The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-27
THE DECLARATION OF PARIS.
THE RIGHTS OF MARITIME NATIONS IN TIME or
wAR-DID ENGLAND SURRENDER HER sU-
PREMAoY ON THE OCEAN?

THE RIGHTS OF MARITIME NATIONS IN TIME or
wAR-pm ENGLAND SURRENDER HER sU-
PBEMAoY ON THE OCEAN,
from the Cork Constitution, April 1871
The defeat OF Mr. BahIle Cochrane's motion IN
the House Of Commons does not end II merely
postpones, the consideration of a most important
subject Mr.. Cocnrane moved, ''That In conse-
quence or conference having been held at Brus-
sells in 1874 on international law and the pro-
posed renewal of the conference at st. Petersburg
this year, o favorable opportunity Ia Afforded to
the country or Withdrawing the Declaration of
Paris In 1850, and thus maintaining our maritime
rights, so essential TO the power, prosperity and
independence OF the Empren The discussion
was felt 70 be untmely ana inconvenient and 1t
is quite clear that the rejection Of this motion
does n OF pledge rhe House OF Commons against
resumption OF the discussion at a more season
able opportunity. Its history ia curious. Pleni-
potentiaries met in Paris In 1856 TO conclude the
treaty which closed the Crimean war. Having
finished this, their only legitimate business,
they discussed several matters In which they mad
no authority to meddle Among the fruits OF
this curious conference was "declaration re
speeding maritime aw,n of which the mist Two
articles were as tollows:-ql. That priyateerlng
covers enemies goods, with the exception OF con
traband OF war. Now II is to be remarked upon
this declaration that 1t Is not treaty. IN any
sense OF the word. 1t was never ratified by The
crown approved by Parliament. IL can
at best be only considered as an expression OF
opinion on the part OF Count Walewski and Lord
Clarendon, or as their idea or what was at the
time the prevailing opinion in France and Eng
land. 1t will be remembered that the doctrines
OF the Peace party were then at their height. But
sent public opln,on-whlcn Il more than doubt
fult is quite certain thar II has no binding force
In legal sense on this country. First, the plenl
potentiaries had exceeded their power
This Is PLAIN from what Lord Clarendon said
shortly after IL had been signed, when defending
In n IL nn n a
ships IL was no easy matter to accomplish, even
with dozen negottators: put Il thousand more
newspapers, II would have been quite impossible
Il we had confined ourselves Within the strict
opportunity when the representatives of the prin.
cipal Powers OF Europe were met together OF
although they did not relate to our quarrel
with Russia, It was most desirable should se
not ratified by the Crown nor approved by Par
lament or the country. 1t may be interesting to
of politics nave thought of this declaration from
time to time. Thus the late LORD Derby said =
Whatever losses Russia NAV have suffered by
this war, whatever endorsements she may have
experienced, hesitate not TO say that they are
more than compensated by tile adoption OF
French and British plenipotentiaries by which, In
the words OF Mr.. PITT, you have saerlnced the
Russia" LORD John Russell thus recognized the
fact mat 1t could not have the force OF a treaty
while ne feared that II might become the basis on
which treaty would be negotiated -" The rules
thar Tree bottoms make free goods, and tire goods
OF q belligerent are safe In neutral vessels
have always been regarded as injurious TO the
supremacy OF maritime countries, and espe
claly to the maritime power OF England.
hope no Minister Will set Ills seal 10 treaty
containing any stipulation OF this kind with
out the most cautious deliberations So recently
as 1871 the subject was under discussion In the
House OF Commons. Mr. ;. Cave spoke OF IL as q
suicidal act on the part OF this country, which
must vita bly, cr puc resources In the event
OF war. Ana Mr.. Disrael thon sac, ''1ne stipula-
tons of the Declaration OF Paris were impotic,
ana tended to cripple or weaken tine strength or
this country; but, 80 Tar as we are concerned, we
must emancipato ourselves from its trammels IN
a regular manr err Lord Colchester thus put
the disadvantage under which II would place
his country in case OF war with maritime
Power which had not signed it:-"If we were at
war with America who had not signed the Declar-
alton, America could seize goods in French or
Russian bottoms: while we. bound by this treaty
could not seize American property III the vessels
OF any nation which was party 10 the treaty
He though 10 was an agreement injurious 10 the
highest interests OF the word.n We Gould
multiply, almost without limit similar ex-
presslons OF dlsapprOval by men OF all par
ties. IL Is quite clear that the statesmen
ef England do not consider this declaration bind
Ing upon us, and that, therefore, In the event OF
statement Of these facts constitutes the very
strongest argument for disavowiDg the document
III we wait until necessity forces Us to take THIS
step our doing 20 viii certainly be open to the
suspicion OF acting unfairly with view 70 our
owp advantage.
At present we would almost appear TO be sail
ing under false colors and IL would be very de-
lions, that an unmistakable declaration on the
subect should be made 10 Parliament.