The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-12 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

" In my mind it (the Declaration of Paris) is tho most im-
portant subject that can engage our attention. In
importance I put it far beforo the question of Parlia-
mentary Reform, even when that question was a reality."
—Mr. Disraeli, 17th March, 1862.

JOHN'S HOTEL, March 9.

SIR,--Ilaving seen in your impression of yester-
day- that you treat as a proposition to be entertained,
and consequently as of the highest importance to
entertain and carry the reversion of the Declara-
tion of Paris, which deprives England of her mari-
time strength, I beg leave to address to you a
letter, in answer to the idea that has arisen since
Mr. Gregory's motion of the 2d of March, that the
proposed change would be invaluable to this country
as well as desirable for humanity at large.

I put to you the converse proposition, that the
only way to make the interests of this country and
of humanity at large identical is to re-establish
the law as it existed from time immemorial
before a few individuals in a room in
Paris, possessing neither delegated nor inherent
authority for that purpose, by signing a piece of
paper, pretended to alter it. The danger to Eng-
land. which it is said would be remedied by the
abolition of capture at sea, arises, according to
the statement of the new Doctrinaires themselves
from this : that no enemy's property is safe under a
neutral flag. They certainly do not exaggerate the
change that that act has made in our position; but
what I have to controvert is the deductions they
draw from the events of the late American war,
which, if true, would also apply to the case of our
Those deduc-
teixoenrsciasminoguonutrtofutlhl maritime
rights.atrhiatitinseuperiority of ships and
sailors does not give superiority of power in naval
warfare. Because we have more ships at sea than
other nations, they say that we must lose more. But
surely the measure of our loss will be the measure
of the ships employed against us, and no other. Our
ships will be liable to capture hi proportion, not to
their number, but to the number of the enemy. If
we can send out more cruiz.rs than any other
nation, and if our ships are better manned and
worked, we, exercising our natural belligerent rights,
will destroy the commerce of our enemy, as
we have done over and over again in former wars.
The exploits of the Alabama And Shenandoah
are quoted to show the facility with which mer-
chantmen may be captured. Is this to be used as
litradepredations maritime
edp rm eda
manned,
Powers?tn ieodn,s
a
bnyd
wTa nehrees argumenteovnel
sy sealba against
ewere
c EaErnnr
gyg
Oas England d
bt
iunei fili
enteringtheir
English
These tortsvess
et
los rheafivte,
phaving
roved nt oh
epeoffir tesa
eoyf
riethaisatinhaent
tEinntgolandeoofusludchpocurraffto;rtahnbdy stuncrhnincgrarofte
pri-
vateers, so as to cover every sea. It is this legiti-
mate exercise of her strength that the Declaration
of Paris has shorn her of, that we have heard
a
nothing new by the American struggle as to the
practice of war. I have a right to speak on this
inna
theval branchGreekNoaf v tyhne
nsduebrj
Lordect
D having,n ndn by ml
probably
r
oservicebab ly
had more experience in practice of searching neu-
tral vessels for enemy's property than any of the
present officers of our Navy. In consequence of
that experience I have been in the habit of saying
" that the strength of England lay in her fishing
boats ;" meaning, that for thepurpose either of cap-
turing enemy's merchantmen, or neutral vessels
carrying enemy's property, the smallest craft suf-
ficed. The capture, by the Greeks, in their war
against the overwhelming force of the enemy, was
effected principally by row boats. The American
war is now history. If we are to study history in
relation to this subject, let us go a little further
back. The clauses of the Declaration of Paris of
1856 were, only fifty-five years before (1801),
Russia's " Armed Neutrality."
Our best modern writer on international law, Mr.
D. Harcourt (Historicus), after quoting the second
clause of the Declaration of Paris, " a neutral flag
covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contra-
band of war," adds—" that is establishing the doc-
trine for which the armed neutrality contended."
That is the real state of the case. It is not merely
a Russian design, and a Russian design against
England, but it is the basis of her whole scheme,
and upon effecting it rests her chances of domina-
tion over the world. It is not England only against
whom the blow is directed, but agairest France also.
She is thus made to sacrifice all means of coercion
or resistance against Russia and the United States,
the so?e Powers from whom there is anything to
apprehend.
England, then, little more than half a century
ago, resisted the whole world in arms against her,
rather than yield up that right which was secretly
given away at Paris, and afterwards justified by the
mere suspicion that one Power (America) might
have opposed us had we refused to do so. We
have here a test of the capacity of our present pub-
lic men, as compared with those of the beginning of
the century. We now give away our power to
make war, because we fear that the assertion of that
power may involve us in war. It is * a capitulation
without a contest. It has made it a peace which
closed what we were told was a successful war.
Whether successful or not, this is certain that the
experience of the war (during which had waived this
right) proved, if proof were required, the powerless-
ness of England without the right of search. Dur-
ing the course of the war forty Russian merchants