The Sun.
London, England, 1856-12-26 00:00:00

MARITIME LAW:

(From the Shefield Free Pi•ess )
The Sheffield Foreign Affairs Committee, at their
weekly meeting, on the 231 inst , adopted the following
reply to Mr. Cobden's third letter on Niaritime Law :
"Council Hall, Sheffield, Dec. 23,1, 1856,
" Sir,—The Sheffield Foreign Affairs Committee have
to express their regret that in sending for publication
your reply to their letter to the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce you did not also send the letter to which it
was a reply. With reference to your declining further
dissuasion until the meeting of Parliament, the com-
mittee have to observe that you yourself raised the dis-
cussion of the subject by your letter to the Manchester
Chamber of Commerce. Even in this very letter to the
committee, not only do you decline dismission after
opening it, but you discuss whilst so declining. The
subject is one to discuss between man and man,
not with reference to any conclusions of Parliament.
You refer the committee to your letter to
the Bradford Committee, The Sheffield Committee
have had no communications on the subject, either
with the Bradford or the Newcastle Committees, but
they know that both those bodies, like themselves,
have been studying the subject ; that they are moved
by no personal or party considerations, and that a
subject like the one under discussion requires both
study and impartiality. The committee adopt the
statement of the Newcastle Committee, which they
subjoin, as the clearest and most suc duct enunciation
of the cave that they have seen. They also transmit
you herewith the report of the Birmingham Conference,
of July, 1855, on the Right of Search, and beg of you
to deal with the facts and arguments i❑ the letter, and
the report, by pointing out any statements or conclu•
sions that are erroneous."

LETTER OF THY NEWCASTLE COMMITTRE,
" 7, Sunderland-street, Newcastle-on-Tyne,
" Dec. 3. 1856.
" 'To the President of the Manchester Chamber of
Commerce,
" Sir,—The letter which Mr. Cobden has addressed
to you respecting the recent ' Declaration in regard to
Maritime Law &aims attention, not only from the posi-
tion and talents of it.s author, but also from the gravity
of the subject he has brought under your notice.
" We, therefore, as citizens of England, offer no
apology fur addressing you in consideration of such an
important public question.
"'The silence of Mr. Cobden for so long a time, in
reference to the perilous position of this country in case
of war, under the operation of the late international de-
claration, appears inexplicable, when we consider the
very logical and able manner in which he has skown the
irjurious effects it is certain to bring upon the nation.
" We entirely agree with Mr. Cobden, that conse
quences of the most serious nature must be apprehended
by us, unless we escape from the imminent danger of
such a departure from our ancient maritime usage ; but
we differ with him respecting the course to be taken to
avoid the results of the declaration he so ably exposes.
We therefore venture to submit to you a few reasons
which we hope will induce you to pause before you use
your great influence,' as he urged you to do, in estab-
lishing the practice proposed by the American Govern-
ment of exempting from capture private property upon
the ocean.

" 1. The proposal to make war a duel of Govern-
ments is, we skink, likely to detach the operations of
Governments from the interest of the people, and to
make war an anomaly, and that to hold private property
exempt while national property may be destroyed, 'rill
cause wars to become frequent and protracted by limit-
ing their consequences.
" `2. That no distinction of property, be it private or
national, ought to be observed in case of war ; and that
to spare the one and destroy the other is absurd, imply-
ing a national responsibility distinct from that of citi-
zenship. The sparing of enemies' pr perty on land has
been always conditional on the submission of the district
attached, but sparing it upon the high seas must be con
ditional on the submission of the nation.

" 3. That, as war is either the most holamn of all
duties, or the most wanton of all crimes, involving in
either case the sacrifice of human lite, to carry it on
upon any novel principle of humanity is incompatible
with the e.ecution of a judicial sentence, which is the
only excuse for a just war.
"'4. That, as just wars are undertaken to avert
consequences more injurious than war itself, to limit
their effects, or make them less terrible, would pro-
portionably weaken the sense of justice of the nation,
which should make war the last extremity of demand-
ing reparation and enf .rcing redress.
"' 5. That, although commerce in the first instance
would apparently b• less obstructed by the adoption of
the proposal of the American Government, yet as com-
merce depends upon the prosperity of a country, and as
the coat of war must fall upon all classes of the commu-
nity by an increase of taxation, it would ultimately suffer
in a greater degree than were the ancient Maritime
Laws i❑ operation.

" That in permit ing enemies' property to go free
at sea, England parts with her only means of forcing an
enemy's fleet to action, as the experience of the war
concluded by the peace of 1856 disinctly shows. For
it was only by her strict blockade of the enemy's ports,
and the consequent injury to his finance, that those
naval engagements were brought about, in which she
se often proved victorious when hostile fleets, for the
relief of their trade, gave battle to her blockading force.
" 7. Thai as the military strength of Great Britain is
not equal to that of the other great European Powers
any future war would therefore be confined, should Mr.
Cobden's wishes be carried out, into an exchange of
broadsides between English ships and land fortresses,
which the great war with Rusia hay shown to be wholly
ineffective. England would have left to her neither
military nor naval means of obtaining reparation or re-
dress, and would be limited either to the expensive, die
honourable,' and dangerous resort of hiring mercenaries,
or of purchasing peace by snbmit'ing to wrong.
"'These considerations have induced us to address you
on the sulject of Mr. Cobden's letter, for while we agree
with him, that " the practical effect of the alterations
made in the maritime laws at the Paris Conferences, if
we go no fur- her, would be in case of war with a naval
power to transfer the carrying trade, even of our own
pens to neutral bottoms," we do not perceive the benefi-
*lel effects be supposes we would derive from the change
he recommends, and that as by the maritime law the
power of England has been established and maintained,
we ought not to adopt the proposal of which he says " it
is impossible to foresee all the consequences of such a
revolution in the rules of war, but rather revert to the
venerated judgments of our Admiralty Courts," for al
though we cannot comprehend the" imperious necessity
which caused us to waive our belligerent rights during
the late war, we are solemnly convinced that whether
we adopt the American proposal or submit to the re-
cent " declaration," in either case ruin will be brought
upon the country.
" I have the honour to remain, sir, on behalf of the
Newcastle Committee for the Investigation of Diplo-
macy, your obedient servant,
" GXOIIGE STOBART, Secretary."
"In your letter to Bradford you assert certain dispo-
sitions of the United States, privately conveyed to the
Foreign Office in England, as the grounds on which the
British Government has acted ; Ahilet, in another letter
to the same body, you assert the unfathomable nature
of diplomacy, and the impossibility of knowing either
the motives or act.' of the Government. You now as-
sume to have established the fact, and you leave it.
The committee call upon you to make known the
grounds of your statement, by which alone ibs value
can be judged. They have to express their wonder
that, with such knowledge in your possession,
you did not, in your place iuParlieenent, call for the pro.
Auction of such secret coinemnica.ions from the United
States, which, if true, rendered futile and unavailing is
its immediate effect the bloodshed occasioned by the
hostilities wide Russia ; which, in their ultimate conse-
quences, went to supersede the laws of the realm ; and
which at the moment constituted a case of coercion of
England by a power with which she was not even at
war, and the knowledge of which, with the exception of
yourself, was concealed from the British nation.
" After all, admitting all this to be imperious necee•
city,' the legitimate consequence of such necessity would
have been, not the waiver of the Right of Search, but
the waiver of the war with Russia.

"The committee are struck with the discrepancy in
your manner of dealing with this subject as compared
with others. On the repeal of the Cora Laws, you made
die discussion in Parliament depend upon previous
discussion in the country, and the committee cannot
fail '„to remark thai, the results which must have been
anticipated from your letter to the Manchester Chamber
of Commerce have not come to pees. In that letter you
urged the adoption of measures with the view f affect-
ing the decision of Parliament. You therein stated that
the mercantile and manufacturing interests of the
country were deeply involved' in the matter, and you
called on the mercantile world to allow its voice to be
heard on the question by Government and Parliament.'
The committee cannot therefore understand your subse-
quent view respecting the unanimity of Parliament upon
the subject. On the other hard, they cannot understand
hot. Yeti could have so far doubted of the unanimity
of Parliament as to have applied to to the Chamber of
Commerce, seeing that the House of COIIIIIIO4EI has so
far exhibited perfect unanimity in performing any taek
that the Premier required of them.
"The second paragraph of your latter to the commit-
tee proceeds upon an assumption very perplexing to
them. They cannot find, and do not recollect it to
have been stated anywhere, that the words of Nelson
respecting England spending her last shilling and her
last ship, applied to anything else Have the exercise of
the Right of Search, at that time contested by Russia,
and made by her the basis of the second armed neutra-
lity. If any one has done so—which the committee
doubt—it cannot be the committees herein named, for
they hive made themselves too well acquainted with the
object to beliable to eech.mieprision of facts and confusion
of terms. It is very true that a maritime supremacy did
result to England from the exercise of the Right of
Search, but that depended on no exclusive pretension set
up by her, It depended on the possession of a relatively
greater naval Power, which has given her the victory in
coot, et with others whom she might meet at sea. Eng.
land has never contested this faculty to any State ; on
the contrary, she has asserted it for all. It was not
originally put forward by her ; its origin is too ancient
to be found in any written law ; but the form in which
it has been incorporated into the laws of England is I
adopted from the first French codes. It is with a cer-
tain compunction and shame that the committee refer to
facts so notorious, and propositions so evident, as it is
impossible they should be unknown to a politician
theof
I your high standing. The committee are under
necessity of doing so, their task being not to argue with
you, out toj reply to your letter.
" The last paragraph itof your letter assumes that laws
must be altered because 'of the world's progress, aen also
that laws rauetlee established to take the place of phy-
sical force. furit ier assume it to be the object of
,
the ennitniitees to assere'. !..upremacy for Great:Britain I