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

rely on the opinions of _those eminent lawyers and
judges who had suppr'rted by argument, and by the
weight of their authority, acme of the worst parts of our
ancient penal code. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had
no right to assume that the eminent authoiit.ies he had
quoted would not in these days have been in favour of
an international law which was founded upon reason
and justice, and the common consent of all civilised na-
tions. Those eminent men would probably have taken into
consideration the great changes which were constantly
taking place in our policy and in our commercial rela-
tions ; and would have given due- weight to the natural
results which flowed from an increased intercourse with
other civilised states.' Nor could he admit the noble
lord's proposition, that we were justified in resorting to
extreme measures in order to hasten the termination of
a war; for on the same principle might be justified a
resort to some of the most barbarous usages of uncivilised
tribes. War was not to be conducted on any other prin.
ciples than those which regulated our conduct in peace.
It was the duty of every one to seek to miticate its hor-
rors, and a heavy responsibility rested upon those who,
having the power to do so, neglected to exercise it. The
noble lord said that modern jurists were favourable to his
principle; but since these resolutions had been placed
upon the paper, he (the noble earl) had had a number of
extracts copied from the writings of eminent jurists since
the days of Kent ; and he found that they were all in
favonr of relaxing the old maritime code, and de-
daring that free ships made free goods. It Lad
been the great object of modern civilisation to miti-
gate the horrors of war, to define and extend
the rights cf neut;ealse This had been done '
with respect to war by land and not by sea. It would
be considered disgraceful to seize on land the property
of the peaceful subjects of the enemy ; but that had not
been the case with respect to property at sea. On the
contrary, they had given licences to buccaneers to seize
the property of peaceful merchants whom they found pur-
suing their calling on the ocean. The present state of
the maritime code showed little improvement upon the
customs of the most barbarous ages. That law was based
upon the old Roman law ; but it must be remembered
that the Roman law was not a law of nations, but a mu-
nicipallaw of Rome. The Romans might have been per-
fectly justified in applying it to their own people, but it
ought never to have been applied by jurists to questions
of international right. A. belligerent power had a per-
fect right to blockade his enemy's ports, and if a neutral
attempted to break that blockade it had a right to inter-
fere, because by so doing the neutral in pint of fact
abandoned his neutrality, and departed from the impar-
tial character the circumstances imposed upon him.
But if he did fulfil the obligation resting upon him, the
belligerent had no further claim -upon him. The prin-
cipal point, the noble lord contended, would have justi-
fied the sending of an English fleet to Memel, to demand
all the Russiau property that might happen to have been
there ; or the marching of a French army into Belgium
to seize all the Russian property in Antwerp. (Rear.)
By the modern law they not only commissioned the com-
manders of their own vessels, who were men of honour
and respectability, to stop neutrals, but they delegated
the power to buccaneers, who only differed from pirates,
those common enemies f mankind, in the fact that they
held a royal licence. (Cheers.) It was no wonder,
then, that neutrals had always protested against, and
had always resisted whenever they could, a principle so
little consonant with reason and justice. (Cheers.)
The noble lord said that the right for which he con-
tended had only been waived in three cases. But what
were realty the treaty engagements of this country ?
First with regard to Portugal. A treaty admitting
the doctrine of free ships and free goods was entered
into in 1654, and it had been renewed at different
periods down to 1810 ; so that for 156 years the invari-
able rule had been free ships and free goods. So with
regard to France, the same principle had existed for 116
years. With respect to Spain the same rule had been
recognised in 13 treaties since 1665 ; and during the last
war, if any Spanish ship had been seized it would have
had to have been restored. With Holland from the year
1666 we had treaties down to the year 1780, all recog-
nising the principle that free ships make free goods." In
the interval between 1694 and 1793 we were six times at
war with France, seven times at war with Spain, and
three times with the United Provinces. During that in-
terval 18 treaties of commerce were concluded, and these,
with the treaties of peace included, made together 34
international engagements. Of these only three did
not contain any provision with regard to the treatment
of enemy's goods on board neutral vessels, but all the
other treaties recognised the principle of " free ships
free goods." He therefore could not think that any-'
thing that had been recently dine at Paris was h3con-
sistent with what had been done for the last 125 years, in
conjunction with all the great maritime powers of Europe.
(Roar.) It was perfectly true that the rule had been con-
stantly violated, and by none more flagrantly than our-
selves. In 1793 we, in conjunction with the Dutch, de-
clared all the French ports, to be in a state of blockade,
although we did not send a single ship there. We also
declared that there should be leo trade by neutrals be-
tween the colonies of France and the mother country.
We entered into a league with Russie, Prussia, and the
Emperor of Germany to prevent the trade of neutrals
between France and her colonies, and as the noble earl
had correctly stated, after the wars of the French revo-
lution, which led to those infractions of international
law, and without which infractions these treaties would
still be in existence. It was perfectly true that the
French and English Governments vied with each other
in the violation of all the rights of the public, and of all
the ties of international obligation, and we, not less than
France, by our orders in council. That was a practice
which the noble lord himself had condemned.
Lord COLCHESTER remarked that he contended
that the paper blockades were not justified except as a
retaliatory measure.
The Earl of CLARENDON said the different mea-
sures taken by the northern powers had at various times
shown their anxiety and determination to resist these
violations of neutral rights by England. They concluded
between themselves no less than 40 treaties, 31 of which
recognised the principle "free ships free goods." The
United States, immediately after their declaration of in-
dependence in 1783, concluded at Paris a treaty with
Sweden which recognised the same principle. They also
concluded a similar treaty with Prussia, and in more re-
cent times they had concluded with the South American
states, as they obtained independence, treaties, all of
which asserted the same principle, with this reservation
—a very wise and proper one—that each belligerent
should adopt it. In the course of the last two
centuries there had beenl 30 international engage-
ments made between the principal powers of the
world, all of which, with the exception of 11, recog-
nised the principle " free ships free goods." What did he
deduce from that circumstance ? That in times of war,
and in the heat and animosity of war, men might assert
the extreme rigorous principle ; yet when they came un-
der the influence of judgment and reason, they were
willing to declare that it should not be the rule of civi-
lised nations. (Hear.) Now, the first act on which their
lordships were called upon to pronounce an opinion upon
the peace, was to reverse the practice which we had
always followed in making treaties. (Hear.) Let him ask
their lordships what was the state of things at the com-
mencement of the war, in 18/4 ? It was indispensable
that our co-operation with France should be complete
by sea as well as by land, but the principles of the mari-
time laws of the two countries were diametrically op-
posed to each other. The French respected enemy's
goods on board neutral vessels, but they confiscated neu-
tral goods on board enemy's vessels ; whilst we, on the
other hand, confiscated enemy's goods on board neutral
vessels. It was unnecessary for him to tell them what
would have been the result, if the vessels of each
nation had acted on the law recognised by their respec-
tive countries. Co-operation between the two would have
been impossible. In fact, the only wise and rational
course was for each to abandon his own system and sub-
stitute the general maritime law. It was not a question
of law or a question of policy; it was not a question even
of international law, but it waeaquestion only of the law
of England. Every other maritime power had protested
against it, and at the commencement wf this war England
was the only maritime power that adhered to it. If their
lordships were aware, as he was, of the strong feeling and
intense anxiety that prevailed among the neutral maritime
powers, as to whether we should adhere to the rule we
had hitherto maintained, their lordships would then under-
stand the importance of the question. Inquiries were
constantly addressed to him by the representatives of the
neutral powers, and though he could not say that the
maintenance of our old principle would beveled t,.) an armed
intervention against us, yet it was quite plain that we
should have stood alone in the world, and we should have
bad every power against us, and most properly so, be-
cause it was contrary to the public opinion of the world;
because we should have been-maintaining principles hoe-
tile to commerce, and not those favourable to the miti-
gation of the evils of war. The fact was, we should not
only have stood alone in this matter, but it was quite
clear that we should have been at war not only with
Russia, but with every other maritime power in the
world, or if not at war our relations would have been
most unfriendly, and more particularly with the United
States, for this reason that, whenever there had been a
war in which this principle was involved, England bail
been a principal, and had never been a neutral, but the
United States, which had seldom been at war, had been
looked upon as the maintainer of neutral rights. At the
commencement of the war with the United States in 1812
the tonnage of the United States was at a minimum.
Last year it amounted to no less than 5,300,000 tons,
and he asked their lordships if the United States would
calmly have submitted to our principle of interna-
tional law, to that reading of the law which we had,here-
tofore maintained. He asked them whether we would
allow any nation to inflict on us an injury by the applica-
tion of such a principle? This Was a note from Mr. Marcy,
the secretary of the government of the United States :
Mr. Marcy to Mr. Crampton.

_ -
Department of State, Washington, April 28, 1854.
The undersigned Secretary of State of the United States
has had the honour to receive the note of Mr. Crampton, her
Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Ple-
nipotentiary of the 21st inst., accompanied by.the declaration
of her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, in regard to the rule which will for the
present be observed towards those powers with which she is
at peace, ha the existing war with Russia. The under-
signed has submitted those communications to the
President, and received his direction to express to
her virtjesty!s Government his satisfaction that the prin-
ciple- that " free ships snake free goods," which:the United
States have so long and so strenuously contended for ,
as a nentraf right, and in which some of the leading powers of
Europe have concurred, is to have a qualified sanction by the
practical ohservance of it in the present war both by Great
Britain and France—two of the most powerful nations of
Europe. .Notwithstanding the sincere gratification which her
Majesty's declaration has given to the President, it would
have been enhanced if the rule alluded to had been announced
as one which would be observed not only in the present, but
in every future war in which Great Britain shall be a' party.
The unconditional sanction of this rule by the British, and
French.Gevernments, together with the practical' observance.
of it in the present war, would cause it to be henceforth.re-
, cogniSed throughout the civilised world as a general principle
of internitionallaw.This Government, from its commencement,