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

Lord COLCHESTER said then he would not trouble
their lordships further on that point. The fourth article
that a blockade, in order to be binding mast be effective,
embodied a principle which was laid down by the greatest
authorities. The third article was to the effect that
neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war,
were not liable to capture under an enemy's flag ; and
this, taken in itself, was a very proper maxim ; but it
must be considered to a certain extent in conjunction
with the article before it, which was as follows : —" The
neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception
of contraband of war." Now, all the authorities bad
laid it down that neutral goods were subject to capture
in enemy's vessels. The noble lord cited some authors
in proof of this, and also quoted from the decisions of
Sir William Scott and other judges. It was the ac-
knowledged law of America that free ships did not
make free goods. This had been explicitly declared by
the Government of the United States. In proof of this
he cited several American writers on international law.
The question bad been several times raised in the last
hundred years. In 1752, it arose out of the cession of
Silistria by Austria ; Prussia set up a claim against
England for having seized some of her vessels ; and the
question came before the courts in this country. It was
held that the general law of nations, almost without ex-
ception, was that enemy's goods might be seized in neu-
tral vessels; and the general rule was said to be established
by some few exceptions. The question arose again in 1780
between England and Russia, and was similarly decided.
In 1793, owing to England continuing the same system,
Russia, Prussia, and Spain abandoned their own system,
and adopted ours. In the year 1800, when a dreadful war
was still raging, Mr. Pitt declared in the strongest lan-
guage his intention to adhere to the old law. The events
after that date were well known their lordships, and
Russia ultimately gave way. After 1815 the law was
maintained down to 1854, when her Majesty's Govern-
ment thought fit by an order in council to waive a portion
of her belligerent rights. He thought he had therefore
sufficiently proved that England had invariably refused
to recognise the principle adopted in the conferences at
Paris. In three cases, indeed, there had been a waiver
of the right, but it was admitted by English and
American writers that those instances were a depar-
ture from international law ; and former states-
men of this country had avowed that the sanc-
tion of Parliament ought to be obtained before taking
such a step. (Cheers.) Most of the grievances which had
been complained of in previous wars had arisen not from
the observance but from the breach of the law of nations.
(Cheers.) Lord Stowell had expressly stated that the
famous Berlin decrees and the English orders in council
which followed it, were alike contrary to international
law ; although the English orders were juttified by the
extraordinary step which Napoleon had taken. But
after all what was the great grievance of neutrals ?
Why, that they should be liable to detention and
search ; and to that they would still be subjected.
(Cheers.) Contraband of war was expressly excepted
from the arrangement ; and how could the belligerents
know whether a neutral vessel had contraband on board
without stopping and searching her I (Hear, hear.)
If the plenipotentiaries could have condescended to
so small a matter, and could have endeavoured to
regulate the mode of exercising the right of search,
they might have been able to mitigate the grievance,
but as it was the matter stood just where it did. (Cheers.)
The effect of ,;he new law it would not take much wis-
dom to predict. If two nations were at war, and one had
such a superiority by sea that she could prevent the
other both from receiving supplies and from disposing of
her produce, it was obvious that her foe must soon give
way. But by the new doctrine the weaker would only
have to employ neutral merchantmen. The result of the
change would therefore be to protract rather than to
shorten hostilities. (Hear.) He (the noble lord) had to
complain of the haste with which this important altera-
tion had been made. (Hear.) It had been held by the
highest authorities that the maritime law of nations was
part of the law of the land ; and he should be glad to be
informed whether her Majesty's plenipotentiaries bad
power to sign away the law of the land. (Hear.) The
noble lord concluded by moving his resolution.
The Earl of CLARENDON begged to tender to the
noble lord his best acknowledgments for the tone of
moderation and courtesy which had pervaded his address.
There had certainly never been a vote of censure pro-
posed in terms more mild; and hit (the noble earl) would
take care on his part to avoid everything that could lead
to irritation, for there was no doubt the subject was one
of great national importance. He should, however, be
able to show that the, resolutions of the noble lord con-
tained statements which were not quite consistent with
the facts, and that it would not be for the honour or
the interests of the country that it should pledge itself
to maintain the principle of which the noble lord was
the advocate. The noble lord contended that the right
to seize enemy's goods in neutral bottoms was established
by the law of nations, and was essential to the honour
and interests of this country. But it would be most un-
wise, when everything was so rapidly changing around
us, to insist any longer upon that principle, more particu-
larly as it had been the subject of constant and ecergetic
protest by the other great maritime powers. It was quite
true that the principle that enemy's goods under a neu-
tral flag were a lawful prize, had been laid down in treaties
so long ago as the 11th or 12th century. It was quite
true that Grotius bad defended that principle ; but Gro-
tius had also defended the right of belligerents to put
women to death, to kill prisoners after their surrender,
and to torture captives before a besieged town, in order
to induce it to submit. They could no more rely upon
the principles laid down by Grotius than they cold