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

Vat 1;17.14i LOWDDI FRIDAY EVENING.; MAY 2s, 1858.

:D

PA.RLIAMEN T.

7tAYLvrA74,

!am.r,an

C in
esterday.

~s,ness
this .la 4.

HOUSE ,OF (12" LOADS—,_ESTERDAY).
The LORD CHANCELLOR, took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clous.

96 - 100
94 -

SECOND READINGS.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the following
bills were several►y read a second time :—Bath Gag,
Boston Gag, Cheltenham Gas, Sleaford and Tattershall
Turnpike Trtvtg Bill.

11 - 13
133 135
4,f ... 4i

The Earl of EIARDWICKE presented a petition
from the working classes in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on
the subject of our inari tiro e laws as affected by the treaty
recently agreed to at Paris.
THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY.
Lord LYNDHURST said, in deference to the re-
quest of the noble earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
he begged to withdraw the motion on the subject of
Italian affairs, which stood on the paper in his name
for Tuesday next. I❑ doing so he felt it right to say
that the reasons which led him to give notice of the mo-
tion still existed as strongly as ever, but as his object
was to improve and not injure Italy, he would acquiesce
to the request of the noble earl.
_ _

••• "'"

105 - 107

12i - 13

113 - 117

2f -- 2f

The Earl of CLA.RENDON expressed his satisfaction
at the determination at which the noble, and learned lord
bad come to. He was convinced that the object of the
noble lord was the improvement of Italy. The reasons-
which induced him to request his noble friend
to postpone his motion existed now in perhaps much
greater force. He thought that the course which was
taken by the Government in respect to Italy was likely
to produce the great object they had at heart, and it was
therefore most desirable that the question should not be
prematurely discussed ; or that,.pending its settlement
by the Powers, mainly interested in the matter.
SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.)

93 - 95
- OP
56 58

45 -- 47

i -
135

8.••
3f —2 d 1

This bill was read a 'second time.
MARRIAGE LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
This bill was reported with amendments.
OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL.
This bill was read a second time.
PROCEDURE BEFORE JUSTICES (SCOTLAND)

M - 33

BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
BANKERS' COMPOSITIONS BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
THE MARITIME LAWS.
Lord COLCHESTER then rose, pursuant to notice,
to move that this house resolve that the most eminent
jurists of all ages have accepted as a principle of inter-
national law, that the right of capturing an enemy's
goods on board of neutral vessels is inherent in all belli-
gerent Powers ; that the maintenance of this right is of
essential importance, and its abandonment of serious in-
jury to a Power whose main reliance is on her naval
superiority. That Great Britain consequently, although
occasionally waiving the exercise of the right by specific
treaties, has al we refused to recognise the abandonment
of a principle which successive Governments have con-
curred in considering identified with her national great-
ness. That this house deeply regrets that a principle
so long and so strenuously maintained should, in the
recent Conferences at Paris, have been suddenly aban-
doned, without the previous sanction or knowledge of
Parliament, by plenipotentiaries assembled for the pur-
pose of discussing the terms on which peace with Russia
might be concluded, and the affairs of the East satisfac
torily adjusted." The noble lord addressed the house at
considerable length, but was very imperfectly heard. He
was understood to disclaim, in the irst instance, any
intentien, in bringing the question before the house, of
making any remarks which might appear personal to
Lord Clarendon. He was not again bringing before their
lordships the terms of the treaty of peace, which had
been already fully di-cussed. This was a question which
only came before the conference after the treaty of peace
had been siened. (Hear.) The French plenipotentiary
introduced the subject ; and before they could discuss it,
it was necessary for some of the plenipotentiaries to re-
ceive instructions from their sovereigns. With respect
to the declaration itself, the Prerei plenipotentiary
stated to his colleagues that, having concluded the
treaty which provided for the pacification of Europe,
he wished them to follow the course which bad been
adopted in the congress of Westphalia, and again in
that of Vienna, by adopting some great principle.
As at the congress of Weetphalia, the principle of
liberty of conscience was affirmed, and at that of
Vienna a declaration was made against the slave trade,
so he proposed that the treaty of Paris should be signal-
ised by the adoption of some general principle which
should regulate hostilities in time of war. The question
he wished to raise was whether the principles laid down
in this declaration were such as would really improve
the maritime law of nations, whether it would render
war less inconvenient to neutral powers, and whether it
would maintain the rights of those who were unhappily
forced into it. The first article of the declaration was to
the effect that privateering was abolished. He did not
know whether the English version was considered a lite-
ral or good translation of the French ; but he believed
the meaning of the French "la course" was cruising—
that cruising was abolished.
The Earl of CLI..RENDON here made a remark across
the table.
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 must 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 had
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 otuer 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 en international law.
The question had 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 beestablished
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, feed 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 co 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 m 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 justified 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 arid searching her ? (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 she 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
t
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. (ffear.) It had been held by the
highest authorities that the maritime law of nations was
part of the law of the land and‘oe should be glad to be
informed whether her Majesty's plenipbtentiaries had
power to sign away the law of the land. (Hear.) The
moving his resolution.
noble lord concluded by
The Earl of CLARENDON. begged to tender to the
noble lord his best acinowledgmente for the tone of
moderation and courtesy which had pervaded his address.
There bad certainly never been a vote of censure pro-
posed
in terms more mild; and he (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 aronni
us, to insist any longer upon that principle, more particu-
larly as it had been the subject of constant and energetic
protest by the other great maritime powers. It was quite
true that the principle that enemy's goads under a new,
teal 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 had defended that principle ; but Gro-
ties had also defended the right of belheerent4 to put
woolen 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 m.)re rely upon
the principles laid down by Grotius than they ct,uld

rely on the opinions -of those eminent lawyers and
judges who had supported by argument, and by the
weight of their authority, some of the worst parts of our
ancient penal code. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord had
no right to assume that the eminent author ides be 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 cur commercial rela
tions ; and would have given due weight to the natural
results which flowed front 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 mitigate 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) bad had a number of
extractsecopied from the writines of eminent jurists since
the days of Kent ; and he foundb that they were all in
favour of relaxing 'the old maritime code, and de-
claring 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 of neutrals. This bad 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. Oa 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 he remembered
that the Roman law was not a law of nations, but a mu-
nicipal law 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 point 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 Russian property that might happen t) have been
there ; or the marching of a French army into Belgium
to seize all the Russian property in Antwerp. (Hear.)
By the modern lawthey not only commissioned the com-
naanders 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 fur which he con-
tended bad only been waived in three cases, But what
were really 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 1310 ; 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 selz-al 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 169.# and 1793 we were six times et
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 hot think that any-
, thing that had been recently done at Paris was incon-
sistent with what had been done for the last 125 years, in
conjunction with all the great maritime powers of Europe.
(Hoar.) It was perfectly true that the rule had been con-
,lantly 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 no trade by neutrals be-
tween the colonies of France and the mother country.
We entered into a league with Russia, 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

has lebourecl for its reemenition as a neutral right. Tt has incor-
porated it in of its treaties with foreign powers. France,
Russia, rrussia, and other nations, have iu various ways fully
concurred with the United States in regarding it'as a sound
and salutary principle, in all respects proper to be incorpo-
rated into the law of nations. The same consideration that
induced her Britannic Majesty, in c....neurrence with the Em-
peror of the French, to present it as a concession iu the pre-
sent war, the desire " to preserve the commerce of neutrals
from all unnecessary obstruction," will, it is presumed, have
equal weight with the belligerents in any future war, and
satisfy them that the claims of the principal maritime powers,
while neutral, to have it recognised as a rule of international
law, are well founded and should be no longer contested. To
settle the principle that "free ships make free goods," except
articles contraband of war, and to prevent it from being called
again in question from any quarter, or under any circum-
stances, the United States are desirous to unite with other
powers in a declaration that it should be observed by each
hereafter as a role of international law. The exemption of
the property of neutrals, not contraband, from seizure and
confiscation when laden on board an enemy's vessel,
is a right now generally recognised by the law of
nations. The President is pleased to perceive from the decla-
ration of her Britannic Majesty that the course to be pursued
by her cruisers will not bring it into question in the present
war. The undersigned is directed by the President to state
to her Majesty's Minister to this Government that the United
States, while claiming the full enjoyment of their rights as a
neutral power, will observe the strictest neutrality towards
each and all the belligerents. The laws of this country impose
severe restrictions not only upon its own citizens, but upon
all persons who may be residents within any of the territories
of the United States, against equipping privateers, receiving
commissions, or enlisting men therein for the purpose of taking
a part in any foreign war. It is not apprehended that there will
be any attempt to violate the laws ; but should the just expec-
tation of the President be disappointed, lie will not fail in his
duty to use all the power with which he is invested to enforce
obedience to them. Considerations of interestand the obliga-
tions of duty alike give assurance that the citizens of the United
States willin no way compromise the neutrality of their coun-
try by participating in the contest in which the principal
powers of Europe are now unhappily engaged.—The under-
signed, &c.-1V: L. MARCY.
[Same, mutatis inutandis, to the Count de Sartiges.]
He must say that was a very moderate and digeitied state-
ment. But if that was the state of things in 1854, he
asked their lordships whether they had reason to suppose
that there would be any change of public opinion on
the subject, that civilisation would retrograde, that there
would be more hostility to commerce, or anything to
render our motives less stringent than those which im-
posed upon us the necessity to determine upon this course
in 1854 ? If their lordship 3 knew how the order in coun-
cil of 1854 was received by other powers, how much im-
p ,rtance they attached to it, their lordships would see
how dangerous it would be to trifle with the friendly
feeling thus excited, by renewing a declaration that
we would adhere to our old system. But, as he had
stated, we had never been in war anything but ;a prin-
cipal, we had never known what the application of our
own doctrine to us would be by other nations. Suppose
that France and the United States were at war in which
which we took no part, and that tine French cruisers
claimed the right to intercept our commercial vessels
between this country and New York. Suppose a French
cruiser stopped a Liverpool vessel, and found 200 tons
of goods consigned to a firm at New York, and he took
the whole vessel and the cargo—he should like to know
what the merchants of this country would say to this
application of our own principle, and whether the people
of this country would not petition Parliament to render
the law more just. He thought, thee, that it would be
quite impossible to revert to our former policy. The
great changes which were taking place around us
forbade our having recourse to that policy again. And
Government thought that when they were under no
compulsion, and when their motives could not be
misunderstood, it was wise and politic to make the de-
claration that they had—that they would not recede,
but would abide by what they bad done, thereby initi-
gating,tee miseries of war, and pro lacing friendly feel-
in ,4s among Vie nations of the earth. He thought that
tLe la .o i,f nations was founded upon two principles,
the jits naturce, the principles of reason and jiiatice, and
the cominunis consensus gentium, and he said that the
law both pre cribed and justified the declaration that
they made. Their lordships were called upon to express
their regret that the plenipotentiaries assembled in that
council should have announced their abandonment of the
privilege without the knowledge or assent of Parliament.
If there was one principle of our constitution which
was universally admitted, it was the right of the Crown
to c,.ncluile treaties with other countries without the
knowledge or assent of Parliament ; and the obvious rea-
son was, that if they had to procure the sanction of Par-
l'ament or any other audio, ity before they made a treaty
they would never make a treaty at all. If they had re-
quired that assent to the particulars of the treaty of Paris,
or even the basis of it, did they think that that treaty
would have ever been signed ? He could tell their lord-
ships that it was not a very easy matter as it was, but
if a thousand additional persons had been called in, with
the assistance of the daily press, it would never have been
signed. There was no doubt about the right and preroga-
tive of the Crown to sanction a declaration of this kind,
which did not require the ratification of Parliament. He
had read a list of the various treaties entered into with
various countries renouncing this principle, and to not
one of them was the sanction of Parliament sought, nor
had the prerogative of the Crown been questioned till this
evening Lord Stowell said the Crown could declare gene-
ral hostilities, and could limit their operation. If the sanc-
tion of Parliament were required now, it would have been
as much required to state the principle two years ago as
it would be now to renounce it. But the sense of Parlia-
ment was taken upon it by an hon. and learned gentleman
below,ing to Doctors'-commons, who asked the house to
resolve that to renounce the right would be inconsistent
with the honour and security of this country. After a
short debate, however, the house was counted out. This
would show that the sanction of Parliament was not
considered requisite. Their lordships were called upon to
express regret that the plenipotentiaries had so far de-
parted from their attributes as to have suddenly aban-
doned, without the previous sanction of Parliament, the
principles so long and so strenuously maintained.
He thought their lordships would have some difficulty
in expressing regret that all the plenipotenCarits should
have renounced the principle to which all their Govern.
ments objected without the sanction of the Parliament of
Great Britain. They adopted precisely the precedent to
which the noble lord had alluded, in which the plenipo-
tentiaries assembled at the Congress of Vienna agreed
to that memorable declaration by which they affirmed
that the slave trade, which bad so long desolated Africa
and degraded Europe, was accursed, and they agreed
amongst themselves, with the sanction of their Govern-
ments, that the most strenuous exertions should be made
to prevent that traffic. If they (the plenipotentiaries of
Paris) had confined themselves within the strict line of
their attributions, they would have lost the opportu-
nity, when the representatives of the principal powers
of Europe were met together, of discussing as
far as possible the various important maters unconnected
with Russia Not a word would have been said about
Italy from the principles laid down, in the discussion cf
which important results would ensue. Not a word would
have been said about the principle of mediation, whereby
they ha I interposed a fresh obstacle to war, and had
thereby done a great service to humanity. They re-
nounced a principle which he believed it was not far the
interest of England to maintain. At the same time
France renounced a principle to which we had long ob-
jected, thus placing our maritime law on the same foot-
ing. Their lordships must bear in mind that these pro-
positions must be taken in their entirety, and he said
that to abolish privateering was more than equivalent to
giving up a claim to a principle which it was impossible
for them to maintain. The abolition of privateering was
of far more importance now than in former times, in
consequence of the changes produced by steam. In
former times, when both merchant vessels and pri-
vateers were propelled by wind, they were on a level,
but now a merchant sailing vessel was at the mercy of
the smallest privateer moved by steam. He thought,
therefore, that the abolition of privateering would be of
the utmost advantage to commerce. He thought they
might congratulate themselves on giving up a privilege
which they could not maintain, and that they had abo-
lished privateering, thereby mitigating the miseries of
war, and promoting a cordial feeling among nations. If
he had been able to show that all precedents had not
been in favour of the principle which the noble lord had
maintained, and that this principle could be given up
without serious injury to England, whereas the attempt
to uphold it could only be regarded as an act of hostility
to other nations, he thought their lordships would agree
with him that this motion should bo negatived.
The Earl of CARNARVON said the noble earl had
mixed up the two questions of the right of search and
privateering, whereas they stood on entirely different
grounds. The noble earl seemed to evade the main question
brought forward by hie noble friend, who had asked whe-
ther the abandonment of this principle was permanent.
\Vas it a mere bargain between the parties, or was it a
mere understanding between the governments whose
plenipotentiaries were present, and was it necessary to
incorporate it in an order in council, or to have an act
of Parliament ! The noble earl hal spoken of the uncer-
tainty of the law. He was surprised that a member of
the English Government should admit that there was
any uncertainty, for if there was one fact clear it was
this, that the whole stream of authority was in favour of
the principle, which they bad always maintained and
acted upon. The noble earl said that the abolition of pri-
vateering was a fair equivalent to us for our concession, i
but in the answer of the Secretary of the Government. of I
the United States it was distinctly stet -d that the United
States w mid never reli ,qulse their rights. He couli un-
derstand the doctrine of a party in this country
tary who
argued that the sea was open to all nati ,s, that
com-
merce would find its own level, and tint It elticuld be un-
tramelled by laws and restrictions ; but this cent scion
did not go far enough to meet the views of these gentle-
men. j
Ile contended that the just principle of self-preserva-
tion entitled us to seize the goods of our enemy if we
found them on board a neutral vessel, and that since we
not only paid the neutral compensation in such a case for
the damage and (*clay which he might have incurred, but
paid him also the amount of the freight which he would
have received for carrying the goods, there was no hard-
ship done to the neutral, but that he was only debarred
from an advantage which would have operated to our de-
triment ; we only prevented him from making a profita-
ble speculation out of the war, and trading on ourenemy's
behalf. The neutral might buy and sell with the bellige-
rents, and the property which be brought to or carried
away from the enemy's shores, if it were bona fide neu-
tral prop,e:ty, was not interfered with ; it was only when
his neutrality became a fraudulent neutrality that his
neutral claim was forfeited. The authorities cited by the
noble earl the Foreign Secretary were within the last
filty years ; and the opinions of then, however eminent,
should be distrusted when they were expressed in the
midst of exciting dispute ; but the calm and dispae-
sioaato judgment of older authorities, contrary 'to
the natural feelings and pre judicies of the men who pro
nounced that judgment, was of more weight ; as that
of Grolius, for instance, who, though a Dutchman, af-

the ties of international obligation, and we, not less than
France, by our orders in council. That was a practice
which the noble lor 1 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, w►th this reservation
—a very wise and proper one—that each belligerent
should adopt it. In the course of the last two
centuries there had been 130 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 bad
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 1854 ? 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 was a question only of the law
of England. Every other maritime power had protested
against it, and at the commencement of this war England
was the only maritime powenthat 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 have led to an armed
intervention against us, yet it was quite plain that we
should have stood alone in the world, and we should have
had 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 hos-
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 had
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-
ion of such a principle ? This was a note from Mr. Marcy,
.he secretary of the government of the United States :
Mr. Marcy to Mr. Crampton.

Department of State, Washington, April 2S, 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 Eitra.ordinary 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, iu the existing war with Russia, The under-
signed has submitted those communications to the
President, and received his direction to express to
her Majesty's Government his satisfaction that the prin-
ciple that " free ships make free goods," which the United
States have so long and so strenuously contended for
as a neutral right, and in which some of the leading powers of
Europe have concurred, is to have a qualified sanction by the
practical observance of it iu 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 iu 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 Governments, 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 international lavr.Tlus Government, from its commencement,

~,,,,..

firmed his belief in the Justice of seizing the prop#lll
enemies, not only on board neutral ships, but the atiipi
of allies. The slates of Holland, the Genoese, and the
Venetians, whose prosperity was founded on the carry-
ing trade, held the same principle. Each one of the
three great nations which in 1730 formed the armed
neutrality league swerved from the contrary principle
which it embodied within ten years afterwards. Our
great English statesmen, Chatham in the seven years'
war, Pitt and Fox in their day, adhered to the right
which had now been surrendered. The Duke of Wel-
lington also maintained it ; and Sir Robert Peel can-
celled a treaty with Portugal, which contained the prin-
ciple of free ships making free goods, and inserted the con-
verse principle in the treaty substituted. The treaties re-
ferred to, on the other side, were only exceptional and spe-
cial agreements, which did not affect the general law. It
had been said that the Crown was quite competent to do
this without the consent of Parliament. And $o the
noble earl would have been competent, at the congress
of Paris, to cede Malta to Russia, or Gibraltar to Spain,
or sacrifice the Belgian press ; but would it have been
justifiable to do so f Was everything justified which it
was legally possible for the Government to dot There,
as was observed in a former debate, the Crown would ber
competent to summon a regiment of Guards to sit in the
House of Peers. Parliament had no warning of this
great change--a change never before demanded, except
in a spirit of bitt ir hostility to this country. Last year
the noble lord the President of the Board of Trade said
it was difficult to enforce the right, whilst our ally in
the war took a different view ; that the British Go-
vernment had waived it, but not abandoned it. If the
Government at that time contemplated this change, it
would have been more candid, and fairer to Parliament,
to have given them some intimation of it ; but if the
matter occurred to them first at the Congress, on the
suggestion of Count Walewski, they had acted with rash-
ne,s and inconsideration. It wag strange to hear the
royal prerogative so advanced as it was at the beginning of
the session as an exouse for another measure equally un-
precedented; he knew that it was only a convertible
term for ministerial power. He sincerely regretted, both
in its substance and in its manner, the change which
had been effected ; he was not hopeful of our obtaining
any reciprocal advantage ; he believed the sympathy of
neutrals was not to be purchased by concessions or signs
of weakness, but by fair dealing, vigour, firmness, and
earnestness of purpose. (Cheers.)

The Earl of HARROWBY observed that it was not
correct to say that this was a right given up by our Go-
vernment without any compensating advantage. There
was the abolition of privateering, from which in former
wars we had suffered eren more than we had inflicted.
It should be remarked that although England had agreed
to abandon henceforth the right of seizing enemy's goods
in neutral bottoms, there was no admission that the
right did not exist involved in this abandonment of it.
He thought we had an undoubted right to persist in that
practice, but we had now thought it better to agree in
an arrangement that it should be abandoned. This was
not so much, as has been represented, a change of policy,
but it was embodying in a general document what had
been the subject of several special engagements during
more than a century past. It had been said that the
Americans would not be willing to give up privateering,
but if they did not do so their neutral bottoms would not
be protected, for they could not take the benefit of one
part of the agreement without adopting the other part.
It was prudent and wise on the part of our Government,
at a time when we were not subjected to any circum-
stances of pressure, with no motive but a wish to pro-
mote the harmony of nations, to make the arrangement
with the world in general, which we had successively
made, by separate treaties, with most of the maritime
powers. It was was one of the series of those measures
which would tend to mitigate the atrocities of war, with
the progressive civilisation of mankind. The Government
had no reason to doubt that it would have the approval of
Parliament, since in all the successive treaties by which
the same arrangement was made in different states Par-
liament had acquiesced. After citing a treatise on the
subject, written by Mr. Ward about the beginning of
this century, the noble earl said that although the right
of seizing enemy's goods on board neutral ships was ab-
stractedly just, it was one which could not be carried
into practice in this age of increasing intercourse between
nations without the greatest inconvenience. For Eng-
land to stand alone, insensible to the general current of
opinion in Europe and the civilised world, was to be in a
most dangerous position, and to be considered as a selfish
asserter of the extreme claims which her widely-extended
power enabled her to enforce. The real etrength of Eng-
land consisted not in exercising an extreme right in the
face of the disapprobation of the world, but in her cha-
racter as touch as in her power ; and the step which hal
been taken by her government was one which deserved
commendation instead of censure. (Cheers.)

The Earl of HARDWICKE said he would direct his
speech to the inquiry what would be the result, in the event
of any future war, of carrying out the principles which had
now been enunciated by the Government, and made, as he
understood, the law of Europe. He should be sorry to see
this country involved again in a war with France, if such
were to be the maritime law. His conviction was, that
the maritime power of England had been completely struck
down by this concession, and that, in any future war, it
would be found to have rendered our maritime force com-
paratively useless. The effect would bo to reduce the con-
to is of nations to a military duel, in which the armies and
fleets of one nation were to meet those of the other, and
settle the quarrel, ship to ship, and man to man, by a di-
rect contest of arms. He should like to know how soon a
war would be terminated on that principle? Why, it
would be offering a premium to the other nations of the
world to feed and foment the quarrel, by which they I ad
a gainful carrying trade so long as the war lasted. He
asked what had been the result of our trying this
system in the late war with Rusia ? The effect of it
was, that wo had paid into Russian coffers, as nearly
as he could calculate, no less than seventeen millions
sterling, during those two years of our being at war. Our
merchants, at the commencement of the war, believing
that the maritime rights of England would be maintained,
had made arrangements for a trade in hemp and other pro-
duce, from distant countries; but our right of intercepting
Russian produce in neutral hands was relinquished, and our
merchants suffered in consequence of those arrangements ;
the trade with Russia flourished during the war; Russia
was enabled to get rid of her raw produce to any amount,
and we paid her 17 millions of our gold. In that instance,
the principle which was now laid down had not been very
successful ; and he believed the war would have been ended
sooner than it was if we had not thus allowed our enemy
to receive supplies. If the war had continued, there were
some who would have contemplated—though he did not
say that the Cabinet had discussed it--a blockade of the
Prussian ports, to put a stop to that process. He observed
that France, in this war, had withdrawn all the seamen
from her merchant ships to man her navy ; and that her
trade was carried on meantime under foreign flags. Now,
if ever—which he trusted would not be—a war broke out
again between England and France, by the principle now
agreed to a e should enable her to do the same, and to have
her necessary trade carried on by neutrals, whilst all her
seamen would be employed against us in manning her fleet.
Such a state of things, instead of preventing war, would
oblige us to declare war against the carriersof our enemy's
trace. The seamen of England were not more mercenary
than those of other nations, but in all previous wars England
when she required to raise large bodies of men held out
the prospect of reward in the shape of prize-money; and
in any future war with France where would there be any
inducement to sailors to join the service in the shape of
prize money, when all trade could be carried on by neutrals.
Again, what if there was to be a war with America? He
had heard from the two noble earls opposite (Clarendon and
Ile.rrowby) two distinct statements with reference to the
position in which we should be placed with America. His
noble friend (Lord Clarendon) said that America, with her
five million tons of shipping, would not permit our retain-
ing a law which had a tendency to interfere so much with
their rights, but his other noble friend (Lord Harrowby)
said that if America would not agree to this particular
clause of the convention, she would not be admitted to the •
benefit of the other regulations, and that she must take all
or none. He (Lord Hardwicke) was certain that America
could not put down privateefng, for she hsd no large
standing navy, and the course now taken on this question
was an offence to one of the greatest commercial nations in
the world, and would cause her to dissent in toto to the
whole proceeding, and to resist this new law whenever she
had an opportunity. There was another part of the sub-
ject with which he felt great difficulty in dealing, and with
regard to which he could not venture to speak, lest he
should use language which would not be parliamentary ;
for he felt that a step had been taken by a Minister of the
Crown sitting in a foreign city in a congress which would
be felt in this country, if not now at some period or other,
as an act which was not justifiable, although it might be
strictly legal. The power of the Crown no doubt did extend
to such au act, but the subversion of a great national law
on which the maritime power of a country depended, by a
minister, at the suggestion of a French minister, was so
offensive to him (Lord Hardwicke), that whatever might
bo said about ameliorating the horrors of war and such
rubbish, that he thought so serious an act ought not to be
passed over without the strongest comment. The power as-
sumed byMinisters to deal with a question like this without
notice to the peopleot this c Bantry was the strongest exer-
cise of the prerogative of the Crown in his time. It was his
(Lord Hardwicke s) conviction that the Queen, did she un-
derstand the whole scope of this question, it would not be in
her natuie or her temper to give up any of the rights of
this country. He thought that in such a case a minister
took on himself a resp .nsibility which must rest on his own
shoulders. (Hear.) He was not satisfied that the First
Minister was the men that could be trusted as having con-
sulted the Crown on all occasions, or that he always cone
suited the Queen in cases of great importance. He was
entitled to say that, and he would not use such language if
it had not a foundation for doubting that the Crown was
always consulted an occasions of importance. He (Lord
Hardwicke) did not think this question had been treated in
a constitutional manner. He was not one of those who
thought the Queen a nullity, and he should like to have
an assurance that is this case the Queen had been dealt
with by the First Minister, in a different manner to ths!t, in
which he sometimes treated her. Their lordships might
remember a certain letter which was read to the House of
Commons, and he would read a passage from it The
Queen requires, first, that Lerd Palmerston will distinctly
state what he proposes in a given case, in order that the
Queen may know as distinctly to what she is giving her
royal sanction. Se eon Ily, having once given her sanction
so a measure, that it be not arbitrarily altered or modified
by the minister. Such an act she must consider as failing
iu sincerity towards the Crown, and justly to be visited by
the exercise of her constitutional right of dismissing that
minister. She expects to be kept.isformed of what passes
between him and the foreign ministers before important
decisions are taken, based upon that intercourse." He
would not read further. He wished, however, to know
whether when a question like this was passed at a con-
ference at the request of he,a however able
and excellent amight be, and what, he
(Lord Hardwicke), as an Englishman, felt to be so de-
rogatory to his country, with a inicistry such as was
now is power, the constitutional. rights of the Sovereign
were not abused. In his . opinion, his noble friend (Lord
Clarendon) was to be. admired for the talent, ability, and
honest English feeling he had always displayed, and he
(Lord Hardwicke) had some difficulty to reconcile the
course his noble friend had taken with his general conduct.
His noble friend was always such a friend to the preserva-
tion of the maritime strength of the country that he wai
astonished that his noble friend should have been the in-
strument for taking such a step. He should have thought