The New York Herald Newspaper, March 25, 1862, Page 4

IMPORTANT FROM EUROPE. \Arrival of the Hansa and the Mails of the America. THREE DAYS LATER INTELLIGENCE The Questions of the Union Blockade, Belligerent and Neutral Rights at Sea, and the Invasion of Mexico in Parliament. Lord John Russell Admits the Efii- ciency of the Blockade. He Advocates a Separation of the North and South, a General Peace, and the Gra- dual Abolition of Slavery. Mr. Horsfall, Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright on Free Trade During War. The Palmerston Cabinet Deny that a Neutral Flag Covers Contrabands of War. * Phe Treaty of Paris Not Binding in Case of War Between the Contracting Powers. Design and Progress of the Invasion of Mexico. GARIBALDI'S SPEECH ON ITALIAN AFFAIRS BX-PRESIDENT MIRAMON IN SPAIN. The Papal Question in the French Legislature. Revolutionary Disturbances in Turkey and Greece, &e., &e., &e. ‘The steamship Hansa, Captain Von Santen, from Bre- mea, via Southampton on the 12th inst., arrived at her dock at this port at half past four o'clock yesterday afternoon. Her dates are three days later than those per the America. ‘The mails of the America reached this city from Bos. ton yeaterday evening. Our files of journals ‘ere dated to the 8th instant. The points of the news , have been fully anticipated by our telegraphic reports from Halifax, published in the Hematp on Sunday and Monday, the 234 and 24th instant. ‘Cabinet Council was held on Saturday,, March 8, at the official residence of the First Lord of the Treasury, in Downing street, London. A medium sized paddle wheel yacht is to be built for the service of the Queen. THE AMERICAN WAR QUESTION. Debate on House of ‘THE UNION BLOCKADE. Im the House of Commons, on the 10th of March ,Lord ‘who was electod to use the title of Camp- the Blockade in the British Bony rise te ¢ oy ruse to Call attention to the blockade of the ports of of America, and to move an ad- dress for of any correspondence upon the subject which might have taken place since the date of the pa pers which had been Jaid before Parliament. The aviie and learned lord said that bis object was not to deciare ‘that the blockade ought to be raised, or any means to be adopted with that view, but to show that towards one of the belligerents in America—the Southern, or insurrec- tionary Power—we had assumed an attitude which sus- Pended, if it did mot violate neutrality, and that to réstore that neutrality some further action was ne- cessarv. Our attitude towards that Power arose out of a despatch addressea by tne noble ear] at the head of the Office to Lord Lyons on the 15th of February. About July or August last we appealed to the government at Richmond to induce them to acorde to the prin- ciples of public law waich were laid dwn ty the grat Foo. er: at Paris in the year 1856. ‘Ine negetiation was conduct- ed by a gentleman of South Carclina, who had the vonfi- nce of cur Consul at \Charleston and’ of Lord Lyons; aud although the Richmond government might have declined to receive the proposition on the ground that they could not hear a negotiator from a Power which refused to rv. ize the they claimed im the society of nations, they did not act upon that feeling, but on the 13th of Au: gust the Congress of the Southern States resolved to em- brace the principles jaid down inthe Treaty of Paris, with the exception of that relating to privateering, which we had not asked thom to adopt. When the lresident communicated this decision to the negotiator, he pointed ‘out that it had been adopted in the sanguine expectation ‘that we should adhere strictly to the article of the treaty which laid down that blockadse to be binding should be effe - tive. The despatch of the 15th of February, which was not called for by any question or any cmergenoy,, sanctioned, ‘on the part of her Majesty’s government, the blockade as it had been carried on at Wilmington and Charleston, when it was notorious that it had been less strict than on any other portion of the soavoard from the north of Virginia to the extremity of Texas. Thus the attitude which we had adopted towards one of the belligerents had been to induce them to make a generous coucession on an understanding from which we seemed to have de periet. ‘Tho cffvet of that despatch clearly was to re- the government of Washington from’ the necessity of maintaining at any part of their coust a more stringent blockade than that which existed at Wilmington and Charieston, to which the nob! 1 bad given his sanc tion. The issue to be grappled with was, not whether the bioekade ought to bave been raised or ought now wo be disturbed, but whether it was mecessary to give to its weakest parts @ conspicuous, isolating, and, as far as could be seen, tuitoas sanction. Of course it might be said that an adequate blockade was maintained at Charleston an Wilmington. That such, however, not the case was practically acknowledged by the federal government whon they sank the stone fleet at Charles- ton , and was further proved by the fact that vessels be- tweon Liverpool and that port were insured against all hazards at fiiteen per cut, whereas fifty per cent would burely covor the risks of & thorough blockade. The de- spatchea of Consul Bunch, printed in the papers submit- ted to Purliameut, alforded uniform and conclumve testimony of the inefficiency of the blockade at the two nts he bad mentioned. noble lord then read copious extracts from the despatches in question, Ho was far from saying that censure onght to fall upou the government, but he submitted that the facts supported the inference that th id do well to ask government posses: despatches of our Davai ofticers explain proceedings which to ment must Other wise se « cluded by moving for ® copy of any correspondenci the subject subsequent to the payers which bad b to the House. rery. (Hear.) flo d vente the raisin the blockade, because he tought that uv tating eircumstanc’s jt would be q anf and would inevitably bring about cotiis war and the cruisers of the United 0 highly approved tne policy © he should be sorry (0 would Jead to any Lunt strugyling for ine) the Northern States were © iy treasure, and he «i their recent sider that the subjugation of th (Hear, bear.) to maintain their jude) and when once that wa whether a recognition measure which we ough to pat an end to the war He hope " dow! member would mu otion . fodéng that, that the subjort woula bo taken « pets (ord ow that Fide of tho Louse avi Itvesmiiant quite ndu > the rig In support of this view the hat further correspondence show that the ye a argument, but also that it ES gene P- moons s Sat, aw xenre when he brought forward Pro . (Hear, hear.) With respec state this par icomtina 0 the biockade—and I shal! not | affairs did not exist, ay ey detain your lordships by entering into any other—it 2 was, of course, a matter of serious consideration with her Majesty’s government from time to time in what man- ner they id act. There are various questions con- nected with a blockade which they had to consider. The first was, whether there was sufficient authority fer in- Stituting it. Lord Stowell says that a blockade must be the act of asovereign authority. This was theact of the President of the United States, who on the 19th of April issued a proclamation declaring that the blockade was bout to begin, and that act was foliowed by armed ships of the United States blockading the se- yeral ports and warning vessels off the coast. Therefore there can be mo question as to the authority by which the exisi, Then, with regard to the means which the President, as the organ of the governments of the United States, he was glad of an opportunity of expressing not only his own fi , but those of a majority of his constituents, by saying that he cordially approved the strict line of neutrality that had been taken by the government. (Hear.) “His object in mooting the question was to show which international has employed, of course at first they were very deficient, ok Dut I think that these papers and ener we have = eta cman which had heard show that the government of the Unit has | sat during a whole session and had over by been most desirous so to their squadron andso to | the Fight honorable gentleman now President of 1! A there might be a sufficient force to es- | Board of Trade, consideration. tablish an qfective blockade. It was a matter of great | (Hear, hear.) wearying the House with the importance to them—a vital point of their policy, and | past history of international maritime law, he wodld ro- therefore one cannot t that they use | mind them that antecedently to 1854 there could every means in their power. As early as the | be no question but that privateoring was 16th of July, when complaints were made in| a8 a principle of international law, that neutral some New York newspapers that the goods on board vessels belonging to subjects was not su ficient, I find that they had then thirty-four men- | of & war, of 56,000 tons, with 726 guns and 10,113 men. hea that they had made great efforts to establish an blockade, It might be said, again, at the com- E established, and such as the law of nations cognizes, with several largo ports and many sinallones to watch, there were sure to be many irregularities in the conduct of it, Yet we find, generaliy speaking, that there bas been an intention to station off the ditfe- rent ports, and that ships have been stationed there. ‘Thus the blockade of Charleston was effective on the 11th iagara; Pensacola was blockaded on y; the blockade of the Mississippi was eflective on the 26th or 27th of May, and Savannah was blockaded on the 28th of May, each port with a suiticient number of ships for the purpose. The noble lord says that tho blockade of Charleston was interrupted on some day in May; but he himself read a letter in which it is stated that the blockade was renewed. by another ship on the 6th of June, There was also an account of another ship being added on some day in July or August, and there is no reason to suppose that there had been no ships-of-war before that port, and the whole ques- tion that arises is as to the interruption of the biockade between the 15th or 23d of May and the 4th of June. If any ship had been taken at that time into @ prize court it might well have been argued by the owners that there was an interruption, and that no expressing the views of her y's eae, ‘The. President of the Board Trade the satisfaction of seeing an order in Council issued which he would read an ex- tions :— 1. That privateering is and remains abolished. 2 That the neutral dag covers enemy's goods, with the ex- ception of contraband of war. ‘That neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of ‘war, are not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. 4. ‘That blockades, in order to be binding, must be effec. tive—that was to say, maintained by a force ‘sufficient really to prevent access to the coust of the enemy. 1b was right to say that nearly every other Power afterwards gave in its adhesion to the declarations of Paris except the United States of America. Assuming the above to be mow acknowledged maritime law, the question was, what would be its effect in the ovent of war? Ge ‘The uext question was, what had been its effect in time of peace? (Hear, hear.) Ship- ineffectual hear of it would be in the American prize courts. When ‘rom into pocorn that could afford to pay @ much @ merchant vessel had been taken into one of thoge | owners and importers of produce were at men of courts it would be quite competent for the owners common s8nse, and they would not ship a si package plead that there was no effective blockade, and that, | of goods in a vessel liable to seizure if they the op- therefore, the vessel not having broken it, eould not bo | portunity of shipment in a vessel not ‘so liable. (Hear, \ ly condemned. No one will say that there are not | hear.) Toe operation of the law in the event of a war, r in America quite competent to decide questions of | say with Franco, would be that every British ship ‘must international law. who have inherited the pre- | belaid by. When merchants had the sour of shane cepts and doctrines of such men as Chancellor. Kent and | goods 11 vessels those neutral vevsels would obtain would navy, Ido not find that there has been any real discussion in | higher rate of wages than had ever been or ever the prize courts of america, except, perhaps, in one or | could be paid in the royal navy. (Hear, hear.) two instances, with respect te the efficiency of the block- Such was the result of the present law in the ade. 1 must confess to the noble lord that the many | event of war, and it, was & most serious matter to inatances which are given by Consul Buach and others | the shipowner, thé manufacturer and the country of the . But what had been alrcady the offect of the me time of peace? Those who were acquainted with a view to ing course of the go- the shipping interest knew what had covurred upon vernmont should be. But, in saying that many vessels | mere rumor of a war a short time ago, when it was ive run the blockade, I tink there. is igrest ‘xaggers. | thought England might be involved in the war between tion, and there is great misapprehension when sts of | Frapce snd Austria ‘in Italy. Howover improbable the veszels are given which are, in fact, vessels belonging to | Tumor might be, yet the moment it reached distant ports, therm ports, which run out of creeks and creep throw such as Canton or Calontta, & second clase Arserican ves- shalow waters in order to reach another part on the same | sel was able to get AS doe a fifty per cent higher rate coast. ‘These are mostly small vessels of from fifty to three | (han a first class Britis! ship could obtain. (Hear, hear.) hundred and fifiy toms, and it is stated in one of there letters | ‘This was a very important point, and he wus umxious to tha’ they cannot be ded as vessels of such size and im- | refer to the evidence of Uhree witnesses examined before portance c#'o arguethat the blockade was insficient which | the Select Committce on Merchant shipping. Mr. Allan toescape. Your lordsbips know very well | Gilmour, one of the largest shipowners in the world, that in 1806 the government of this ‘announced a | said thatthe stipulation of the Treaty of Paris would to British ing if Great Britain were at war, it was evom now vory pre- judi¢ial to the British shipowner. The very rumor of ‘a war so enhanced the rate of insurance on goods by Britis ships that American and other foreign ships had a decided preference. Being asked to suggest a re- medy, Mr. Gilmour said the only remedy was to have an international law te do away with captures entirely. The next witness was Mr. Beazley, an extensive of Liverpool. He was asked whether he had himself sut- fered by competition with a foreign flagy Mr. Beazley replied that he could give a very strong case. He had two ships in China in May,1869. One had been built pu to beat everything afloat. He said to the builder, **Build me a ship that will beat any mortal thing atloat—(a laugh)—to bring bome the first cargo of ta.” He had another skip at Foo.chow-foo. Just at this mo- ment there was some talk about the Savoy and italiau business. There were two American ships at these ports , and the English merchants were so afraid tu ship their toa operate very projtidwiall nce to another, entirely es- caping the blockade. But would that have justified either America or any other neutral Power in saying “This blockade is ineffective, and we will not acknowledge it, and we require you togive up the vessels which you have seized for breach of blockader” It certainly would not baye justified such a course. But there is another consideration. Hasthe Southern coast had a free and uninterrupted communication with Europet Hawe your lordships heard that cotton has arrived in is usual quantitics here, and that the manufactures of Great Britain and France have arrived freely at the ports of the States which are now in a state of civilwar? On the con- trary, the intelligence which we have received shows shat there has Bo such uninterru intercourse, taut that great inconvenience has ben suffered by the inhabi- tants of these Southern States, owing to the existence of that blockade which is said to be cive. On the inthe British ships that they determined to ship iu the elficiency of the tiemeahee Aeatahen thaaneeld the American ships. yy paid» higher freight in those the law officers of the Crown; and after having done so I | Sbipsrather than take the British ships, bocause the Americans would not be subject to capture. In the case ot Fogiand mixing herself up wx any Continental law, Mr. Beazley stated that the law,as laid down by the Convention of Paris, throw at once all tho trade into the handsof the Americans or neutral flags. He added that the law should, in bis opinion, go # step further and let the ship be covered as-well as the cargo. The last wit- nees to whom he would-refer was Mr. Graves, of Liver- pool, formerly chairman of the Shipowners’ Association, and who was appointed a Royal Commissioner to mquire into lights and light dues. Mr. Graves confirmed what had been stated by the previous witnesses, that in case of & European war British sbippiug would, wo @ very great, extent remain at home unem- ployed. He added that we must either go back aud reverse the policy that the flag covers the vargo, ur we must go forward and place the ship under the same category as the cargo, and make both tree from capture. Mr. Graves said that he ouly regretted that the British government had allowed one day to elapse without a:- ing the oiler of the American goverument wo make all private property {ree irom capture at sca. They bad been told that this question was of great nativoal imn- portance, not aflecting merely our shipping, our com- merce, or our manulactures; i. that opuiou ho entirely agreed. It was 4 question of the most vital impurtaace. ln case ot war, ships would require @ convoy , aud would not that convoy be much better employed in lighting the enemy? (Hear, bear.) Aga question of fipaace the mat tor was o very gave importance, and one to which the wrote the despatch to Lord Lyons, stating that Her Majesty's government. howev pI aswumsing that tha nlockade 1s -dniy oeiiand und sise tent number of ships ts stationed amd remains at the enirauce of 4 port suficient realty to prevent acess to it or tocreate an evident danger of enioring or leaving it, and that these ships do not voluntarily perusit ingress or egress, the fact {hat va Hons ships may have successfully eseaped through 1 will not of itself prevent the blockade irom being an eflective one by inter law. ‘This was the deliberate opinion of her Majesty’s govern- ment on the subject. 1 cannot give the papers to which the noble lord reters, on the very grouzd on which be asks for them. He says, perhaps there may be papers that may show the blockade he thinks inellective may really have been effective. There are no such papers there are no papers that can maxe the case stronger for the government than those which have been given: th: government is willing to leave your lordships to judge the case from the whole effect of the papers that have been already printed. As to any representations from the government of France thet it considered the block ade inefiective, 1 must state that no such communica- tion bas ever been made to her Majesty's government, The noble Lord has asked whether the government of the Southern States acknowledges the second and fourth artirles of the Declavation of Paris. It has declared that it dors acknowledge them. We have entered into no engaye- ment with that government. It ia our dutyto see that the Declaration of Paris ia agreed to independently of any such — ee ee oe ene oe eee cellor of tue Exchequer, ho thought, might direct world.” 1 “Bibalt? Tinve Webel very sorry Pog ‘aivention with advantage. He Pace go into the ced circ . oe 4 > ge | subject as a question of humanity, thor much might forced by circumstances to come to @ diet. | te said (rot that poiut of view. "(Hear bear.) But it ent conciusion. It would have been a great misfor- tune if, owing (© circumstances, we shoult havesthought ourselves obliged to take a course in such a quarrel that would have made us become partisans either of the North or South. (Hear.) It was my object and the object of every member of her Majesty's goverament, from the very beginning of the conilict, to wateh the course of events, with the determination to act in an im. partial spirit and preserve a strict neutrality between the two Powers. Sometimes our course, as wien we ac knowledged the Southern States as belligereute, may have been considered a8 having an injurious eifect on the North. On the other hand, when forbidding privateers to carry their prizes into any British port, it may have been considered to have had an eilect unfavorable to the South. But we did not cousiler the tendency of these acts. (Heer, hear.) We only considered whether they wore just in’ themselves—(hear, hear)—and becoming the character of this country. If we had been obliged wo take part cither with one side or the other, it would have been a misfortune and calamity for the world, for the poople of America especially. Ihave lately recetred an interesting account given by a person sept by the federal government to superintend the negroes of some plantations on certain points in the South. He describes the condition of there negroes, their readi ness. to work, their usefulness, thar aceable ond generally good’ disposition, He says, though he did everything he conld to remove the eflect of false and ca- Jumniou# assertions againet the fedoral government and President Lincoln, yet he cautiously abstained from any incitement to the slaves to rise against their masters. But if, by any misfortune, it had become necessary to vindicate our honor, if we lad been obliged to take part my hope of seeing an end tothe system of aceable means would have vanished. In North would have proclaimed a general emancipation of the slaves; and though it is our earnest with that tho sin and st 4 there ix nothing we should regard with greater horror U the ed vasta:iom, the burnings, the murder, and pillage among G pope: ion of 4,000,000 of slaves that, in the name of liber- Zo the neyiro, might have ven perpetrated. (Hoar, ber.) Wo trost that when this contest ends it will end in away a8 to leave the emancipation of the negro pos- sible to be effected by gradual and 2 means, and that the slavea ef Ameria may, in time, take their place as Sree laborers without les of Uife or destenction of the pro perty of their maaters. It 18 not owing to those masters that eavery now exists in the Suuthera States of Amo. rica. It isan inheritances they derived from this coun- try. ( L trust was said by many—aud some of bis honorable friends were of that opinion—Uh, make war as calamitous as you can, aud you would then be able to bring it to a speedy conclision.”” (Hoar, hear.) But be was bappy vo think that was not the ioeling of those whom he hud the honor tw represent, of the cuuntry, nor of her Ma- jesty , as appeared froin the order in council which be had just read. (Hear, hear.) Her Majesty there declared wus to iessen as much as possibile the ar, hoat)—and to restrict ts operation to the regularly organized jorceso the country, it was nut her intention to issue letters of marque." (Hear, hear.) Neither was that the view taken by the governinent who issued thatorder, nor the view of the noble lord (Pal merston), whom, afew yours ago, he, am ng others, cordially welcomed to Liverpool, aud he should be proud to welcome him there . (Hear.) Upon that it was the very year m which the Declaratior bad been signed—the noble lord dilated upon that sub- ject to the assembled tnerchants of Liverpool in glowing language, and made use of these words:— " entive to other intere great s ist ry ‘af that conilict (the Russian war) ty al t_ war. I cannot he ing that these relazaviens of former doctrines, which were established in the beginning of the war, practiced Curing its continuance, and which have been since sauitied by formal engagements, way perbaps be still further ex. tended—(hear, hear) —anet fn the courte of time the principles wear which are applied to hewtitistes by lind way be extended), Without exreption, (0. hostilities by sea—(hear, hear)—and that pricate property ‘shall wo long? be exposed to auyrencion on Pither wide. sof “hear, hear.) If ‘at the ex- ample of jorine country was ever duals; itis the coniiets of at decide the great con desired ‘these cunt! ia acting under the orders and directions of the respective States. (Cheers.) Now he (Mr. Horsfall) desired no better tea- timony than those orders in Council and that admirable speech. (Hear, hear.) He had heard it seid that naval oflicers would not like to be deprived of their priae money,aud that thore would be no encouragement to young men to enter the navy if the course which he was advocating should be adopted. But he would not insuit our naval officers by supposing for one moment tha they wore actuated by such unworthy motives. (Hear.) He could speak for those whom he had the honor of know- ing, and it was a libel upon every one of them to say so. (Hear, hear.) They all know that, so far from ° being a difficulty in obtaining officers for the navy, there were hundreds and thousands who could not get inte it. (Hear, hear.) Bat, oven supposing that her Majesty’s naval officers were actuated by such sordid motives, was not prize money given up in 1866? (Hear.) Well, they wero told by many that there was no use in entering into those treaties because there would end of treaties when war broke out. But ithin three montl this civil wai lings between i nsent to & peacea- States that might both be power- th vory diferent odueation ent Hatires, but who may ha hom a career of prosperity for centuries to shalt bo the case 1 she oice above all Unet contest we hia thing to wh have constantly pr bos ame time been a course of covets | be an eae, hear.) this would not De an ordinary treaty; it would be the Lod #N then witharew his motion same ae the Declaration of Paris; it would not be abro- gated by war, but would be an agreement as to the mode in which war should be carried on, (Hear, hear). Hi came appeared to many the inost diffi cult part of the question, namely-—the subject of biock Sea=Kngiish ade. He deeply regretted that he was absent, owing to 5 indisposition, on Friday night, and that head noi had In th ineus om the Jith of March, Mr the privilege of listening to the interorting debate which Boney ata, in rising ail attontion W the present Atate | then took placo, On the subject of the blockade of the (maritime international Jaw, said be was not iniifor. | Southern ports he felt bound to say that the sentiments cut to the difLeulty or the responsibility of enbmitting | of thosg whom he had the boner to reoresont wore jn (Ger, hear.) They would broken out in America, of Paris with seemed that ultimately very words ofthe Declaration of Paria; but subsequently the French Minister the but pertice to’ that, Convent opinion, make the ultimate acceptai possib support ‘of what he considers as so beneficent to the original reas we 3 therefore mentioned to him what I have likewise ‘communi. ted to the proper: lepartment of United ‘States—the fact that in the ment was undoubtedly. the ‘firs sod that Thad ° rt ter johare been 8 detintes understood Tordahi thatl might Consider the proposition as fused again Une, proposal. of rn Ii private property on the ocean should be protected, Lord _ property ti End Bioglish govermments agreed to accept the declaration ths United States in accordance with the Paris nd appeared thal Tord Rtueeltthooght i Toekt wih the United States ni undertake any engagement wi direct or indjrscks ‘on the internal differences right or wrovg A Cowley had previously inlormed Lord Russell ‘by letter u Mr. Dayton hardly concealed, object ol his governinent, in agreeing 10 was to force the Prive ect ton was the Powers, the Southern States must, as far as loreign Powers were concerned, that government. Again ,on the 234 of August Mr. Adams, in writing to Lord to sign and sealan enga doing to sacrifice the haps of fon the U by the other, The natural efect of such an accom) would seem to-be to imply States might be destrous ab this me to iake «part in the deciaration, not from: amy high purpose or durable policy, with the view of securing the unhappy struggle which fx going on at home. interence would the act itself, The mere toleration of it would se American government ditt not si; the addition of the propesed wor was now leftfor the British government to consider this matter in.a somewhat ci! they seomed to have regarded respondence, and in some question discussed might be that all private property shonid be respected, clearly as he could the view w' genoraily entertained by the (Hear, hear.) Ho was quite aware of the jealousy with which any motion of this kind was viewed by the execu- tive government ; but he trusted the noble lord would ex: cuse him if he ventured to refer once more to the noble lord’s speech, stiinted almost 4 direct invitation to bring before the House. Tho noble lord, on the occasion to which he had already alluded, ended his speech in the to impart to w remeuy of existing evils, We know well that no executive gove est de this question of policy was one of tance: first to last was what he was contending for now, that ‘the ship and the should be put upon the same foot- ing. ( hear. ‘was the statement of Presi- ‘The proposal to surrender the right to, employ privateers is Brofe founded on the princi that private rt of unoffent et ey tates pans should be ‘exempt from the ravages of war. But the proposed surren- der foes litle way Jn carrying out that principle, which equaly requires such private should not be seized or molested by national vessel war. (Hear.) Should the Jeading Powers of Europe concur in proporing, a8 a nuleof international law, to exeumpt private property upon the ocean from seizure by public dr as by privateers, the United States troad ground. + es bear.) Therefore it was not fair to say that the nited States would not give up the right of privateoring. not. pe it up unless the great to ra, ax weil readily meet them upon rs oy Europe were willis the still wider ground thas all gerioate property be free, (Hear.) There was ber \dence a very appropriate letter from in apot COrrespon: the noble lord the which, in anticipation of the civil war which had since » be to invite both rties to act. upon the princi whieh had been laid wn in the second and third articles of the Declaration respect to the rights of neutrals. It America agreed to adopt the Foreign Secretary toKarl Cowley, in a letter from Lord Lyons to Lord Russell stated:— » Seward called day before yesterday, and ane erie tice hums list of Woe Powers which have ac- Faget oo oe Then, on the 20th of July, 186}, Mr; Adams wrote to Lord Russell: informa me “that some time since a roponal tothe Frenth government ener gi hy tne made 1866, with an addition to the first clause, in substance the same with that heretofore pro] Mr. Mason, under instruction vel te of the he received an anawer from Foreign Affairs declining. to consider any objection entertained acalnst i rom the terms of the origini jor reference of it to the other This answer does not, in his mee of his addition im- Ie, and he does not feels if he ought to abandon the amendment plan, until he has reason to despair of suc. hether I roposition, not for Because it was a varia nt, requiring ® not upon that success is not attainable, at least at resent moment. I have therefore ventured to state to yton my beliet that I have that certainty; I have f the government of the conference I the honor to hold with your lordship, allusion having been made to the amendment of Mr. Dayton, I said that thatamend- t wish of my government, That euppased this male ut 8u) iat. ‘acted upon: to which I yourasseni, and toadd inadmissible,” He that the Foreign Minister re, of the American government that 8 to probability of success; contrmed thi senta- oe, Sas tar cot ama coneerued a: am fectiy correct.” Tia} that the American, French pres this statement is nm, necessary the agree> Her Majesty's government does not intend thereby to ich shall have any bearing, now prevailing the United States. He was not now saying whether the noble lord was in insisting upon these words, as Lord at | from M. Thowvenel that the n the convention, that,as the government '° zed by the foreiat argu ‘only government ‘be subject to the consequences of the acta of 1, Said — tof the United States are at last propared ment pure and simple, and by 80 altaining, at least for the pre- a sebich, they have alwaya at- ¢ the moment when t other maratime Powers of the The governm: world would seem to be certain, they are met with a prope- sition from one, if'not more of the parties, to accompany the act with a proceedh d cane, being the makins a part of t the not Ing somewhat novel and anomalous in thie sentation of a written declaration, nob convention itself, but intended to follow: to the etlect that “her Majesty does to undertake any engagement ‘any bearing, direct’ or internal diflerences now prevailing ed States.” Obviously azconsent to accept a particular ion susceptible of eo wide a construction of a joint in- nt, made by one of the parties to {t in its own javor Unie of siguing, would Justify the idea that nome ad- niluge ts, OF may be suspected to be, intended to bo taken iment ¢ United xignature, intend shall “have overnment of bat some small temporary obj an ‘spotball thevalue that might be attached to be to a confession of their own weakne record sh ment are not with all their duties an ign obligations rivet rectproc Kndor it pertectiy equal, amd without equivocation or reser vation o: any kind on any side, then proper seasomfor such an engn Tt were much wiser to put it of until nal each other better, men He was propared tosay that it was better that the he declaration with , because an opening rent light irom that in which in tho course of this cor- re correspondence the He had been anxious to state as ch he believed to be mercial community. , the concluding @bservations of which con- 8 subject following terms: — é Gentlemen, the governmentalavays feels d indebted to the great commercial commuuiies which are kd enough from time to time, tueir suggestions ior the dof wll th without sn ‘may be best ¢al detuiled axsint lated te ) ject ment can be so perfeatly inf tions of commerce as to , to devine those measures i free the industry of the country, and (0 wive Un lopment to commercial eaterprive. (Hear, lv He was aware that in calling attention to this be bad discharged the task only in an imperfect manner, Wut he trusted that the House would aflirm the resolution he intended to move. commerce of the country, and of civilization, humanity and justice. cluded by moving tho following resolution:—-That (be st i rents and neutrals, is unsatisfactory, and cilis for the early attention of government. sker! this in the name of the (Hear, hear.) The honorable member con- of international maritime ax offecting ge. Mr. Conpay seconded the resolution ‘The question having been pat by t Speaker, a short pause enaned, during whieb no member presented him self to speak to the tnotion. At length The ATIORNEY GENERAL rose and addressed the House. He said that after the able manner in which the motion had Beem bronght forward be had expected that before he should have had oceasion fo rise some further discussion on the state of the law as affecting the rights of neutrals would have been raised. ‘The ho scribed the existing state of the law to be tnsatistactory ble member had de in point of policy, amd there could be no doubt that great impor. for, whatever might be the opinions of members of that House, or even of the govern- ment, on the policy of the law, it was impossible jor any one “tute effectually to interpose for an alteration of the law without the concurrence of other States, ‘The honorable member had stated correctly, with the ex- ception, how the law stood previous to the Russian war. It was trie that privateering was an admitted belligerent right, and that enemy's goods under a neutral flag were able to capture and confiscation, Bué the sate ment was not acurcte that neutral under an enemy's flag were alse liahle to capture. Vrobably the hun- orable gentleman had been Jed into error by the terms of the order in Council issved by her Majesty at the com- mencement of the war with Russia, That document ret forth that her Majesty was willing to waive the right of setzing enemy's aehend teron on board a neutral vessel, ‘unless it was coat! of war; and went on to say that it was not ber Majesty's intention to claim the confiscation of neutral property not being contraband of war found on toard enemy's ships. It was, no doubt, just and expedient to isane such o declaration, plainly 7. oa neutrals: whose interests were concerned of conditions on which this country intended to carry on the war; but the honorable member was wrong in the inference he had drawn that previous to that date, by well catablished4n- ternational law, the goods of @ friend on board the ship of an enemy were liable to capture and confiscation. The Jaw on this matter was weil defined and well understood. ‘As long ago-as 1753 the law of nations as affecting the goods of neutrals had been declared in this country on the highest authority. Sir George Lee, Judge of the Pre- rogative Court, Dr. Pani, Advocate General, Sir Dudley Ryder, Attorney General, and Mr. Murray, afterwards Lord Mansfield, Solicitot General, laia down the fol- lowing propositions :—First, the goods of an enemy on board the shi of a friend may be taken. Secondly, the lawful goods of a friend on board the ship of An enemy ought to be rostored, . Thirdly, contraband goods going to the enemy, though the pro- perty of a friend, may be taken as prize, because the sup- plying of the enemy with means which enable him better to carry om the war, is @ departure from neutrality.” ‘The honorable gontleman had next alluded to the Decla- ration of Paris. That declaration involved four propost tions, two of which had reference to the ancient stato of tho law, aud tho other two bore upon the alterations h wore then introduced. The first point of tho De wh claration, that “privateering 1s aud remains abolished was an nddoubted waiver of the belligerent right to issue ‘The second proposition, that, wikk leyiors of marque. int, vin. thal the en Foods? Ths di defined and expounded what the law was. Whethor the law were politic or impolitie, it was not involved in any doubt or obscurity. The honorable member further said that in consequence of the adop- tion of the Declaration of Paris an advantage would be iven to neutral earriers over the ships of a belligerant. jo doubt, such would be the case; but ne did not agree with the honorable member that the effect must be en- tirely to put a stop to the trade of a belligerent. seeing that he. belligerent was a strong naval and especially where she was mistress her it, as im former wars, mercantile marine, 'y ‘or rotected by the neutral was, ri by ry flag a pe reriprete yeni daira be rather late todo so; and he under- 7 as he was aware, dy the writers on international law. He did not say that because a proposition was novel it was pot entitled to serious consideration; but the subject was certainly one calling for much deliberation, especially when it was re- membered that nothing could follow from a mere ex- pression of opinion by that House. Whatever was done must be accomplished, not by a single govorn- ment or Cabinet, but by the concurrence of those nations which were, or aspired to be, pow- erful at sea, and which had congcquently an equal interest in the subject with ourselves. (Hear, hea He ought to apologise to the House for having tou upon the question ot policy, while, so far as the question of law was concerned, the honorable gentleman had re- lieved him from tho necessity of making any lengthened remark. He had, in point of fact, abandoned one part of his proposition,and had shown no good reason for calle upon the government to take any action on the other. Sir G.C. Lewrs—The question which has been raisod to-night is of first rate importance. (Hear, hear.) It would be of great importance to a country which has not a powerful natioval navy and a vast mercantile marine, but to England, situated as she is, it is of paramount importance that this question should recoive a right decision when discussed in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I trust that, whatever may be the result of this debate—whatever may be tho fate of the motion submitted by the honorable member -for Liverpool—we shal not come to any preci pitate conclusion, or one of which wo may hereafter bave Occasion to repent. (Hear, hear.) The honorable gon- tloman has “that the present state of inter- national maritime law. aa affecting the rights of bellige- rents and neutrals, is ill-defined and unsatis! and calls for tho carly attention of her Majesty's govern- mont.’ The terms of his motion are as as it is possible to frame them. They bring under review the ee ere roaming lo fast} aoe tho of belligerents neutrals. in- volve the qeatien of privatecring; they involve the question of the neutral flag covering the "9 goods ; they involve the question of the sanctity on the sea. But the honorable member, in- stead of making his speech coextensive with the terms of his motion, directed his arguments to one single rs flag shculd cover the enemy's it is the wi extent of the speech which he made and the recommendation which he offered to tho House. Mr. acyl cap gee ted Heese Patek private property . (Hear, bear. Sir G. C. Lewis—Precisely—that the private property of the enomy should not be taken out of the encmy’s ships. By ‘the Declaration of Parts neutral goods are sacred under the enemy’s flag. Mr. Brraat—And the ship also. sir G. C. Luwis—Very good; the argument is that the ship should be sacred as well as the goods under the enomy’s flag. “Such is the proposition of the honorable member for Liverpool, and, that being so, it seems to me that the more correct course, as far as this House is concerned, would have been for the honorable gentleman to movean Ad. dress to the Crown, requesting her Majesty to use her influence with foreign Powers for the purpose of maxing the principle that the enemy’s flag should cover the enemy's ship and goods a maxitn of internationat mari- time law. That would have brought the questium which the honorable member has argued 1s ‘rly under the eansi- deration of the House; but at present any gentleman who thinks, for instance, that privatecring ought to be con- tinued, or that the clauses of the Declaration of Paris ought to be repealod—who, in short, entertains views entirely opposed to those which have been advanced to- night—might with perfect ‘iety say to the honorable member for Liverpool, “I do not agree with your speoch, but I approve your resolution, | and therefre shall vote for it.” (Hear, hear.) Bt seems, therefore, to me that if the honorable gentleman sucess ed imcarrying his resotution he would not necessarily give fleet to his opinions. The government would suy ‘we are not bound by the speeches of individual members, we mast look to the gencral terms of a resolution and act accordingly. Therefore, I say, if he wished to establich this principle, that the ship and goods of an enemy aro to be respectod in war by the belligerent, he ought to have embodied that proposition yn a distinct resolution and submitted it to the House; he would then have raised a distinctive issue on which we might bave acted. (Hear, hear.) [But I must say that the proposition which he hax submitted is not unfair, utmost inconvenient. | bave no doubt he thought it was a convenient mode of raixing the question, and, perhaps, when be came to em- body his principle in terms, he was afraid to Jook it im the face, and therefore preferred to take refuge in generalities; but T must repeat, T cin hardly conceive a more inconvenient course than that which has been adopted in bringing «very important pr.n- ciple under the consideration of tho House. Well, Sir, there have been many occasions on which the rights o neutrals and belligerents with regard to maritime wa: have been agitated in Europe. In the first place there was the celebrated armed neutrality of 1780; but the principles laid down in that ycac by Russia and con- curred im by other Powers were entirely confined to the flag covering enemy's goods, ond also marnly, I think, to the ‘question of Vlockades; but 1 feel confident that if any ontieman will exainine the negutiations, the conven- tons and treaties of that period, he will not find a single trace of the principle that @ Lelligerent is notto be per- mitted to capture th: skips or goods «J his enemy. In 1400 the same question was again revived, and again there is atotal absence of such an asgerticn; and the reason ts pericetly obvious, theurmed neutrality of both those years was a representation of the interests of peutrals. Neutrals have no juterest in the principle which the honorable ubor recommends to the acceptance of the Hoose. lonorable gentleman, indeed, woo spoke, treated this question asone involving the interest of neutrals; but it is impossible to conceive @ greater mistake, Ni Urals, so far as they have any iaterest, hav interest disectly the opposite. If they wished to become the riers of the world they would naturally wish that the ships and goods of the beilligerents should be exposed to k. Thereiore, I say that veutral as such, have no in- in the question. Then there is another reason why on these oceasions the armed neutrality did not start this question. ‘Those who advised that stute of affiirs were persous acquainted with the priuciples and elements of international law; but I must be permitted, with great respect $0 the honorable gentleman, to say thal bis speech seemed to overlook the most ‘fundamental doc- of international law, because you may make a com- with a peutral State (hat in time of war you will re- spect the neutral fl For instance, we have now a com. pact with France and other continental Powers that we will act on the priheiple that the neutral flag covers the enemy’s goods,so that if wo were to seize American quod under the French flag we should be guilty of a vie lution of engagement with France. Theresure by interna- tional law you can make @ valid engagement with respect to the primeiplethat the neutral flag covers enemy's goods; bat when you goto war with a iution, war puts amend to treaties and ements in the nature of a treaty. (Hei hear.) Therefore if we had unfortunately a short tu ago, tound ourselves involved in hostilities with the Ui. tod States, and if we had previously had a treaty with the United States recognizing the principle that bellige- rents were to spare one another's marine, the very act of war would have put an end to that treaty, avd st would have been in the discretion of either Power whether or no they would act on that prin- ciple. Suppose you make such an engagement. how are you to rely on the honor of a belligerent observing it, because by the concert of all civilized nations you may alter all te principles of international jaw? It is coivable, for example, that by the general agreement oc nations the principle for which the honorable gentie- man contends might be established , but it is inconceiva- bie that a treaty between two belligerents which is in derogation of the general principles of inter- national law should bind them during the con tinvanee of war. Aa honorable gentleman referred to the Declaration of Paris; he said a way not a treaty but a declaration, and therefore it must be abandyned in the event’ of war, Now, I entirely dispute that inference or statement. I presume he means to say that it is binding in . of neutrals in time of war. No doubt we ave bound wn Me ge! of France or Russia if we are at war with the United States; lit it is an absurdity two F thatif weare at war with France or Russia it would have any binding effect upon us, cxorpt in regard to our honor, (Hear.) All 1 say is, it 48 not Linding by interna- tional law, We are not bound to assert extreme beilt- rights, but without any sueh treaty we might say Wwe will not capture the mercantile marine of an enemy. Well, the honorable gentiemen the member for Honiton spoke with great censure of the Declaration of Paris, and suid we wore in such @ position we must either advanco or recedo—our present position was untenable. Wo had made a declaration restrictive of our power of carrying on a maritime war, and we show find’ tt necessary to violate that engagem Ho objected that before the Crimean war by proclamation we moditied onr belligerent rights, and the honorable member for Livoryool read from’ the proclamation the parsayos which were equivalent to the Declaration of Paris; there. fore, when tho war was ended and the deciaration of neutral ri lie was raised in Paris, it seemed the proper and natural course for our Plenipotentiary to agreo t) this principle which had been consecrated by the exeaa Live government at the commoncement of the war of commencement of the Crimean war,and no voice raised during the continuance of that war? The ‘tleman overlooked that important element. le member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) did not altogether'seem to approve of the modus of the honorable gentleman who made this motion; he seemed to be aware that there was some dif- ficulty in establishing a. binding . engagement __be- two belli 3 and with respect to the case of America, it is said that the government of the United ciple combined with ‘States of America ap- Against it honorable The prove 30 hight the pri tremg’s ships and gods, thy dent they exaltan tat to Southern , States? (Hear ¢ opportunity for the government of Washington, acting on that principle, ¢Hear, hear. There iss war actually, waging. in Risin: oy ‘are 4 volved, why not act on that principle at once? No doubt it is said that the Southerners are rebels, but in the ex- change of prisoners and in the matter of the blockades Ses event treated in all respects as. belli ts. If that be the case, why does not the government of Washington show ita forbearance in not ‘ing ene- my’s goods? (Hear, hear.) J strongly that the exasperation which ‘exists two contending Powers venders any such forbearance utterly im- v The honorable member for Northum- land seems not altogether to trust to this plan of mutual forbearance by belligorents during war, and be proposes that England should call’s congress. (Mr. Liddell-Invite a congress.”’] Well, we should invite the nations of ‘to meet in and thas we should submit to this congress the question raised in to-night’s, debate. But, then, he ‘@ condition wi trictly fulfilled, render the me to anticipate that it is extremely easy to form a upon that condition, and I am afraid if, we wait until @ congress be formed in which the members are wholly regardless of the interests of their own repsective nations, and are devoted to promoting the universal happiness of the world, the meeting must be postponed until the Greek Kalendi fear.) His proposal, no doubt, is a philan- thropi well ‘moant proposal’ but it only shows the diffieulties with which the subject is incumbered, and the- necessity of further consideration before the House can with any propriety agree to tho adoption, I will not say of the honorable member’s resolution, but of a resolu- tion embodying the result of his arguments. As to tne resolution, I really do not know that I fee! any difficulty in saying that any branch of international !aw is illde- fined, because aig branch must be ilid: fined, as it is not law laid down Fans Legislature, and is only to be collected from the decisions of the courts of different conntries, and the writings of different toxt writers. In @ certain sense intornational ‘aw may always be said to be illdefined. At the same tine I really believe that if any part of international law is better de- fined than another, it is the question relating to procedure in seizing different classes of goods belonging to difie-ent nations, and particularly since the Deciaration of Paris. ‘There is another part of the question, upon which the honorable baronet the member for Dundalk much insisted and which 1 know he has often brought forward in dis- cogsion, It ia mentioned in an able pamphlet, which I have no doubt many honorable members have read, and unless it recetves examination is calculated to makoan impression on the mind—I allude to the statement that wo ought to assimilate the laws of maritime to the laws of land warfare. If the House -will per- mit me, I will examine for a few moments wht nee Bie ay Os tae ii that, argument. I 1s said, e place, all private pri is ae spared in land warfare. I must begin by mee! assertion by # most formal: denial. that by the laws of land Prd by the most civilized nations, and according to the most rexnt practice, private property is not respected. Tt ts the convenience of ths be! rent armics. I believe (Poe tt more strict discipline, in which the Sonanees x lee disposed to permit excesses by the soldiery, or in whi there was & greater disposition to spare the which was the theatre of tho war, than the Duke ot Wer. lington’s army during tho Peninsular war. What was the practice of that urmy? When they arrived at a vil- lage at night the proper officor certain number of houses, the roofs respect for private property. | ceasities of war, The army must have food. and the tood must be cooked. They CARRUMOAIEY, fuel with and if they cannot carry fuel 'y must take it. regard to the armies of the French. empire, anybody who has only a super.\ ia! acquaintance with the subject must know the extent to which the system of plunder-- ing conquered countries was carried. Ido not believe thatthere is on record a single campaign in which pri- vate property has been respected. No doubt it is re spected to a greater extent im recent times. in the warfare of the middle ages, Sinoo tho Thirty Years’ tehesihagge eee fag ction IV. there is po quest! we have considerably by the forbearance of belligerent Powors, and more humane and more civilized maxims have prevail- ed. But it is not by treaties or compacts botween bel- ligerent Powers, or by such resolutions as this, that this result has been produced. 1t bas been produced by the genoral softening of manners and the general improve- ment of humanity. Wemay hope that similar results will be produced in maritime warfare, but they will not be producod in the manver which tho honorable momber points ont. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, I deny the, truth of the principle that private property is ‘respected in land warfare, There is another important distinction: between land and maritime warfare, upon which, the whole question may be considered to turn. When you conquer @ country yeu conquer its government, and when you ve conquered its government you have juored that engive by, which the country ean be pl .) Per- haps the language which I naveuacd we y 5 homely; nevertheless, it does express the exact truth. (Cheers.) And if any gentlemen will inquire what hap- hened in Borlin doringtbe French eccupation, after tie battle of Jena, and the Freach conquest by Napoleon, be will learn that the Freach in the Prussian gov- ¢rnment a most efficient engine for plundoring that cous- try. | remember bearing at Berlin in 1832, from persons’ informed upon the subject, that there were still provinces of the, Prussian monarchy in which the breed of agricultural horses had not yet restored. I use that as an {illustration of the way in which the govern- ment raise contributions in @ conquered country. With regard to the sea there is no similar There is mo government which exercisos any power at sea. The sea ix merely the highway of nations, It 18 not the subject of government or of sovereignty, and the only way in which a belligerent can exercise any controt ‘over the property of «nemies fl.ating on the sea is by capture hy means of armed ships. ith regard to tho question of assimilating land warfare and sea warfare, the real as- similation was effected by the declaration of Paris, when this country surrendered the right of private warfare— when this country abolished privateoring. (Choeis. There is the real analogy between land and sea wariare whieh the honorable gentlernan is in search. We do not permit a single private individual to go out on a plunder- mg expedition. We confine the contost to the army of the State. At the same time, we do not restrain that army seizing private property whenever such seizores may be necessary. Wedo not allow a private person to plunder on his own account. We used toatlow him to plunder on his own account at sea by granting let- ters of marque. That principle we bave abandoned; ant niortunately a war had happened with the Unit @ ates, Ido not think it likely we should have had re: course to the system of privateering against the United states ,although they were no parties to the deciaration of Paris. (Hear, hear.) /0vink this country has defint'inely renounced the principle of privaleering, To that extent | am quite ready to agree to assimilate land warfare and mari- Lime wartare ; but Ido not assent to the honorable geo- tleman s proposition that the armed ships of a country are not to be allowed to take merchant ships. With our fleet at Portsmouth or Plymeoth to aflow enemies’ ships:to yo in and out freo from capture seems to me to be carrying the doctrine of forbearance in time of war to an absurd point, (Hear, hear.) It is almost like inter- dieting ourselves from the use of gunpowder or ordnance in time of war. Of course we may, if we think fit, re- nounce the right to capture merchantmen, not by pri- vateers, but by our armed Frauke if the opinion of the civilized world condemned the practice. But, I think Ube Henge would come .to an unwise and premature de- cision if—apon @ vague generality, a more formula whieh really might admit of any construction, but which is !o eoaive a peculiar interpretation from the speoch of tha honorable member who moves the resolution, while it may receive various interpretations from the different persons who support it—they wore to call upon the go- vernment to subscribe to a principle liable to such for- midable and weighty objections. (Hear, hear.) Mr. T. Banine—Sir, | have listened with some surprise to the speech of tho right honorable gentleman the secretary for War. The right honorable gentloman, speaking of tho Convention of Paris, not only referred to the possibility of that Convention being broken through in time of war and necessity, but went further, and said that po compact and no treaty made in peace is binding in ae Now, as I ~ tand pa hg Parts Convention was made in time of peaco inorder to provide against some of the worst evils and horrors of mer Sir. G. C. Lewis (interrupting) —Thie {8 80 important a point that | should feel sorry if any misunderstand! arose. What I meant to say, and what | believe Idi say, was this—that I conceived’ the Declaration of Paria to be binding as between this country and neutrals during the existence of war, and to be equally binding with a treaty, though it was only a declaration; but thas if we we ‘war with any of the parties to that Delar tion, ther other treaties, it would cease to hav binding effect a8 regards that belligerent. «Hear, hear.) Mr. BanixG continued—That convention was made between six or seven States, including the great maritime Powers of Europe. I believe the only great maritime Power of the 1d not inctuded is the United States. Therefore it woul operate in time of war upon them ail excopt the two belligerents. But does the right honora- |-ble gentieman mean to say that we aro now to discuss ‘whother that was & wise provision or not? The Attorney General would not enter into the discussion of the merits of the Paris Convention; he treated it as an accomplished fact, which must be adi to. And, boing now the law as far as regards the govermments that wore partios to it, the question for us is, how will it act uj our mercantile navy and ouf commerce? As 1 understand the tantter, by that eonvention you hold nentrals’ goods harmless whrever they may be found, id you iso make tho neutral flag cover enemy's goods. What, then, would happen in caso of a war be. tween this country and Francey Js it not ovi- dant that the whole of your carrying trade wou'd pass into the hands of ueutralsy (Hear, hear.) You repeated your navigation laws, Ido hot now blame you for thit. j am always for cantion and gradual progress; but when once a step i¢ mado | am not for going back. But in time of war the neutral flag would, 1 repeat, carry all your commerce, and your ships would be placed at a great dimadvantage as compared with every other maritime power in the world. | cannot, therefore. hel» thinking that it isa wise Ling to cousider this ai bieot (0 timawe fey.