what extent it should exercise its rights under the
maritime laws ; and that, in point of fact, from the earliest
times the Crown had been in the habit of enforcing, some-
times more, sometimes less strictly, its maritime rights
during war. Orders in Council had been repeatedly recog-
nised by our Admiralty Courts, presided over by men of
the highest eminence, as constituting the law on the sub-
ject; and it was clear that if the Crown had the power
of declaring to what extent the rights of the country
should be exercised, it was equally entitled to make
an engagement beforehand with other Powers to
the same effect. Admitting all that,. how came
it that the noble earl was prepared to vote for a resolution
which condemned the proceeding of the Government, be-
cause it had been adopted "without the previous sanction
or knowledge of Parliament. ?" The noble earl said this
was not a treaty or convention—not a declaration of what
the law should be hereafter, but a declaration of what the
law was at present. What had that to do with the " pre-
vious sanction or knowledge of Parliament ?" A knowledge
that it would have been better to draw up the document
in the form of a convention, atd that would not justify
the passing of such a resolution. The truth was, that all
the objections of the noble earl resolved themselves into
mere verbal criticisms upon the manner in which the de-
claration was drawn up. Were their lordships going to
,adopt so solemn a proceeding as a Parliamentary censure
upon the Government for entering into an engagement
against which no stronger objection could he made than
that it was carelessly or improperly worded ? It was evi-
dent that the words, " without the previous sanction or
knowledge of Parliament," had been inserted in the resolu-
tion, not with any serious notion that they could be pressed
as a valid objection, but to create a prejudice against the
measure in the minds of persons who would not take the
trouble to inquire into the real facts of the case. (Hear.)
Coming now to the substance of the question, he might
venture to say, that of the four principles contained in the
declaration there was, substantially, only one to which the
noble earl objected, viz.—that in which we agreed to waive
for the future the right of seizing enemy's property in
neutral ships. Now, in considering the question raised by
the noble earl and his fiiends, it was important to ascer-
tain how the principle now abandoned had worked in
former times, and especially during that memorable strug-
gle with France which resulted from the French Revolu-
tion. For information upon that point he had applied to
the distinguished judge who now presided over the Court
of Admiralty, who in those days had a very extensive
business in the prize courts, and who was, therefore,
well qualified by knowledge and experience to describe
accurately the practical operation of this particular por-
tion of the maritime law. Dr. Lushingtou, in answer to his
inquiries, said the practice was that, when a British cruiser
fell in with a ship un:ler a neutral flag, an officer was sent
on board to examine the cargo, and, if he found any irre-
gularity in the bill of lading or any of the other documents,
so as to raise a doubt whether the property was neutral or
not, the vessel was taken into a British port for adjudica-
tion. After considerable delay the Court gave its decision,
and the goods were eventually condemned or restored ; but
in the latter c ise, not in one instance in 500 was any com-
pensation male to the owner of the ship or to the owners
of any portion of the cargo which might not have been dis-
puted for all the inconvenience and expense to which they
had been subjected.• It often happened, when goods were
restored, that they were so only upon payment of costs.
Could their lordships conceive anything more intolerable
to neutrals than such a right so exercised ? He believed,
indeed, that it was the extreme irritation produced by the
constant annoyance and loss to which the American ship-
owners were subjected by the British cruisers that mainly
led to the war with America. The noble earl had stated that
that war arose entirely from the right of search, but he
must remind the noble earl that the United States had, he
believed, neverobjected to the execrise of the right of search
in time of war for the purpose of ascertaining whether ships
were conveying contraband of war. The quarrel arose from
the pretensions which this country put forward to search
American ships, in order to ascertain whether any of the
seamen were British subjects. Frequently, upon very im-
perfect evidence, men who might havebeen natives of Bos-
ton or New York were declared to be British subjects, and
were removed from American ships, and it was this system
of impressment, and not the exercise of the general right
of search, which led to the war with America. He was
glad that, in the late war, this country hai shown that
it could produce a naval force far exceeding any the world
had hitherto beheld, without having recourse to the odious
and unjust system of impressment. (Hear, hear.) He
hoped that example had put ae end to the system of im-
pressment for ever, and had thus averted any chance of a
quarrel with the United States upon such a ground. They
must net forget that, if this country claimed for itself the
right which noble lords opposite supported, it must be pre-
pared to allow the same power to be exercised against it;
and how would British shipowners submit to the exercise
of such a right if this country should be placed in the posi-
tion of a neutral? Suppose a quarrel took place between
the United States end Manes, in wh'clithis country took no
part, would they endure it that every English ship clearing
out from Bordeaux should be overhauled by an American
frigate, and that, if it could not be proved that all the pro-
perty on board was English property, the ship should be
sent across the Atheistic in order that the question might
be considered by an American court, while the British
merchant suffered consequent inconvenience, delay, and ex-
pense? How would they endure it that vessels from New
York or New Orleans, laden with cotton which our manu-
facturers were anxiously expecting, should be stopped by
French frigates, and conveyed to French ports, while the
French courts inquired whether the cargoes were the pro-
perty of Americans or of Englishmen? This system was
bad enough in the great revolittionary war, but when they
considered how commercial intercourse had since increased,
how trading transactions had multiplied, and when they
remembered that during the interval the tonnage of the
United States had increased five-fold, they could not believe
that such a system would ho tolerated for a day. Great,
however, as was the injustice of the old system, it was
wholly itieffectnal in accomplishing the object for which
it was established. He found, from political publica-
tions which he had consulted, that the law had been
virtually inoperative, and that they must go a great deal
further if they wished to attain their object. (Hear,
hear.) Frauds on the most gigantic scale were committed,
and one individual covered, with his protection as a
neutral, property to the value of 1,700,003/. which be.
longed to the Dutch East India Company. It was admitted
that unless they adopted the plan of cutting off an enemy's
trade altogether they could not prevent neutrals from co-
vering the property of the enemy in one way or other. If
they attempted to act upon extreme principles, irrespec-
tive of all right and 'justice, and endeavoured to compel
to
neutral nations to submit any measure they thought ex-
pedient for distressing an enemy, they might make war
upon the world. A noble earl opposite had said that Eng-
land would be unworthy of her high position, if she was
not able to stand alone, but he (Earl Grey) thought that
was not the language of a cool and reflecting statesman.
Neither England nor any other nation could stand against
the world in arms, and God forbid that the contrary
should be the case. He did not speak simply of physical
power, although there was no one nation that by mere
physical power could possibly stand against a combination
of all other nations of the world ; but he referred to what
was still more to be dreaded, a combination of the opinion
and intelligence of nations. Against such a feeling he be-
lieved neither this nor any other nation 'sae able to stand.
lie must say he thought that such expressions as had been
used by the noble earl opposite were calculated to exercise
an injurious influence neon the character of this country:
in Europe and in the world. During the French revolu-'
tionary war we asserted this extreme belligerent right, but
we subsequently saw the necessity of relaxing it, as also
did Napoleon, who granted licences to trade, by means of
which he enriched both himself and his marshals. (Hear.)
It was to be hoped that their lordships would not suffer
themselves to be persuaded by the arguments that had
fallen from the noble earl (Derby) to condemn the wise and
liberal step taken by the Government for the purpose of in-
troduc'ng a more rational and, despite the sarcasms of the
noble earl, he would add, a more humane system of warfare.
Earl GRANYILLE—I trust your lordships will not be
alarmed at my standing up at so late an hour, for I have the
satisfaction of assuring you that I have not the least inten-
tion of making a speech, nor will I trespass upon your at-
tention for more than a single moment. Although during
the whole course of the war I have felt as deep au interest in
Iles question as any of your lordships, and although I view,
with sentiments of the most cordial approval the course taken
with respect to it by her Majesty's Government, I feel that
if I were to offer any remarks of my own on the subject I
should only weaken the effect of the observations that have
:fallen from my noble friend (Earl Grey) who, because he has
declined to declaim and has only argued, has made a speech
that appears to me entirely unanswerable. I may be allowed,
however, to express my surprise that the noble lord opposite
(the Earl of Derby) should have inferred from the wording
,of the declaration that it includes sot only the present but
also the past and future, for I should have supposed that he
was aware that in the official phraseology of the French lan-
guage the present tense is invariably employed to express the
luture. (gear, he et* ) In conclusion, I have to invite your
ordships' attention to the following letter from Lord
Campbell :

"Central Criminal Court, Thursday,

Dear Lord Granville,----As, from the important trial still
pending hero, I shall not be able to be in the House of Lords
this evening, I should be glad if you could find an opportu-
nity, in the course of the debate, to explain the cause of my
absence, and to state that, upon deliberation, I fully adhere
to the opiuon which I have before expressed in my
that the conventien for the modification of the law of marl-
time warfare is beneficial to England, and was constitution.
ally entered into by the English Government.—Yours, very
truly, " CAMPllnrs.
" The Earl Granville.'
To that letter I will only add the sincere expression of my
hope that your lordships will not hesitate to give your sanc-
tion to a concession .which is founded upon a liberal policy,
and which, in the opinion of some of the best and most eini.

rent of our statesmen, may be made fairly and honourably,
and without the slightest prejudice to our naval supremacy.
Lord COLCHESTER, having made a few observations in
reply,
The house divided, when the numbers were—

For the motion :
Content—Present
Proxies

-102

Against the motion :
Not Contents—Present
Proxies
—l5 ci
Majority against the motion. 5l
Their lordships then adjourned at 12 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-("YESTERDAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.

The following bills were read a third time and pa,sed :
—Alford Valley Railway, Barnsdale and Leeds R ,ad,
Kettering and Newport Paguell Road, Luton, Dons-
table, and Welwyn Junction Railway, Midland Railway.
Norfolk Railway, Stockport and Warrington Road, and
Wolverhampton Water.
The following bills were considered and read a third
time :—London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway (Ex-
tension and Branches), and E y Tidal Harbour and