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

, .
his noble friend would have considered that the maritime , treaty. It has not, he seys, the same solemnity as a treaty ;
power of this country was the last thing that should have , it does not require ratification by the Sovereigns ; but it
been sacrificed, and if it was to be sacrificed, that the ' has the same effect as a treaty ; nay, it has much more than
opinion of the people should have been taken before the , the effect of a treaty, because it is not a treaty agreeing
prerogative of the Crown was exercised.. . (Hear, hear.) As with certain Powers to act upon certain principles, the
regarded the noble earl opposite (Granville), he considered : action of which is limited by the terms of the treaty, but
him to be one of those amiable, kind, soft men—(laughter) it is, or affects to be; an authoritative exposition of that
—who would do anything that he thought kind, and if it ' which is the law, not of that which shall bathe law. (Hear.)
was desired even by that, polite nation. with which he was i Admitting, therefore, that the Government have the per-
so much,connected in his early youth. , With regard to the i feet uncontrolled right, subject to their responsibility to
noble earl (Harrowby), who had just spoken, he would for- Parliament, of framing the terms of any treaty by which
give him if he said that he had no confidence in his primal,. the country may subsequently be bound, I draw a distinc-
pies. (Laughter.) The noble lord had expressed such a time between a treaty settling what shall be the course of
variety of opinions at different times—(laughter)—he had action agreed upon between two countries, and an act or
been, if he might use the expression, such a good cross- declaration which places the Government in the position
bencher, and had been of such use in balancing parties, of judges and exponents of the international lawof Europe.
that he respected the noble earl's talents and virtues, I speak with great hesitation upon the subject, because I
though he had no confidence in him as a statesman stern in am told upon high legal authority that even such an act
the protection of the rights of his country. As to the noble as this is within the prerogative of the Crown. Admit-
and learned lord on the woolsack—(laughter)—the only ob- ting, however, that it is an act within the prerogative of
nervation he had to make on him, as one of those who had a the Crown—although I should myself have doubted the
hand in bringing about this event, was that, with all his ' soundness of such a doctrine—l must say that it is a gross
powers and ability and his judicial authority, he had failed and flagrant abuse of the prerogative. (Hear.) I say that
in carrying every,measure he had introduced since he had the plenipotentiaries went to Paris for a particular pur-
been Chancellor. (Laughter.) For the rest of the noble p use, and the public reposed in them a generous confidence
lords composing the Government of the country, he would which they have grossly abused. (Hear, hear.) The ple-
Jake them in a heap —(laughter)—and consider them as niyotentiaries went to Paris to stipulate for certain terms
only able to follow their leader--(laughter)—and he be- upon which the peace of the world might be restored, and
lievedthat thistime they were led to do an act which, if its the interests of the East placed upon a satisfactory foun-
effects were not felt now, would be felt, at a future time ; elation. They concluded a treaty on that subject, and it
and he believed also that this debate would not be forgotten remained for the country, after that treaty had been rati-
at a time when, if by any misfortune, this country was at fled, to express an opinion upon its terms and conditions.
war with a foreign power, it was found that a sacrifice had There, however, the duty of the plenipotentiaries, or at all
been made of the laws on which the independence of this events the confidence reposed in them by Parliament and
great nation depended. (Hear; hear.) • lthe country, was at an end, and what they did beyond that
The Earl of ALBEMARLE said he should not have I was—l will not say a betrayal of the confidence reposed in
them, but an underhand proceeding.of which the country
addressed the house on this occasion-bat for his wish to had no notice and no knowledge. (Hear, hear.) The noble
correct a misrepresentation of an opinion expressed by him duke (Argyll) tells us that though the Government, in the
last year with regard to the right of enemies' goods in course of the war, came to no very definite conclusion on
neutral ships. The noble earl then proceeded to urge that this subject, we might have gained some indication of the
cenrse the likel to ursue, inasmuch as we knew
he could not understand the difference between taking
from authenticwere recordsy what were the views and opinions
an enemy's goods under a neutral flag on shore and at sea. of the late Sir W. Molesworth. I wish to speak with the
Both acts were of the same character. To seize an enemy's utmost respect of a man of very great ability, especially
goods in a foreign territory was not merely an act of as he is now no more; but I confess that I heard with as-
hostility but of robbery, and it seemed to him that it was tonishment from the noble duke, who at one time professed
downright piracy to seize an enemy's goods in neutral
to be a follower of the late Sir R. Peel, or at all events a
ships. There were two causes for which the right of Conservative Liberal, that the acts of a Government of
search was exercised—in the case of enemies' goods in their which he was a member—and of course a most censpicuous
own ships, and that of neutrals—and he was of opinion that member—were to be inferred from the language and opi-
there was ontrone of these cases in which the right of nions of Sir W. Molesworth. I confess I listened with
search should beallowed, and that was in enemies' ships, astonishment to the statement that because Sir W. Moles-
unless in case df munitions of war, when there was a worth held and expressed certain opinions upon political
known blockade. There ought to be no care for a law subjects the country were to infer that he declared the
which was not based on right and justice. He did not principles upon winch the Government would subsequently
think that his noble friend who introduced this motion act. I thank the noble duke for the light ho has thrown
had made out his case as to the benefit which the three upon the interior of the Cabinet, and upon the degree of
chief maritime nations of the world would get by the law union which exists among its members. (" Hear," and a
as it had hitherto stood. In the cases of all three the con- laugh.) The noble duke says it is quite true that the
trary had been proved. This country had gone to war Government made no declaration of their intention to
because some Spanish guarda-costas had searched some abandon the right we are now considering. No; they made
English ministers ; and the war was proclaimed amidst a declaration to the contrary effect, for, in the order in
the rejoicings of the people and the ringing of bells, Council of 1854, they spoke of that right as one which in-
which caused the prime minister of the day, who was disputably belonged to this country, but which considers-
the only sane man on the subject, to say, " You are tions of State policy, and the peculiar circumstances of the
ringing your bells now, but you will be wringing your war in which we were engaged, induced them to waive,
hands by and bye." The disasters of Carthagena and although they denied their intention to abandon it. (Hear.)
others followed, and our merchants suffered so much that I admit there were grave and weighty reasons for waiving
they came to the Prime Minister for redress, when he said this right of war under such circumstances. We were &I-
to them, " The war is your own, and you way take it for gaged in war along with an ally by whom a different inter-
your pains." Then the war with America in 1812 was pretation was placed upon the law of nations to that which
caused by the right of search, and America had suffered we g aye it ourselves. • Nothing could have been more em-
by it as well as ourselves. So that disposed of two of the barrassing or unjust to neutrals than that they should be
great maritime nations ; and had France any reason to look subject to the double interpretation placed upon the codeof
with pleasure on the retention of this law ; for she was at international law by this country and by France, the one
once compelled to premiss to levy a million sterling for the (teetering them good prizes in one case, and the other de•
exercise of the right of search, and when the Chamber of Glaring them good prizes in opposite circumstances. At the
Deputies refused to pay that sum America prepared for commencement of the war, therefore, I made no objection
war, and with her navy and privateers she would have to the course pursued by the Government. The noble Se-
swept the commerce of France from the seas but for that cretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that, although
country's accepting the advice of England and paying the the settlement of this question of international law was no
money. He thought the part that Franca and England portion of the business which the plenipotentiaries assem-
had now taken on this question was greatly to their bled at Paris to discuss, yet great disappointment would
honour. It was the last step of civilisation in relation to have been felt if the plenipotentiaries had not taken the
war; and on these grounds he gave his cordial dissent to opportunity of considering and settling many questions
the resolutions of his noble friend opposite. of importance relating to the general affairs of Europe.
For aught I know the plenipotentiaries may have die-
The Duke of ARGYLL denied the assertion of Lord cussed several questions of the utmost importance ; but of
Hardwicke, that the people of this country were not fa- this lam quite sure—that they have settled none. (Hear,
vourable to the recent adoption of the principle of mari- and a laugh.) Of those questions which they have dis-
time law, and he urged that the noble lords opposite had cussed, every one is left as open at this moment as it was
at the period at which they commenced their discussion
shown them what their opinion was with regard to the ay, even including that article to which I am as-
popular feeling, by their having brought forward the sub- tonished to find that a British Minister placed his signa-
ject in their lordships' house, and not in the House of . ture, and which implies the necessity of interfering for the
Commons, where all the commercial interests of the coun- regulation of the press of Belgium. (Hear, hear.) Thaat
u
qestin wa left unsettled ad faint and feebe re-
try were represented, and where they could not have hoped uaonstroancess the plenipotent,iar and
oft En Eland' to my great
to have been successful. The noble duke proceeded to con- astoaishineni, placed his hand to a protocoll which receg-
tend that, nevertheless, the people of this country were not nised the necessity of interfering to check the licentious-
so wholly given up to mere mercenary commercial consi- nese of the Belgian press. (Lord Clarendon here made an
, durations as to wish to sacrifice in the least the naval power observation across the table, which was inaudible in the
gallery.) This is the protocol to which the noble earl has
of England. The more he looked into this subject the attached his signature :
more he was convinced that practically this country lost "That all the plenipotentiaries, and even those who con-
nothing, but gained much, by the abandonment of the old sidered themselves bound to reserve the principle of the
principle of maritime law. Let him look at the terms of the liberty of the press, have not hesitated. loudly to condemn
resolutions proposed by the noble lord (Colchester). The the excesses in which
the Belgian newspapers indulge with
first paragraph ran thus : "That the most eminent jurists impunity, by recognising the necessity of r medying the real
of all ages have accepted as a principle of international inconveniencs which • result from the 'uncontrolled licence
law that the right of capturing an enemy's goods on board which is so greatly abused in Belgium,"
of neutral vessels is inherent. in all belligerent Powers; I h
had not intended to touch upon subject, but I was
that the maintenance of this eight is of essential impor- astonished to find that to such an article the British pleni-
trance, and its abandonment of serious injury to a Power potentiary had placed his name. The noble Secretary for
whose main reliance is on her naval superiority." There Foreign Affairs vindicates his dealing with the question of
was some ambiguity in the word " accepted." He ad' international law, inasmuch as it was one of those great
witted that jurists had laid down that this was the law of questions which affected generally the nations of Europe,
nations; but, if that meant that they laid down that it and he gave as his precedents for that interference the
ought to be the law as being consistent with natural rightT nV
proceedings at the congresses of estphalia, and Vienna.
The
and justice, he was prepared to deny that proposition. He said, with great truth, that at the congress of Vienna,
next proposition in the resolutions declares that the main- the slave trade formed no part of the business of the con-
tenance of this principle was of the utmost importance gross, but that no ono blamed the congress for the discus-
This depended on the countries with which we were likely ;171.1wh.cla took place and the declaration which was made.
to be at hostilities. If we were at war with a non-mart- declaration repudiated the slave trade on the part of
time country, its trade would be principally carried on by every state which was a party to it, but it left to every
land ; and it vrith a maritime country, its commerce would count: y the right
of carrying into effect the principle of
probably be chiefly carried on in its own ships. The reso-declaration
lution affirmed that the right on search was most important own laws. Is that, however, a precedent for this case ? The
to a Power possessing naval superiority; but this ha de- plenipotentiaries at Vienna well knew that in putting their
stied. The power of blockade was-much more effective n tines to the declaration against the slave trade, they were
than that of stopping vessels, and it could be most effec- ailing in accordance with the highest and strongest feel•
tively exercised by a country possessing naval superioritl. ings of their countrymen, and that no principle was snore
Ho would look at all the countries of Europe with which warmly cherished by the people of this country than the
we were likely to come in contact. Was it not clear that condemnation of the slave trade. Has the noble earl (Cla-
wo could operate most effectively against Russia by means rendon) the same confidence with regard to the protocol
of a blockade? We had done so in the late war; and the to which I have referred ?• I ask him whether, if hie inten-
neutral commerce of which we had most reason to
plain was that carried on by Russia over land. Takeeetrnhe- tin to assent to such a declaration had been announced
beforehand to the people of England, he would have dared
case of the Scandinavian Powers—and he hoped never to to refer the question to their decision. I firmly believe
see this countrylat war with them—but was it not evident that the spirit and feeling of my countrymen have not so
from the geographical position of those countries that sunk, and that they have not abandoned themselves so en-
blockade would be .the most effective means of attacking lively to mere considerations of gain and of pelf as to sac-
their commerce? Referring to our intimate ally, of rifice those rights and interests of this country which they
whose naval power he wished to speak with every ra- hold in as high esteem as did their ancestors. The noble
spect ; but in the event of a contest with France, if we duke opposite has expressed an opinion that the comnaer-
es ere able to i.ssert our naval superiority, we should natus cial community of this country are so wraps up in the idea
rally seek to destroy her commerce by means of blockade, of the acquisition of wealth that they are indifferent on the
It had been suggested that American ships might become subject, and that for this reason the question has not been
ca,riers for France; but he doubted whether this could be brought forward in the other house. I inakenosuch charge;
done to any great extent. The same principle applied to I hold no such opinion; Ido not believe the fact; but Ido
Spain and Portugal. We had given up a power which was telieve that if, at the commencement of these negotiations,
of very little value, and had retained one which was more it had been announced that you were about to conclude
efficient. But, supposing the right of search much more tie war on terms Which abandoned the naval superiority
valuable, it was most easily evaded. The neutral power of this country, an universal feeling of indignation would
tress generally interested in the cargoes carried by its
ships;
have been excited. lam of opinion that the course which
and it would be easy to give them a much greater interest, has been pursued amounts to an abandonment of the naval
Thus embarrassing questions would arise as to the degree superiority of this country, and before I sit clown I shall
of interest in the cargo possessed by the neutral and the endeavour to show that that opinion is well founded. I
belligerent power. The resolution declared that Groat believe the country coincides in that opinion; and I be-
Britain had occasionally waived this right by specific tree- lieve, also, that if the country had known the terms you
ties. This was not correct , for the abandonment of the were about to conclude, and the declaration you were about
right had been rather the rule than thseexceP tion. With to sign, an indignant protest would have been made against
regard to Portugal, it had been abandoned for 160 years • the betrayal, of the national interests. lam not enough of
as to France, for 116 years ;as to Spain, for 131 years ; a lawyer to take upon me to assert positively that this (N-
-and, as to the'United Provinces, for 113 years. These trea- c'l iration of 'the plenipotentiaries is actually illegal, but
ties had not been made with smell and insignificant States, certainly it does appear to me to be anything rather than
but with the most powerful maritime States in the world. constitutional. And indeed I have observed, not without
(Hear.) Then the resolution expressed regret that the satisfaction, that there appears to be some doubt, even
principle tied been suddenly abandoned in the recent co:,- among the members of her M ejesty's Government, if not
ferances at Paris. This was by no means the case. Years of the validity at least of the porp dela '
yof this ngaee-
ago a most able speech had been made in the House of anent. My noble friend .the Lord Privy Seal has. told us
Commons by the late Sir Wm. Molesworth, advocating the that although by this act we have waived our right, yet
principle embodied in this declaration ; and it had been re- that we by uis abandon the principle, that it is a
peatodly recognised by the Government. He was confident portion of the law of nations that belligerents shall
the house would not lend itself to the expression of an In °ni- have the right of seizing as lawful prize of war the
pion, which was not participated in by the, commercial goods of an enemy under a neural flag. I hoard
classes of this country. He contended that n very por- this statement with gratification, bec Luse it seemed to me
tent equivalent had been gained by this country. own -o afford some ground of hope that circumstances may
commercial marine might (sense importantadeantages hereafter arise under the influence of which it may be
from conducting the carrying trade of belligerent
without being exposed to the risk of seizu; powers, found convenient to abandon this very declaration the ruo-
inent that we have experience of the stern exigencies of
that it•was in the power of the United Statese' toa mreiftustede war. Allow me to call your attention to the terms in
their assent to this declaration ; but, should they do so, whic h this declaration is couched. If it had been nothing
we were not bound to recognise the same right in their ships
as we did in those of other countries. The declarationewertel more than a stipulation for not carrying into effect certain
articles of international law,—though probably I might
pof the late conference could not fail to have a be disposed to call in question the expediency of such a
moral effect, and to promote the prosperity of all the na- proceeding—should certainly not have discussed it politi-
tions concerned. (Hear.) cagy. But it is worthy of i emark that, this declaration is
The Earl of DERBY—The' noble duke, who generally general, not particular, and that in its terms it is absolute
addresses the house with a considerable degree of confidence and unc mditional. It proceeds to say that privateering is
and remains abolished, th t the neutral flag covers enemy's
in his own opinions, has spoken to-night with more than goods except contraband of war, end that neutral goods,
his usual share of that great'Parliamentary virtue, but I • except contraband of war, aro not Halals to capture even
think with rather loss than his usual success, in attempt- under an enemy's flag. This is a declaration unqualified
ing to grapple with the arguments advanced by my noble and unequivocal, not of what the law was, or shall be, or
friends who preceded him. In one respect my'task is an ought to be, under peculiar circumstances, but of what it
easy one, but in another it is difficult. It is easy, because flPr ivateering is, and remains, abolished. The neutral
ie.a.g covers enemy's goods. Can anything be more dogmatic
but little ground. is left for me to go over which has 'not or more dictatorial? Nevertheless, there is a strange incons
beenalready most ably occupied by my noble friends, and sisteucy in the manifesto, for the Plenipotentiaries then
more
vidio especially,
if I may venture to Make a somewhat in- go on to say that that which they have solemnly propounded
to be a part of the international law shall not be so in fact
debate reference'
by the noble earl who spoke third in the and effect except with regard to those nations which ac-
with a degree of ower ann ability which must cept the whole of it. Here is a latitude and a laxity which,
ohpaivilei,gwrastilifieaeyl all.. your nirsplships, 'whatever your political bearing in mind the positive and authoritative tone observ-
In and who from this night will stand in able throughout the earlier portions of the document, we
the foremost rank of speakers in this house. (Hear.) But had little reasons to expect. The noble earl the Secretary
i n another respect my teek is not so easy, or if I may be ,for Foreign Affairs talks contemptuously of the laws of
allowed the expression, it: barbarous ages," and cannot suppress his scorn for usages.
_ difficult because it is so easy sanctioned by the authority of such jurists as Grotius—men
~ My wound is great, beseui
. e it is so small."
1 who, be assured us, justified the slaughter of prisoners and
I have no arguments to refute ; but I
cannot give a vote the Killing of women and children.
upon one of the most important quations which has e
question the cons:: Tie Duke of ARGYLL, with much warmth—l never
gaged our attention for a long time—a
will be such as said anything of the kind. (Laughter.)
quences and effects of which The Earl of DERBY—I entreat the noble duke to
you little con- believe that lam not always talking of him. When I speak
template at the present moment, without recording my of another person, it does not follow that it is he who is
protest against a course of proceeding, which I believe to present to ray thoughts. I stated most distinctly that it
be not only humiliating and derogatory, but absolutel was to the noble earl the Foreign Secretary that I was al-
dangerous to the prime interests of England. (Hear.) my luding. True, the noble duke adopted a similar line of argn-
objection tothe course which the Government have been ttnheant, but it was to the noble earl the Foreign Secretary
iaduced to pursue is twofold. I object, in the first place, lidctice ecfoelrdribnlgo.odl. was observing, that that noble earl
chibatltttewriilabsiunrted to Grotius the atrocity of vindicating the
to the substance of.what they have done, and I object, in of slaughtering prisoners, and killing women and
the next, to the mode and manner in which they have done
docar.henEeal:al of CLARENDON—I beg the noble lord's par:
' it. I will commence with the latter, upon which the
entirely misinterpreted me. What I said was,
noble duke has not expressed any
with respect to
opinion, but to which that many jsests who defend those early laws and usages
the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs ad-
"articular usages izeiritime rights, have also defended the
vorten at considerable length. The noble earl took I
with respect to Grorihieh he
has
great pains to assure us that it was clearly within the just alluded, and that,
iise, he had recognised the right laid
prerogative of the Crown to negotiate or conclude any
na say what the noble lordw attributes down in the Consoles°
winititheosutot assigningme his rea.
treaty without, the previous sanction and approval of Par- sons fur so doing. That es litre'
etre I said—and I know I did
liarnent. I know not why the noble earl took that trouble,
because, as far as my knowledge extends, no one has as- The Earl of DERBY repudiated the intention of pervert-
note he had taken of the r
eed or maintained the contrary argument. We have ing the noble earl's mesnin
referring in justifi-
dmittod that prerogative of the Crown, and also that such cation of his statement to ag' and
after
ox-
a degree of confidence should be reposed in the Ministers pressions that had fallen from
.the n, obflaelletahrel
nporboiceeieeealereilietcoi
• of the Crown as might enable them to negotiate a treaty say—_f will not dispute the point with the no,ble earl, but
without the previous sanction, control, or interferencet of Is will' f
take leave to assure him that, o
Parliament. I think, moreovr, we have given a
recognise
principle
ical authorities he has quoted, there is not one who does not
proof of our sense of the value of that maxim by resisting,Preportion of the national law of Europe the
during the course of the present session, all the temptationswe contend for, that itis &portion of the national
which the temper of the peoplethrew in t
our way o ember- law t
hat enemy's goods on board of neutral ships are liable
rass the Government in their negotiations for peace. We to
f capture, and that to capture them is an inherent right
; o
have given to them the confidence due to their position the belligerent Powers.. It is one of those maxims the
we have imposed a studious silence upon ourselves; we positive and unquestionable nature of which is signified
have not by word or action hindered their proceedings intheA use of the words nemo dubitat—no one doubts
the smallest degree. But now I want to knew, in the first ity opposite doctrine was never put forward
place, what is this declaration to which they have affixed until ell
153, when Prussia for the first time claimed
their signatures ? • The noble earl admits that it is not
a that the neutral lag should be held to cover the goods of

the enemy. That claim was opposed by England with
a strenuous power of argument, and with the intima- •
tion of her intention to resist it by force. Lord Mansfield
denounced it with characteristic earnestness, and Vattel,
who wrote a few years later, in 1758, availed hiniself of the •
occasion to lay it down as aprinciple that if we find enemy's
goods in the ship of a neutral we are justified in seizing
them by right of war, taking care, however, to pay the
master. The claim of immunity for the neutral flag was
again put forward in 1780 and 1801, but on each occasion
it was strenuously and successfully resisted by England.
In modern times Pitt, Lord Granville, and Mr. Canning all
supported the right for which we now contend. It is now
said that if we determine to support thisdoctrine we should
be alone. We have been alone, and yet maintained and up- -
held the doctrine against a confederacy of opponents. Yet
this principle of belligerent right has been abandoned by
the Government, I know not on what grounds, but this I
know, that it has been abandoned without the sanction or
consent of the people of this country. A noble lord has ob-
jected to the wording of the motion because it would con-
demn the conduct of foreign plenipotentiaries as well as that
of our own. Now, we do not presume to condemn the con-
duct of foreign plenipotentiaries, whomayhave acted wisely
in their generation, and rightly for the interests of their
country. But what we deal with is the conduct of the Eng-
lish plenipotentiary in respect to English interests. Let the
noble earl say what he pleasesabouttheimportance of Eng-
land taking the first and primary position in this work of
humanity, I beg to remind him that England did not take
the first step, but followed in the wake of France. (Hear.)
It was the proposal of the French Plenipotentiary, and I
should have liked to see what arguments were used by the
noble earl, and what conditions were made for the surren-
der of this right. In this matter, I repeat, we followed in
the wake of France, to which country the adoption of the
new principle is eminently ftyourable, (gear.) But the
noble duke said this was not a sudden proceeding. All I
know is that it took the people of England by surprise, and
also the Plenipotentiaries. (Hear.) It was not hinted at
during the course of the conferences up to the Bth of
April, and then, for the first time. Count Walewski brought
forward this new declaration upon international law. The
surprise of the Plenipotentiaries of the other Powers was
no less than that of the people of England. Prussia, con-
sistently and wisely as a carrying Power, jumped at a
proposal she had been urging for the last 103 years. Russia
and Austria were more cautions; their Plenipotentiaries
stated that the matter was beyond their instructions, and
desired time to consult their Courts. They did so by tele-
graph, and received for answer—" Good Heavens ! is Eng-
land so weak to consent to this ! We have gained a point
we have been contending for during many years, and have
at last found a British Minister to concede it." I said I
would tell you what former statesmen stated on this sur-
render of right, and perhaps your lordships will not be in-
disposed to listen to the opinions of the late Mr. Pitt in
1801:

" Let it be granted that it was an tact of sound policy to
make that cession to Russia, that it was so at a time when
our naval superiority was too unfortunately conspicuous,
when we were at war with France, with Spain, and with
Holland, and when the addition of Russian hostility might
have been a serious evil—does it follow that at the present
moment, when the fleets of all the Northern Powers, com-
bined with those of France, Of Spain, and of Holland, would
be unequal to a contest with the great and superior naval
Power of England—does it follow that we aro to sacrifice the
maritime greatness of Britain at the shrine of Russia? Shall
we allow entire freedom to the trade of France I Shall we
suffer that country to send out her 12,000,0001. of exports
and receive her imports in return, to enlarge private capital,
and to increase the public stack ? Shall we allow her to re-
ceive naval stores undisturbed, and to rebuild and refit that
navy which the valour of our seamen has destroyed? Shall
we voluntarily give up our maritime consequence and expose
ourselves to scorn, to derision, and to contempt ? No man
can deploy e more than 1 do the loss of human blood, the
calamities, and the distresses of war ; but will you silently
stand by and, acknowledging these monstrous and unheard
of principles of neutrality, insure your enemy against the
effects of your hostility Four nations have leagued to pro-
duce a new code of maritime laWs, in defiance of the
established law of nationr, and in defiance of the most solemn
treaties and engagements, which they endeavour arbitrarily
to force upon Europe. What is this but the same Jacobin
principle which proclaimed the rights of man, which pro-
duced the French Revolution, which generated the wildest
anarchy, and spread horror and devastation over that un-
fortunate country ? Whatever shape it assumes it is a viola-
tion of public faith, it is a violation of the rights of England,
and imperiously calls upon Englishmen to resist it even to
the last shilling and the last drop of blood, rather than
tamely submit to degrading concession or meanly yield the
rights of the country to shameful usurpation."
Such was the language of Mr. Pitt. There was then no
men to tell us that "we stand alone." Hear, hear.) In
those days England was not afraid to stand alone, and let
England be still England,:as she would be but for England's
Mieisters, she would not now be afraid to stand alone.
(Cheers.) Lord Hawkesbury said,
" His Majesty will never submit to pretensions irrecon-
cileable with the true principles of public law, and which
strike at the foundations of the greatness and maritime power
of his dominions. It is sufficiently known with what hostile
intentions an attempt was made in 1780 to introduce a new
code of public law against Great Britain, and to support by
force a system of innovation prejudicial to the dearest rights
of the British empire. But his Majesty has hitherto had the
satisfaction to see that these arbitrary and injurious measures
have been completely given up. His Majesty has already
repeatedly communicated his fixed unalterable determination
to maintain those established principles of maritime law,
which have been found by the experience of all ages to afford
equal security to the just rights and interests as well of
neutral as of belligerent Powers."

There was then no difference of opinion on the point
that this was a surrender of the maritime power
and greatness of this country, and, notwithstanding all the
world in arms might be leagued against them, the British
Ministers of those days would not propose, and, if they
had, the British people would not have consented to the
surrender. (Cheers.) Now let us come to later times.
We are toad that times are changed, that we are not the
powerful nation we were before, that other Powers have
grown up, and that we ought 'Co beware how we provoke
the hostility of other nations. Shortly before his death
Mr. Canning not only refused to surrender this right, hub
absolutely refused to ratify a treaty concluded with Brazil
by Sir C. Stewart, on the ground that it contained an
article which abandoned the right.
"The rule of maritime law which Great Britain has always
hell on this subject is the ancient law and usage of nations ;
but it differs from that put forth by France and the Northern
Powers of Europe ; and that which the United States were
constantly endeavouring to establish. England had braved
confederacies and sustained wars rather than give up this prin-
ciple; and whenever, in despair of getting the British Go-
vernment to surrender it by force, recourse had been had to
proposals of amicable negotiatiousfor the purpose of defining,
limiting, or qualifying tile exercise of tho right of search,
Great Britain had uniformly declined all such overtures, from
a conviction of the impracticability of qualifying, limiting, or
even defining in terms that wnich would be acceptable to the
other party the exercise of a right, without impairing, if not
sacrificing, the right itself." . '
He then goes to say that this had been refused to all possible
motives of interest or apprehension, and that, as the treaty
gratuitously gave it up, it was impossible for him to ratify
the treaty. Have I brought down my authorities to a
late period ? Are these the doctrines of barbarous ages ?
Are these the exploded principles of a time long gone by ?
Noble lords opposite say we, have given up the corn laws,
we have abandoned the navigation laws ; all these changes
have answered so wonderfully well —(Ministerial eheers)—
let us go a step further—let us give up that which all
statesmen in all ages have hell to be the main-
stay of our maritime superiority, and then let us say what
the result will be? That is the whole of their argument.
If Pitt was a barbarian, if Canning was a barbarian, if
neither of them know anything about the principles of in-
ternational law, or about the rights and interests of their
own country ; if they knew not how, or when, or where to
maintain or abandon those rights and interests, then I am
content to class myself humbly iu the same line of barba-
rians with Canning, Pitt, Lord Hawkeshury, and Lord
Shelborne. I am willing to be numbered myself among
these modern ancients, and to leave all civilization and
wisdom to the noble duke and the noble earl opposite, and
to the rest of the noble lords who coustitute her Majesty's
Government ; but I must beg at the same time to enter
my protest against the conclusion at which they have ar-
rived. We have been told that we are to consider, not
what the law is but what it ought to be. All the old
jurists, it is s iid, have been content to lay down the law
without attempting to defend it. So far from this being
the case, the jurists have all dealt with the principles on
which the law is founded; they have all dealt with it on
its foundation, on the rights of civil society, and of the
inherent privileges of belligerents. They have entered,
one and all, into the rationale of the case, and they have
substantiated not only that it was the law, but why it was
and why it ought to continue to be the law. Among the
arguments a timore which have been addressed to ns from
the other side, we have been told to remember 1812, and
the circumstances of the war in which we were engaged in
that year with America. But what wits the point upon
which you quarrelled with America in 1812 ? It was not
because you prevented neutral vessels from conveying
enemies' goods, but it was upon the question which you
studiously keep alive in these protocols—the right of search.
Their grievance was that they might be overhauled on the
open sea, and especially that they were liable to have their
seamen taken out of them on the ground that they were de-
serters from our service, and that they were liable to be
sent to a neutral port. They denied altogether the right of
search as applied by belligerents. You maintain, however,
the right of search in these protocols in its full integrity,
even as regards those nations which have joined in this de-
claration. Yon maintain the principle that neutrals may
I e searched for contraband of war, and you thereby admit
the principle of the violation of the neutral flag, and you
continue the damage and inconvenience which result to
merchantmen from being overhauled on the open sea. But
you point it moo especially against America, Fec.iuse you
say that the limited advantages which ale given to neu-
trals under this new law shall only be shared by those who
adhere to this declaration. The noble duke opposite ex-
pressed a hope that the Americans would adhere to this
declaration, and more particularly that they would give up
the principle of privateering, but the President of the
United States, who is almost as good an authority on Ame-
rican affairs as the noble duke, told you only a year ago
that this was a right which the Americans would never
give up, nor ever consent to discuss. By the surrender you
have made you do not escape the hostility of neutral na-
tions upon the ground of the right of search, and you make
the hostility of America more pointed by maintaining
against her particularly the right of search in its full in-
tegrity. That is always the result of paltry concessions
wrung from you by apprehension. You lose your self-re-
spect and your position in the world, you weaken the in-
fluence which you have always maintained, and you do not
gain the adhesion and affection of those whom you seek
to conciliate. Some noble lords have contended that there
is no difference between land and sea, and what is free by
land ought to be free by sea, and that there should be no
violation of private property at all. But this would put an
end to naval warfare altogether. It was argued thatbecause
enemies' goods, even on hoard a neutral, are merely
the property of an individual, not the property of the
State, they should not be seized; but why do you not ex-
tend your principle, and say that merchant ships, being
private property, unarmed and engaged merely in the
prosecution of commerce, ought to be allowed to pass
through the belligerent cruisers? I defy you to draw the
line. If yon grant one principle you must grant the other.
And yet, among all the treaties to which noble lords op-
posite have referred, and which I entirely pass by is being
beside she question—for it is one thing to waive a right
and another thing to give it up altogether—there is but
one—a treaty negotiated by Franklin with Prussia—which
contains the principle that merchant ships should be al-
lowed to pass through the cruisers of the belligerents. I
am afraid, however, that it is and always will be one of
the consequences of a state of warfare toi n Eliot injury upon
neoffendinoe in lividuals, and if yen limit these injuries to
cases in which neutrals are virtually assisting belligerents
by bringing them what is necessary for carrying on the
operations of war—nay, even by increasing the wealth and
cotumeicial strength of the country, we are doing nothing