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

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.

Sir G. GREY said he proposed to take the second read-
ing of this bill on Thursday evening next as the first order
of the day.
RATING OF MINES AND WOODS.

On the motion for going into committee of supply,

Mr. S. CAVE asked the President of the Poor-law Board
whether he intended to bring in a bill during the present
session for tho rating of mines and woods to the relief of
the poor ?
Mr. KEKEWICH also asked the President of the Poor-
law Board whether he proposed, during the present ses-
sion, to bring in a bill for the purpose of rating woods to
the relief of the poor, and any general measure for the
amendment of the poor law, founded on the report of the
select committee presented during last session.
Mr. VILLIERS expressed his opinion that both mines

and woods were rateable, but as there might be a strong
opposition to any legislature, he proposed to pursue the
same course as had been followed in the case of the Mersey
Docks. He intended, however, to bring in a general
measure for the amendment of the Poor-law.
PRIVATE PROPERTY AT SEA.
Mr. GREGORY rose to move that an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be gra-
ciously pleased to use her influence with foreign Powers
for the purpose of making the principle that private pro-
perty should be free from capture by sea a maxim of in-
ternational maritime law.
Sir F. GOLDSMID criticised the vagueness of the mo-
tion, which ho opposed as tending to deprive England of
the advantages of her maritime supremacy. He quoted the
opinion of American statesmen against the proposal, and
denied that it was a necessary consequence of the Declara-
tion of Paris, which he showed to be rather in favour of the
stronger than the weaker Power. He asserted that no
such international obligation could be devised which would
not be dissolved by a state of war, and pointed to General
Sherman's ravages as a proof that private property on land
waanot spared if it suited a hostile commander to destroy
it. He condemned the proposal as calculated to rob war
of its terrors, and protract the conclusion of peace.
Mr. LIDDELL referred to the position of the privateer-
ing question as an argument in favour of the proposal, show-
ing that the United States, if we conceded it, were, on their
side, committed to the abolition of privateering. He quoted
commercial statistics to prove the immense interest Eng-
land had in establishing this maxim as a part of interna-
tional law, and, after some remarks on the futility of
blockades, contended, in opposition to Sir F. Goldsmid,
that it would render war less likely.
Mr. BAXTER argued that as by the Declaration of
Paris we had allowed any Power with which we might be
at war to carry on its trade in neutral bottoms, the adop-
tion of this principle was only a matter of time. He can-
vassed Sir F. Goldsmid's arguments, asserting that the
sparing of private property by land was an established
maxim of modern warfare, and that this humane proposal
was a necessary extension of it.

Mr. B. COCHRANE condemned the Declaration of
Paris, quoting the opinions of Lord Russell, Lord Palmer-
ston, and Lord Derby to the same effect. Re expressed a
hope that it would be rescinded, and deprecated any fur-
ther progress in the same direction.

ldr. AfiCULLAGLI TORRENS argued against the in-
justice of throwing on the mercantile community the bur-
den and suffering of a war udertaken for imperial inte-
rests. lie warned the house of the consequences of a war
while the private° •nn g question was in its present position,
and ho challenged the opponents of the motion to mention
an instance of a
war being ended by the pillage of private
lie
individuals. defended the Declaration of Paris, and
described this proposal as an inevitable consequence of it.
Mr. BIJX.T OzT pointed to the extensive commercial ope-
rations of this coutryasa reason why we should be the
first t 3 support this rule, and argued that the present state
of things was a positive
temptation war. He scouted
the idea that a state of vaarveuld t
dissolveo any interna-
tional:.: obligation of this character, argued in favour of
reducing war as far as possible to
duel between Govern-
ments and armies.
a
The LORD ADVOCATE, in reply to the argument that
England as the greatest commercial nation
chiefly
interested in this change, pointed out that th:ia increase
our vulnerability had been accompanied by an increase in
in.
our power to defend ourselves, and he objected to this
proposal as tending to cripple our strength for attack and
defence. He maintained that all war was of necessity a
violation of private property, and the rule of exemption—.
which depended much on the discretion of the com-
manders, and did not spring from conventions—was that
the property of individuals should be spared when the
military advantage of its destruction was out of all pro-

portion to the individual loss.
Mr. LAING asserted that in the event of a war breaking
out in the present state of maritime law the 7,000,000 tons
in which British commerce was carried would be anni-
hilated, and that commerce would be transferred to the
neutral flag.

Lord CRANBORNE denied that there was any esta-
blished rule of warfare which exempted private property
on land from capture, and illustrated his argument by re-
ference... to the campaigns of Napoleon, the Banda and
Isarwee prize-money case, and Gen: sherman'a