The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-18


PHILLIMoRE moved . resolution that, however, from
the peculiar circumstances of this war, Q relaxation
of the principle that the goods Of an enemy in the
or surrender fSs the would Ss be-
inconsistent with the security and honor Of the
country. He cited various authorities, ancient and
modern, from the ConsolGtO del Mare to Chancellor
Kent in order to establish two great principles OF in
ternational maritime aw-nameiy, that the goods Of
an enemy in the ship of friend may be ccnfsca ted,
and the goods OF q friend in the ship of an enemy
ere free and ought to be restored; and he proceeded
to show the reasons upon which irrespective Of an-
thority these principles founded, and to which,
he conteuded the doctrine that free ships made free
goods was repugnant.
Mr.. 7. MIroHKLL seconded the motion. though he
dissented from the introductory words Of the reso.
luton, which admitted that a relaxation OF the
principle in.question might be justfable from the
peculiar circumstances Of the war, being of opinion
that no blow could be more efbctual to Russia than
the stoppage Of her export trade, which was the
great ssnrce OF the revenues or the great landed
proprietors; and he contended that the relaxation
Of the principle and the uncertaintya to blockade,
had been highly injurious, through the laches and
of our authorities, to the interests Of British
commerce.
Sir W. MoLEswoaru said, the resolutonraised
two distinct questions one practical question Of
ton Of international law, as to the rights Of the
subjects Of neutral States, with reference obelge
rents. The expediency of relaxing the principles
might be coniiscated had been admitted by Mr.
Phlllimore from the peculiar circumstances Of this
war; but he, (sir Wiliam3 denied that the po-
sition of that honorable member, that the right
to confscate an enemys goods on board friends
ship was eterually maintainable. was indisput-
ably true and disputed the validity of the au-
thorities he had cited, contending that almost
oil the best modern pu6licists dissented from.
the old authorities, and supported the rule, "ire
ships, free goods.r Sir William developed and dis.
cussed at considerable length the arguments urged
by the friends Of the extension of nentral rights,
who maintained that a 1meerent had no more
my's goods than to enter neutral port for that
purpose, and That 40 long a. an Independent
sovereign was at peace with beligercnt power,
the latter had no right to ask any questions as TO-
articles on board the ships OF subjects Of the neu
tral sovereign So far from the principle c0ntended
for by Mr.. Phillimore being indsputably true, hc
insisted that it was demonstrably false, and he ap-
country and the maritime Powers OF Western Flu
rope from that Of 1854 with Portugal, which
recognized as rule Of amicable Intercourse that
free ships make free goods, which rule was all but
inyafiable during the last two centuries, although
It had not alwaysbeen observed in practice. Even
IL reasonable doubts might be entertained upon the
question, the House ought not TO pledge itself to an
assertion Of the right contended for and he insisted
that there was no logical connexion between the
rules " free ships. free goods" and enemys
ships, enemys goods" which were placed in juxta-
position as mere verbal antithesis Sir William
then discussed the practical quettion, arguing that
with France, our beliigerent rights, and rule Of
maritime warfare has been adopted by mutual
compromise between the two countries. Assuming
that the position Of Mr.. Phillimore were true, the
House, he contended, ought not to agree TO Thu
abstract resolution, unless some practical benefit
would result from its adoption. None had been
shown, and the waving right. if il existed, was
remuneration or surrender OF 1t. He moved the
previous question
Mr.. r. PHILLa0aF, asscnting to the wisdom Of
the course pursued by the government in waiying
the biigerent rights Of the Crown, could not agree
with many of the proportions Of Sir W. Moesw0rth,
between whose speech and the declaration of her
Majesty there appeared, be said, remarkable dis
cordancy. He expressed his surprise that Sir Viii
liam should have iaken his Interpretation Of inter
national law from treaties, instead Of iurists and
commentators, and observed that, If bis doctriRe
were correct it would prevent all interference by
beligerent except with helligereMt. The princi-
pies Of the law Of nations Of which Sir William had
spoken so sIightlngly, were founded on reason,
equity and convenience, and fortified by authority
He did not think it would be wise, however to press
the resolution to division.
Mr.. BOWER moved, a. an amendment TO Mr..
Phillim0re's motion, "the course adopted by her
Majesty's Government, in concert with that Of the
Emperor OF the French is in accordance with sound
principles Of policy and public law" He consider
cd that the principles Of maritime law adopted BY
the government, by extending the right OF ncutras,
had created new era in the law OF nations