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

THE LONDON', FRIDAY EVMNINft, MAY 2s, 1866.

the enemy. That claim was opposed by .England with
a strenuous Kwer 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 ►rote a few years later, in 1753. availed himself of the
occasion to lay it down as a principle 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 this doctrine we should
be alone. We have been alone, and yet maintained and up-
held the doctrine against a confederacy of opponeuts. 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-
damn 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, who may have 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 favourable. (Hear.) 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 Walewaki 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 cautious; 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 'act 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 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 are to sacrifice the
maritime greatness of Britain at the shrine of Russia? Shall
we allow entire freedom to the trade of France ? 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 stock ? Shall we allow her to re.
ceive naval stores undisturbed, and to rebuild and refit that
navy which the valour of OUP seamen has destroyed ? Shall
we voluntarily give up our maritime consequence and expose
ourselves to scorn, to derision, and to contempt ? No man
can deplete more than I 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 I Four nations have leagued to pro-
duce a new code of maritime laws, in defiance of the
established law of nations, 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
riglats 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
Ministers, 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
forceba 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 Ma 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
w 0 in arms might oe leagued against them, the British
Ministers of those days would not propose, and, if they
haul. the British people would not have consented to the
surrender. (Cheers.) Now let us come to later times.
We are told that times aro chann'Ded, that we are not the
powerful nation we were before, that other Powers have
grown up, and that we ought to beware how wo provoke
the hostility of other nations. Shortly before his death
Mr. Canning not only refused to surrender this right, but
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
held 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 bad been had to
proposals of amicable negotiations for the purpose of defining,
limiting, or qualifying the exercise of the 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 anich would be acceptable to the
other party the exercise of a right, without impairing, if not
sacrificing. Wet 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 cheers)—
let u 4 go a step further—let us give up that which all
statesmen in all ages have held to be the main-
stay of our maritime superiority, and then let us say what
the result wits be? That is. the whole of their argument.
If Pitt was a barbarian, if Canning was a barbarian, if
neither of them knew 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 in the same line of barba-
rians with Canning, Pitt, Lord Hawkesbury, and Lord
Shelborne. I am willing to be numbered myself among
these modern ancients, and to leave all civilization anti
wisdom to the noble duke and the noble earl opposite, and
to the rest of the noble lords who constitute 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 said, 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 anion which have been addressed to us 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 was 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,
eaen as regards those nations which have joined in this de-
claration. You 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 more especially against America, tec ruse you
say that the limited advantages which are 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 over 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 hoe 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 that because
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 you grant one principle you must grant the other.
And yet, among all thi treaties to which noble lords op-
posite have referred, and which I entirely pass by s Wing
beside the 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 tog nfliet ioj try upon
unoffending in lividuals, and if you limit these injuries to
cases in which neutrals are virtually assisting belligerents
by bringing thein what is necessary for carrying on the
operations of war—nay, even by increasing the wealth and
commercial strength of the country, we are doing nothing

but what; is consistent with natural law, and we are baking
the best steps to pat an end to war. But nefore r leave
the Unit ad States and the fear which has been exp res,ed
thlt, in the event of our persisting in the rusinterrance of
our ancient claim, the United States would refuse to re-
cognise it, let me read what Chancellor Kent and Profes-
sor Wimaton, who was lately American Minister a t Berlin,
say up,.) n the subject. Let me premise it by saying that
all tie Towers who entered into this solemn ]e,g,..te of neu-
trality to which they refer very soon abandoned.•cheir prin-
ciples_ Within 18 years every one of them had signed
treatises in which the principles of neutrality were com-
pletely given up. Chancellor Kent says,—

"CThe Baltic conventional law of neutrality was soon
ibandoned, as not being sanctioned by the existing law of
is:stk.-as, in every case in which the doctrines of that code
did not rest on positive contracts. During the whole course
of the wars growing out of the French Revolution the
Government of the United States admitted the English rule
to he 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 goods 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 bo founded on 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 wish
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,
forming 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 au 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 are 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 notgiven to it by the primitive law of nations."
Now, there is the doctrine laid down in support of the
opinion of every British statesman, recognising the law
and the duty of neutral natiees to submit to the right
which we claim to exercise. I labk upon this question as
the most important which your lordships can be called on
to discuss, and depend upon it that the time will cones, if
you don't estimate its importance now, you will deeply
feel its consequences. My lords, I look upon this act of the
Government as cutting off the right arm, as it were, of the
country. I look upon it as depriving her of those natural
advantageswhich 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 not the mistress of the seas she falls immediately
and naturally into the position of a third-rate Power.
Trance 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,
but 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 upon 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 ho employs—that the stronger a
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, and 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 thuabandonment
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 tho 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 tee French military force. The only power
which you could bring against Russia was a naval power ;
and if that had been 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 maintenance 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
Rursia 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 ou the earth. If you had not had that assistance
would you have signed a peace with Russia for the next 10
years, unless it involved more humiliating ooncessions than
you have made by the abandonment 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 more 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 Franca, except
closing her up hermetically and stepping her commerce?
Well, what are you to do ? You can't blockade the whole
coast of France ; but you can 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. Franco 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, and 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 bells and
illuminating your town. I say the country does not see
the dangers to which it is exposed ; but depend upon it,
when painful experieaco 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 power and
gre it:l,Bi. I go then to the United States. Do you pre-
tend that 2,000 miles of seacoast can ba uninterruptedly
blockaded under whatever circumstances of wind or
weather? Do you mean to say you will apply that prin-
ciple to a war with the United States ? What will happen
with regard to the commerce of the United States ? The
United States is not titled, unless she enters into the coa-
lveation, 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 goods 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
contrabaed of war. Do you mean to accede to that demand
or to refuse it? If you accede you place yourself in this
position,—the trade and commerce of the United States
remain uninterrupted by the intervention of French neu-
trals, and by the refusal of the United States to come into
the convention they maintain the belligerent right of pri-
vateering oa goods in your ships. Upon the principle of
privateering, 1 can only,say Ishould cordially rejoice to see
it altogether abolished. It is to the interest of all nations
that it should be abandoned. It is con.zary to morality
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 tho common consent of nations.
(Cheers.) I am not speaking of the three resolutions to be
moved by my noble friend above me, but of privateering
properly understood. (Hear.) But if you tell me that the
*abandonment of privateering is a concession made to Eng-
land in order to got 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, nst 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, stipula-
tions,toEngland.humanity, or treaties. (Cheers.) I cannot accept the surren-
der of privateering
ivawteiel
lriinngglyss as
a concession a boon
cor-
dially and
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 aright 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 thsow 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-consider ed,
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 myduty,aud if I stood alone in condemning this
a surnption of right, not to limit by treaty, but to recognise
woulidts support kew
and establish a principle of international law at variance
with the interests of
the coltinsttoroydaanlttl
without
ledge or sanction—l say, if
the resolutions of my noble friend--j would divide the
house upon this question—l would give to every one of
your lordships the power of roc srdiog 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 CLARENDON—It was 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
witli other Governments in its repression.
Tie Earl of DE KBY—You signed that protocol. (Hear.)
The Earl of CLARENDON—The contrary is the care.
I defended the liberty of the press in Belgium as I do at
home, and the only newspapers condemned by Count
Walewski in bringing the matter under the notice of the
Congress cannot be (salted a portioe of the Belgian press,
but were these papers surreptitiously printed without the
names of the printers on 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-
demned, and those are newspapers which I think will be

eoedemned 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 t ieir lordships that they
ought to agree in passing a solemn Parliamentary censure,
bad 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, ho ob-
jected to the manner in which the Government had entered
into the consideration of the question ; and, secondly, ho
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 be contended that the declaration should not have
been signed without the previous assent of Parliament.
He had now abandoned that ground ; he bad 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 bad 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, aril 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 be 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
far the future the right of seizing enemy's property in
neutral ships. Now, in considering the question raised by
the noble earl and his friends, 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. Lushington, in answer to his
inquirie,, said the practice was that, when a British cruiser
fell in with a ship unler 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 case, 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
hail 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 thb right of search, but he
must remind the noble earl that the United States had, he
believed, never objected to the exercise 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 Boa-
ter' or New York were declared to be British subjects, and
were removed from American ships, and it wa- 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 ha 1 shown that
it could produce.a naval force far exceeding any the world
had hitherto beheld, without having recenrse to the odious
and unjust system of impressment. (Hear, hear.) He
hoped that example bad put an 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 and France, in which this country took no
part, would they end are it that every English ship clearing
out from Bordeaux should be overhauled by an American
igate, 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 Atlantic 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 Englishman? This system was
bad enough in the great revolutionary war, but when they
considered how commercial intercourse hed 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 be tolerated for a day. Great,
however, as was the injustice of the old system, it was
wholly ineffectual 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 1,700,0001. 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
neutral nations to submit to any measure they thought ex-
pedient for distressing an enemy, they ne4ht 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 ho (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 was able to stand.
He must say he thought that such expressions as had been
used by the noble earl opposite were calculated to exercise
:m injurious influence upon 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 hail
fallen from the noble earl (Darby) 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
sitisfaction 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 an interest in
This 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 he? 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 male 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 not only the present but
also the past and future, for I should have supposed that be
was aware that in the official phraseology of the French lan.
gunge the present tense is invariably employed to express the
future. (Rear, hear.) In conclusion, I have to invite your
lordships' attention to the following letter from Lord
Campbell :

" Central Criminal Court, Thursday.

"Dear Lord Granville,—As, from the important trial still
.pending here, 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 opinon which I have before expressed in my place,
that the convention for the modification of the law of maxi.
time warfare is beneficial to England, and was constitutior.
ally entered into by the English Government.—Yours, very
truly, " CAMPBZI L.
" The Earl Granville." _ _

To that letter I will only add the sincere expression •f 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 erni-

rent of our statesmen, may be made fairly awl hononrably,
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

56
. 46
-102

Against tho motion :
Not Contents—Present
• Proxies
—153
Majority against the motion 54
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 passed :
—Alford Valley Railway, Barnsdale and Leeds Read,
Kettering and Newport Pagnell Road, Luton, Duns-
table, and Welwyn Junction Railway, Midland Railway.
Norfolk Railway, Stockport and Warrington Road, and
Wolverhampton Water.
The following bills ware considered and read a third
time :—London, Tilbury, and Southend Rail way (Ex-
tension and Branches), and E y Tidal Harbour and
Railway.

NEW WESTMINSTER BRIDGE.
In reply to a question from Mr. W. WILLIAMS,
Sir B. HALL said, he was unable to state the exact
state of the new Westminster-bridge. He should re-
ceive a report from the engineer i❑ 10 days, which
❑o "doubt would give the necessary information, and
state when the new bridge was likely to be completed.