The New York herald., 1862-03-25

the exception Of cmtraband OF war. the neutral
fag covered the enemy's goods also introduced
fourth propositions, that "neutral goods, with the
exception of contraband Of war, were not naoie
TO capture under an enemy's Tag, and tnat "olock
ades in order to be binding must DC enectve, were
mgTely statements OF the antecedent law Inc hohors
BILE members speech, in fact contradcted that portion
Of his motion which alleged that the present sss hat
ternational law was i'll defined, because he hnsen had
clearly defined and expounded what the law was.
Whether tho law polite or impote, II was not
member further said that in consequence of the adop
tion OF the Declaration Of Paris advantage would DC
given TO neutral carriers the ships OF
NO doubt such would be the case but ne ao not agee
with the honorable member that the effect must be en-
tirey to put stop to the trade Of begerent seeing
Power. and especially whers she was mistress
Of tho seas, her aeet. as in former wars
would effectually protect her mercantile marine.
s,s pointed out By The honorable gentleman mould doubtless
fot0so But and dliod hoped TO be the stronger
r.s a. Gnd ne a .s s;s ne country msea SHRINK e J50s ~
the same time of protecting oar ogn (iear hear) The
made by the Declaration Of Paris in favor Of
as s terms denoted concession desired BY and
neutras The policy of that change no would not dscuss
indeed. II would DO rather late to do so and he under
stood the honorable member contend rather that this
country ought to further and give universal protsc
tion than to find fault with its having been party 70
from capture which the honorable member desired
would not be concession to neutrals at ALL
(hear hear)-nsutrals did not desire Il they
supposed monopoly which the honorable member had
pointed out Sucha change in the las. as 'ooud aoe az
enemy IN s Of % Ss,y 4, sa Ss S''ss s Goods c Sg =
his ships coud not only teyond anything ,ch'ch nGa
Jeen proposed and discussed in modern times o scoWd
tine code which a, far as he ,oas a,oare had been suggested
by the ,orers on International law He did not say that
because proposition was novel IT was not entitled 70
serious consideration but the subject was certainly one
calling for much deliberation especially when II was re-
membered that nothing could follow from mere eA-
preston Of opinion BY that House. wna!ever was
ment or Cabinet but by the concurrence OF al
those nations which were, or aspired TO be, pow;
erful at sea, and which had consequently an equal
interest in tho subject with ourselves Hear hear.
He ought apologize the House for having touched
upon the question Of policy WHILE 50 far as the question
eved him tho necessity Of making any heightened
remark. He had in point Of fact abandoned one part
of his proposition and had shown no good reason tor
calling upon the government to take any action on tne
other.
Sir G. c. LEwIs-The question which has been raised
tonight is Of first rate Importance (aear hear) II
would be of great importance to country which has
not a powerful national navy and vast mercantile
marine but England, situated as she is it Is Of
paramount Importance that this question should
hear) I trust that, whatever may be the result
of this debate-whatcvcr may be tho fate OF the
foe %eGn Ivsrpoom~s Tsos' shsA not come 70 any
ptate conclusion Of which may hereafter have
% the
national maritime law affecting the rights OF belge.
rents and neutrals is dchnod and unsatisfactory ana
calls for tho carly attention Of her Maestys govern
mont" Tho terms Of his motion are az general as is
possible frame them. They bring under review the
whole state Of international maritime law as ahectng
tho rights of beigerents and neutras Hcnce they in
question OF the neutral flag covering the ensmys goods
property on the sea. But the honorable member, in
stead Of making his spooch coexsnsive with tho terms
Of his motion, directed his arguments TO one single
point vis that the enemys flag Should cover the enensys
goods That the whole extent OF the speech which he
made and the recommendation which he offered TO tho
House. - neLrn.f
property should be respected. CIear, hear.
Sir G. c. IEwIs-Preeisely-that the private property
Of tho onomy should not be taken out Of the encmys
ships By the Declaration Of Paris neutral goods are
sacred under tho cnemy's flag
Mr.. BRrGHr-And the ship also.
SIR 8; n soSa ,s % wsI ss The - goods
under the cuomys fag Such is tho proposition
of the honorable member for Liverpool, and.
correct course as this House s concerned would
have been for the honorable gentleman 10 move an Al
dress to the Crown requesting her Majesty 20 use ner
the principle that the cnsmy's nag should cover the
enemy ship and goods maxim OF inernationa mari
time law. That would have brought the question which
the honorable member has argued rly under the cons
dernon OF the House. but at present any gentleman who
thinks for instance that prvateerng ought TO De con
ought TO be repeaed-who, In short, entertaBs views
entirely opposed those which have been advanced to-
Win So n
speech, but / approve your resolution, and
therefore shall vote for it," iHear, hear.y seems
therefore, TO that II the honorable gentleman succeed
ed in carrying his resolution he would not necessarily
eivs effect to his opinions. Tho governments would say
not bound by the speeches OF individual members
We ust look the general terms OF resolution and net
accordingly. Therefore say, II he wished to establish
this principle the ship and goods OF enemy 10
be respected by the belligerent he ought TO have
embodied that proposition IN distinct resolution and
submitted IL 10 the House, he would then have raised
distinctive issue on which We might have acted (iear
hear) But must say that the proposition which he has
submitted is unfair butmos tnccnenert have no
doubt he thought it convenient mode OF raising
The question and perhaps when ne wss came ,ss 70 e 70
lcok It in the face and therefore preferred to
take refuge in general,ies; but must repeat, Gun
hardly conceive a inconvcniont course than that
which has been adopted in bringing avery imports pr
cipe under the consideration OF tho House. Wc sir
there have been many occasions on which the rights o.
neutrns and begerenis with regard to maritime war
have been agated in Europe In the first place there
was the celebrated armed neutrality Of 1850 but the
principles laid down in that ycar by Russia and con-
Cured in by other Powers entirely confined 10 The
faq corsra enemys goods, and also mainly think, 70 tie
question Of bockudes; but feel confident that u any
Gentleman viii examine the negotiations, the conven
tons OF that period, he will not find single
trace OF the principle that tcLSe,e'u is MOTH Jep7
ied 10 coptre tn ships goods u his enemy. In 1900
the question again revived and again there is
total absence OF such an assericn and the reason rs
perfectly obvious henrmed neutrality OF both those yenrs
was repre- the interests OF ncutras. Neutrns
have no interest in the principle which the honorable
member recommends TO the acceptance of the House
Ono honorable gentleman, indeed, spoke, treated
tins question involving the interest Of neutrals;
but IL is impossible conceive greater mistake. Neu
trails they have any iatercst have interest
directly the opposite II they wished 10 become the
riers OF the world they would naturally wish that the
ships goods OF the belgerents should be exposed to
risk Therefore, say that neutral such, have in
the question Then there l. another reason why
on these the armed neutrality did not start this
question. These who advised that state OF affairs
persons acquainted with the principles and elements OF
international law; but must be permitted, with great
respect tho honorable gentleman, To say that his
speech seemed to overlook the most fundamental doc
rines OF international law, because you may make
pact with neutral state that in time Of you will
spect the neutral flag. For instance, have
pact with France and other continental Powers that wc
will act the principle that the neutral flag the
enemy goods so that II wo were TO seize American
goods under French flag should be guilty Of vic
atiou OF engagement with France Therefore by irtsrBd
to,,di you make cdid engagement. wh resps 10
Ge Iri~iple that he ntrol fog emys good bat
hSs you 90 % vth ndtion, ,c1r puts dn end % all
treaties and engagements IN The nature Of treaty (Hear,
hcar) Therefore IL we had unfortunately short tQe
ago found ourselves involved in hostities with the UNI