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

Newspaper of The New York Herald dated March 25, 1862 Page 4
Text content (automatically generated)

Jt IMPORTANT FROM EUROPE. ^Arrival of the Hansa and the Mails of the America. THREE DATS LATER INTELLIGENCE The Questions of the (Jnion Blockade, Belligerent and Neutral Rights at Sea, and the Invasion of Mexico in Parliament. Lord John Russell Admits the Efficiency of the Blockade. He Advocate* a Separation of the North and a?it _ ? a n n.A 30(1(11, a bfnerui rearc, uuu mr urudual Abolition of Slavery. Xr. Horsfall, Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright on Free Trade Daring War. The Paimerston Cabinet Deny that a Neutral Flag Covers * Contrabands of War. The Treaty of Paris Xfot Binding in Case of War Between the Contracting Powers. Design and Progress of the Invasion of Mexico. GARIBALDI'S SPEECH ON ITALIAN AFFAIRS EX-PRESIDENT M1RAM0N IN SPAIN. The Papal Question in the French Legislature. Revolutionary Disturbances in Turkey and Greece, ftc>, &c., &c. Tin nttsmnhip Hansa, Captain Von San tan, from Bream, via Southampton on the 12th inst., arrived at her dock at thia port at half past four o'clock yesterday afternooo. Bar dataa are three dayi later than thoae per the America. The matte of the America reached thia city from Bos ton yesterday evening. Our files of European journals are dated to the 8th Instant. The points of the news hare been fully anticipated by our telegraphic reports from Halifax, publlahcd in the Hbuld on Sunday and Monday, the 23d and 24th instant. A Cabinet Council was held on Saturday,. March 8, at the official residence of the First Lord or the Treasury, in Downing street, London. A medium sized paddle wheel yacht is to be built for the service of the Queen. THE AMERICAS WAR QUESTION. Debet* sn the Blockade la the British Hens* of Lord a?Lord John Russell Give* a Convincing Proof of Its RJBeleaey?Cabinet Hopes of a Reconciliation on the Basis of a Separation Between the Horth and South?A Gradual Abolition of Slavery, but Mo Violence? Maritime Rights at Sea?Argument on the Subject in the Commons?Mentrnl Plage as Protected by the Treaty of THE UNION BLOCKADE, lb the House of Commons, on the 10th of March, Lord onuniKDKi (nao was ?iecica w uee me line ot tirnptoll) rose to call attention to tto blockade of the porta ot the Confederate States of .America, and to move ao address for copies of any correspondence upon the subject, which might bare taken place since the date of the pa pers which had been laid before Parliament. ThanuKe and learned lord aanf that his obj?-ct was not to declare that the blockade ought to bo raised, or any dch to be adopted with that view, but to show that towards one of the belligerents in America?the Southern, or insurrectionary Power?we had assumed an attitude which suspended, if it did not violate neutrality, and that to restore that neutrality some further action was nooeesarv. Our attitude towards that Power arose out of a despatch addressed by tne noble earl at the head of the Foreign Office to Lord Lyons on the 15th of February About July or August tad we appealed to Ike government at BMwed to induce them tn arcade to the principle* of public law which were laid down by the gr-at Fitters at rarii tn the gear 1656. KVir negotiation vat conduced by a gentleman of South Carolina, mho had the d nee of our Consul at}Charleston and of Lord Lyons; and although the Richmond government might bare declined to receive the proposition on the ground that they could not hear a negotiator from a power which refused to recognize the place they claimed in the society of natiens, 'hey did not act irpon that feeling, but on the 13th <jf August the Congress of the Southern States resolved to embrace the principles laid down in the Treaty of Pari-, witL the exception of that reluting to privateering, w hich we had not asked them to adopt. When the I'resider.t communicated this de ision to the negotiator, ho pointed out that it had been adopted in the .-anguine expectation that we should adhere strictly to the article of the treaty which laid down that tAockadse to be t/iruiinc; should b* tffe ties. The despatch of the 16th or Febriary, which was not called lor by auy question or any emergency, sanctioned, on the |Mirt of her Majesty's government, the block.ide as It had beeu carried on at Wilmington and barlcstun, when it was notorious that it hal been less strict than on any other portion of tto seaboard from the north of Vtigiuin to the extremity of Texas. Thu.- the attitude which we had adopted towards one of the b iligerents had beeu to induce them to make a generous concession ou an understanding from which wo seemod to have de parted. The cfl>-et of that despatch eiearly was to release the government of Washington from the necessity of maintaining at any part of their coast a more stringent blockade than that which existed at Wilmington and Charleston, to which the noble earl had given ins sane lion. The isauo to be grappled wim was, not wnemcr in* blockade ought to have been raised or ought bow to he ilmtarbed, but whether It was necessary to gire to lt.? weakest parts a conspicuous, isolating, and, as far as could be -men, gratuitous sanction. Oi course It tnu.bt be Haul that an adequate blockade was maintained at Charleston and Wilmington. That Such, however, was not the ante wan practically acknowledged by the ted*ral government when they sank the stone lleet at Charleston, and was further proved by the fact that vessels be tweoo Liverpool and that port were Insured against all hazards at iltteen per emit, whereas fllty per cent would burly coy or Ui.i risks of a thoiough blockade. The lie?l>?i. In s of Consul Hunch, printed in the pa|*rs submitted to Parliament, altbnh-d uniform and conclusive teelimony of the inefficiency of the blockade at the two points he had mentioned. In support of this view the noble lord then read copious extracts from the despatches in question. He was far fr< m saying thai ensure ought to fall upon the government, but he submitted that the facta supported the inference that further correspondence was required, and ihai the Home would do well to ark for It. further correspondence might show "hat tho government neeaeaacd evidence calculated to re but the despatches of our na\ al efllcers aud Consuls, and it might explain proceedings which to the government of Richinent most etherw 1st seem a averse. The noble lord concluded by moving for a copy of any correspondence on . I.|?.| KihaMlHfll Ul the 1)111,>TS win, b preeenlod to the Ho'inc. Lord Anmukx eald ha bad not anticipated stu b an en y obitkm of the Trent intimity, and attributing it ?* he did, to the condui t 01 her Mnjeaty'aguvernii.tiii, becomd not forbear expr' emiig h>> pm.ou lliat lha p; id'.ii" , dignity and C'Ocilia'i?ii whi< b tbcy hud displayed dHvT?d the approbation of all cla--es in the W^^iry (lloar j fin did not adv> cite the mining of the blockade, liecanaa i.o thought that undor exiallatiag eirciiniataiH' ? it would bn quite uti|?ir<loiinbte, and would Inevitably brim: about collisions between otif a hi pent war and the eritie* ra of the I nit d i?t?n. Ho *o highly approved lb ) policy of tioti-intoi lorain o that baehould bo ao.ry to any gjrsteut inn ig ua'od wb )i would lead to any dlflicnlty in adlicr i.g to It, A At tim* tim* be con/' .< .if lh,il nh rymptilM-f " rr frttit " if / ImlMoyde ifrvpo/tnefor inilr/e? ?'-He admitted tli.il tlia Northern wtaie? v?it? i- t??. I ir Id iikmi, tnnter.iil rrd treaaare, and ho did not nr.derv i vo Uie iniporianco ot their recent ??.?< > ret*; M It'icil, ? ' >>ki th it th? ?u'yM(,o'i?n "f IJn 'It < : on t,n; tLIi\i<j. tllear.heur.) lhe dotcrm.n mm ni iheMriih rn at to* to maintain tUetr ludt'iaiialcucc iu i-1 U ..dmit. d l>, ail, and whea once that w ar th 5 it xva tini'j p> Idur whether a recognition of b .r Indf;."nde; * v.-:. n >t it IMaaore which wo nm,h; t<> r- t . . .tube and to pot an end to the war lie I, |ied H.ui ?? m- aide," 11 fU?t miuntier would niaka a mot n to tliateUm t or, IM?:i (hat, that the aub m t v,o do bo taken np by aomc I. rtJ on that ride o| tlm fi'mro. tail P.te**u?I auitc mil/ "> the r gl t f the h bit - NEW I lord to coll into question the conduct of the government with reapact to the blockade, nor, indeed, kbould 1 complain it any aobla lord were to call into question the whole of their conduct with respect to the unfortunate differences which have taken place in America, for I am convinced not only that that policy is founded on reason and can be justified by argument, but also that it is generally approved by the country. (Hear, hear.) With respect to this particular question of the blockade?and I shall not detain your lordships by entering into any other?it wae, of course, a matter of teriout consideration with her Majesty's government from time to time in what manner they should act. There are various questions con nected with a blockade which they bad to consider. The first was, whether tbore was sufficient authority fer instituting it. Lord siiowell says that a blockade must be the act of a sovereign authority. TAu was the act qf the President of the United States, w ho on the 19lh of April issued a proclamation declaring tliat the blockade was about to begin, and that act was fol'owed by armed ships of the United States blockading the several ports and warning vessels off the coast. Therefore there can be no question at to the authority by which the blockade exists. Then, with regard to the moans which the President, as the organ of the government of the United States^ has employed, of course at first they were very deficient, but 1 think that these papers and everything we have heard show that the government of the United States has been most detirous to to augment their squadron and to to employ their thift that there might be a euficient force to establish an effectsce blockade. It was a matter of great importance to them?a vital point of their policy, and therefore one cannot doubt that they would use every moans in their power. As early as the lfith of July, when complaints were made tn some. New York newspaper! that the blockading squadron was not sufficient, 1 find that they had then thirty-four menof tear, oj 56,<000 tone, with 726 gunt and 10,113 men. That shows that they had made great efforts to establish an effedite blockade. It might be said, again, at the commencement that the blockade was too extensive, and that it was impossible that so extensive a blockade should really be efficient; but we must recollect that we ouraelvce in our American war instituted a blockade or 2,000 miles of coast, and the difference between 2,000 1111lee ana 3,000 miles is not so great as to authorize us to make any objection to the blockade on that account. But in a blockade of 3.000 miles of coast, although it is such a blockade as we ourselves should have established, and such as the law of nations recognizes, with several large ports and many smallones to watch, there were sure to be many irregularities in the conduct of it. Yet we find, generally speaking, that there has been an intention to station ships off the different ports, and that ships have been stationed there. Thus the blockade of Charleston was effective on the 11th of May by the ship Niagara; Peiisacola was blockaded on the 13th of May; the blockade of the Mississippi was effective on the 2<ltli or 27th of May, and Savannah was blockaded on the 2Sth of May, each port with a sufficient number of ships for the purpose. The noble lord says that tho blockade of Charleston was interrupted on some day in May; but be himself read a letter in which it is stated that the blockade was renewed by soother ship on the bill of June. There was also an account of another ship being udded on some day in July or August,and there is uo reason to suppose that there had boeu no ships of war before that port, aud the whole question that arises is as to the interruption of the blockade between the 15th or 23d of May and thd 4th of June. If any ship had been taken at that time into a prize court it might well have been argued by the owners that there was an interruption, and that no blockade existed; but that dees not affect the general question of the blockade of the southern roast of America. And let it be remembered, above all, that if there were an ineffectual blockade the last place in which we should hear of it would be in the American prise courts. When a merchant vessel had been taken into one of thuge courts it would be quite competent for the owners to plead that there was no effective blockade, and that, therefore, the vessel pot having broken it, eould not bo legally condemned. No one will say that there are not judges in Americt quite competent to decide questions of international law?judges who have inherited the precepts and doctrines of such men as Chancellor Kent and Justice Story?-quite competent to pronounce judgment according to law, aud who, 1 believe, would not have departed from the law in tneir decisions in such cases. But J do not dud that there has been any real discuseion in the prize courts of America, except, perhaps, in one or two instances, with respect te the efficiency of the blockade. 1 must confess to the noble lord that the many instances which are given by Consul Bunch and others of the vessels which have run the blockade Induce me to consider the whole of this question with a view to deciding what the course of the go vernmont should be. But, in saying that many vessels itave run tue mocsaae, i think there is groat exaggeration, and (here is great misapprehension when lists of vessels are given which are, in fact, vessels belonging to fhr Southe>n port>, schich run out of credos and creep through thai'out waters in order to reach another port on the same. <-ocat. These are mostly email wads of from fifty to throe hundred andffiy turn, and it is stated in one of then letters rha'they cannot be regarded as vessels of such si.e and importance cl to argue that the blockade was in fficent which allowed them to escape. Yrnir lordships know very wi ll that in 1806 the government of this country announced a blockade extending trom Brest to Dunkirk, hut during that and other blockades which we instituted on the ?ench coast there were many coasting vessel* which went from one port of France to another, entirely escaping 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 to give up the vessels which yoii have soized for breach of bloekader" It certainly would not have justified such a course. But there is another consideration. Has the Southern coast had a free and uninterrupted communication with Europef Have your lordships heard that cotton has arrived in its usual quantities here, and that the manufactures of Great Britain and Prance hare arrived freely at the ports of the States which are now in a date of cisnl warf On the contrary, the intelligence which we have received shows that there baa beeu no such uninterrupted intercourse, but thai (rreat inconvenience hat Gen suffered by the inhabitants of these Sc.utkern Stales, owing to the existence of that blockade which is said to be ineffective On the question of the eificiency of the blockade it was desirable to consult ihe law officers of the frown; and alter having done so I wrote the despatch to Lord Lyons, stating thai;? Her Malesty's government, however arc of opinion that, assuming that the blockade is duly mulled, end also tbat a ntirnb-T >.1' ships is talioDci.'and remains at the entrance of a port sufficient renhy to prrrent iirmw to it or to create an e\ id< nt danger of euo-ring or leaving it, sad that Ibeee shipdo not voluntarily p-m..' ingies* or egrr?, the fact that varlons ships may have successfully escaped through 11 will not of Itself prevent the blockade lrcae being un efiecUve one by international law. This was the deliberate opinion of her Majesty's government on the subiect. I cannot give the pupem to which the uvblo lord refers, on the very ground on which he asks for them Heajys. i>erb.\ps there may be papers thai may show the blockade bo thinks ineilective may real!v have been ode-olive. Tlmre ure no such natters there are no paper* that can Mi" the cane stronger lor lh" government than those whi> h have beon givuu: th fcOV?'runi"iit is willing to loave yuur lordships to judge the case from the whole oSect or the |?i[>ora thai have been already printed. as to any representation* from the government of France that It considered the block ade ineOective, 1 most state that no anch communication has ever Itecn mail* to tier Majesty'? government, 't he noble Lord lias asked whether the government of the .-Southern Stat< s ackn- wledg. a the serontt and fourth ankles of thr !> lai atom of I'arit. It ha. ilnlared t hut it Oo>s thkvaseitdjjt 'hem. lie ha r- entered into no rngaymen' irnh that gtnttmmt.nl. It it our doty to ire that the iMelara'xon *J I'arit it ogr'/d in imlepenetenlly of any snrh ngaymrnt, that is our duty with regard to all neutrul nations, and With regard to the peace of the world. I should have be-n very sorry to be loried by circumstance* to come to a different conclusion. It would have been a great misfortune if, ow ing to circumstance#, we shoult havu>lhouglit ourselvv. obliged to take a course in such a ipiarrel thai would have made us become |iartisaii# either of the .North or Bouth (Hear ) li w?s my object and the object ot every member of liar Majesty* government, from the very beginning ot the cunllkil, to wuteli the course of event*, with the determination to act in au impartial spirit and preserve a strict neutrality between (lie two Fowcis. ,>on.ei.nice our ?ouree. as when we a< know (edged the Southern States us belligerents, may have bc? n considered as having an injurious olloct on ihe North, un the other hand, when forbidding privateers to carry their prises iuto any Hriliab port, it may have b> en considered to have had an effect unfavorable to the South. But we did not oousaler the tendency of the-# acts. (Hear, hear.) We only considered whether they were just in themselves?(hear, henrj?ami lie. onung the character of this country. If we had b en obliged to take part either with one side or the other, it would have be-n a misfortune and calamity for the world, and for the people of America **|>ecially. I bav<- lately received an Interesting account given by a person sent by the federal c vernment to superintend the negioes ol some plantations on certain points in the South //< (/escribes the condition of them negroes, th-ir rttuli nets to work, their usefulness, th-ie peartab'f and (je-n'rtsliy an.d disposition. He says, though he did everything he could to remove ths eiiect of iaL*o and celumntons assertions agsin.it ih# fedorsl government and President Lincoln, yet h<- 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 had b?"n obliged to take part in this war, any hope of seeing an end to the system of slavery by peaceable tneaus would hive vanished. In that case the North would have pro lalmed a ganerul emancipation of the slaves: and though it Is our earnest wish thai tbo sin and eta in of slavery abould oeaOT, yet there is nul.hioy me thontd regard o.i'h greater horror than the Hi vaeta.it/it, 'he bo en ini'. the mur-tei ,arvt pillage among a iff,it a ion of 4,000.000 of starts that, in the name of litter y to the nn.ro. might hart terns perjstm'ni. filoar, beir.l Wo trust, that when this contest ends H will end in such uwavss to leave the emancipation of ihe negro po#. silile to he effei t'd hi gradual and pramahte meant, and 'hat 'he starts tf Amertoa mag. i? time, take their plan* as fr-e Iniarers trithi ut lots of life or de-trmto n of 'he pro /iti 'y of their matters. It is not owing to those masters I thai slavery now exists in the Southern Sl*t*s of Amu r -H It im urt inhnrilMiif.o th*V tl/TiV? ! from f.lliH COIin try. (Hear, bear.) Having taken thi* neutral courre, 1 tr>. t within three monttie, or perhapa " ner, wo may the end or Uu* <1*11 war; and I Impe It n iv ?nd in a iiiw?t><r ecnaiatent With the ??lrare an<l happim-a of both partier, anil a renewal of the old feeling* between Ni t tii "il l - nth. If to, they majroetiteni t<i a pea< eable miparalb n into two Mat" that ml'ltt Imth be powerI'el?inhabited by m?n witlt V"ry dnlerent udm-ation, porlmn- with very different nat ire*, but who may have before th ru a career ol po eperity for centuries Ui rone. Ifth.ssl' ill b">lM< i.iie I abotild re/tioo alxrvo ail lh<t iliiriuir the < (in'i'.t, w havu itotia nothing to aggravate h, and that will!' *i have connuetly iHiraiteil a firm annuo It l ?f at tin Mine tuue iM'i'ti a iruirao of co. cuU tioO (1U ar. hear.) I. id - ua.!IK1;kn iheu withdrew hie motion. Right* of Billlsmnlt ut Sen?Knuiiali Interpretation < ? tite lttaty ot fieri*, I he Cover o? Neutral Flat;*, t'oiilraliailde of IVnr unit liini-kitilea. In ihu lloti-o < I Uomimdia <>u Ibo l itli of March, Mr. lb hm: ai.i., In riding to call ettoi.tion to the |>re,w nt mate of maritime international low,Mid howiv, hot in i in rctil to tbt ilill.cilt) or the reel" u? ibliity t<rrGbmiUmg OKK gKBALP, TUESDAY the quantum lo the Homo u the |im1 mbhI, and be would have boon rejoiced if the duty hod devolved upon the honorable Member for Rnchdsla (Mr. Cobdaa), wbo early in the eeeeton bad given notice of a similar motion, but who courteously bad given way upon hearing thai be (Mr. Horafall) intended to renew the motion he bad made lent aeaaion. Honorable membere would reeollecl that, leal year, when be brought forward a aimilar motion the present unhappy elate of aflkira did not exist, and he did not then contemplate, nor did he now contemplate provoking a diacuaaion upon the relative merita of the American Union or of Southern independence. (Hear.) On the contrary, he was glad of an opportunity of expressing not only his own feelings, but tboee of a majority of bis constituents, by saying that be cordially approved the strict line of neutrality that had been taken by tbe government. (Hear.) His object in mooting the question was to show ths very unsatisfactory condition in which international maritime law now was. (Hear, bear.) He had laat seasion inquired of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary what steps the government had taken to carry out tbe recommendation of tba Shipping Committee of tbe preceding year. The noble lord frankly declared that the government had done nothing, and left it to be inferred that thoy intended to do nothing. Such a reply was anything hut satisfactory to those who took a? iptyrjat oq the subject as_th#y felt that the raoSmmendatioos of a committee of tlxat House, which had sat during a whole session and had been presided over by tbe right honorable gentleman now President of the Board of Trade, were deserving of greater consideration. (Hear, hear.) Without wearying the House with the past history of international maritime law, he would remind them that antecedently to ISM there eould be no question but that privateering was recognized as a principle of international law, that neutral goods on board vessels belonging to eubjecte of a btUigerent Power were liable to capture, and that goods tbe property or subjects of a belligerent Power, on board neutral ships, were liable to capture. That stele of law was tela to be a great Turdahip, and tbe present President of tbe Board of Trade, then un reuerea oy IQO rmraiaw oi wnc?. urvugai lurwaru wt subject in mm of his most spirited speeches, and by his motion sought to commit tne Ho us a sod ths governmsnt to ths principle tbst a nsutrsl flag mad* neutral goods. H* urged upon the government at that time the necessity of ths abolition of privateering. The noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated that in a short time a public document would be issued expressing the views or her Majesty's government. The President of the Board of Trade had the satisfaction of seeing an order In Council Issued soon afterwards, from which he would road an extract. [The Konoratle gentleman read the postage, bp which England waived her right to confiscate enemies goods on board neutral ships, at alto neutral goods, in either case not contraband of war, found on board an enemy's ship ] That was the'first step towards liberal legislation in regard to international maritime law. Two years afterwarOfc?namely, in 1866?ths Conference took place at Paris. The Powers represented at that Conference were Kngland, France, Russia, Prussia, Austria, Sardinia and Turkey. The Conference agreed in making four declarations:? 1. That privateering is and remains abolished. 2 That the neutral Hag covers euemy'a goods, with the exception of contraband of war. 3. That neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an enemy'* Hag. 4. That blockades, in order to be binding, muat be effective?that was to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the toast of the enemy. It was right to say that nearly every other Power afterwards gave in its adbs6k>n to the declsrations of Paris except ths United States of America. Assuming ths above to be now acknowledged maritime law, the question was, what would bs its effect in theovsntof war? (Hear,hear.) The uaxt question was, what had been its effect in time of peace? (Hear, hoar.) Shipowners and importers of produce were at least men of common stase, and they would not ship a single package org&ods in a vessel liable to seizure if they had the opportunity of shipment in a vc.-sel not so liable. (Hear, bear.) The operation of the law in the event of a war, say with Franco, would be that every British ship must be laid by. IF Am merchants had the power of shipping goods in neutral vessels those neutral vessels would obtain greatly enhoru rd freights, and British seamen would be drafted from British ships, not into her Majesty'tnavy, but mo neutral vessels, that could afford is pay a much higher rate of wages than had ever been or ever could be paid in ths royal navy. (Hoar, bear.) Such was ths result of the present law in tbe event of war, and it was a most serious matter to the shipowner, the manufacturer and the country at largo. But what had been already ths effect of the law in time of peace? Those who were aoqnalnted with the shipping interest knew what had occurred upon the mere rumor of a war a short time ago, when it was lUOOgllt upm mijjui Be lUTUiln III IHV -I , > ?... France tod Austria in Italy. However Improbable the rumor might be, yet the moment it reached distant ports, such as Canton or Calcutta, a second class American ves sol was able to got freights at a tlfiy |>er coot higher rate than a ttrsl class British ship ceuld obtain. (Hear, hear.) 'l'bis was a very important point, and be wus anxious to refer to the evidence of three witnesses examined before the Seloct Committee on Merchant shipping. Mr. Allan Gilmour, one of the largest shipowners in the world, said that .the stipulation of the Treaty of Paris would operate very prejudicially to British shipping if Great Britain were at war, and it waa even now vory prejudicial to the British shipowner. The very rumor of it war so enhanced the rate of insurance on goods by British ships that American and other lorolgn ships had a decided preference. Being asked to suggest a remedy, Mr. Gilmour said the only remedy wss to have an international law la do away with capturu entirely. The next witness was Mr. Bcaztey, an extensive shipowner of Liverpool. Ha was askad whether he bad himself suffered by computation with a loreign Hag" Mr. Bouztey replied that he could give a very strong case. He had two ships in China in May,186U. Una had been built purposely to beat everything afloat. He said to thu builder, --Build me a ship that will beat any mortal thing afloat?(a laugh)?to bring home the flrsl cargo of tea." He bad another ship at Koochuwfoo. Just at this mo ment there was some talk about the Savoy and Italiau business. There were two American ships at these ports, and tbo English merchains weru so afraid to ship their tea In the British ships that they determined to ship in the American ships. They paid m higher freight in those ships rather than take the British ships, because the Americans would not be subject to capture, in the case o( Engiaud mixing herself up wwh anyContinental law, Mr. Beazley stated that the law,.as laid down by the loaveaticn 01 Bar is, throw at once nil tbo trade Into thu boiideof the Americana or neutral flags. He added that the law should, in bis opinion, go a aiep further and let the ship be covered as well as the cargo. The last witness to whom ho would-reler was Mr. Graves, of Liver!?K?|, lormerly chairman of the .Sht|-owners' Association, and who was appointed a Royal ( unuuianonor to inquire into lights and light duos. Mr. Graves continued what bad Isteu staled by the previous witnesses, that iu case 01 a European war British shipping would, to a very great, extent remain ai home unemployed. tie added that wo must citbor go track and reverse the |?licv Ibal thu flag covers the cargo, or we must go tore ard and place thu ship under Ibcaauie lategory as the cargo, and make Irolb iree from capture. Mr. t.ravca said that bo only regretted that the British government liad allowed one day to cUiwe without ac untina thu oiler 01 ilia American government to make all private property tree irum l aptwe at am. They Lad been tola thai this question was of great national importance, lioi allot tin* niorely our skipping, our commerce, or our matiuiaclurcs; id. that opinion ho entirely agieed. It wan a question ol the most vital Importance, lu tune of war .ships would require a touvoy , aud would not that convoy b- much bolter employed In lighting ibo enemy*' (Hear, In ai.) A? u question of lUiam the uiat ler wan Oi very grave importance, and oue to which the Chancellor 01 iho Kxcliequer, Im thought, rin^ttit direct Lis al teulion with advantage. He winild not go into the subject as a question oi humanity, though much might he aald Horn that point of view. (Hear, hear.) Hut it wan said ny many?and some of bis honorable friend* wuroof that opiuioti?-'Oh, mako war ax cauiultoua an you can, and you would theu be able to bring it to a speedy corn Innion." (tloar, hear.) Hut be wan bappv to think that ? an not the loellng of those whom lie had the honor to represent, of the cinnitry, nor of her Majesty, as appeared from the order in council which he bad just read. iHear, hear.) Her Ma,only there declared that, "being anxious to insneu an much an possible the evils oi war?(hoar, hoar)?slid toreatrict its operation to the regularly orgauizod turceso the country, It was net her intention to issue letters of marque." (liear, hear.; Neither was that the view taken by the government who Issued that oruer, nor the view of the noble lord (l'al mention), whom, a lew yoars ago, he, am ng others, cordially welcomed U> Liverpool,juid he should be proud to welrome him there again. (Hear.) I'poo that occasion? It wan the very year in which tlie Declaration of I'nrls bad been signed?the noble lord dilated ii|mn that sub- I ject to the assembled merchants of Liverpool In glowing language, and made use of these words:? n il-mail, we are not Inattentive to other lutercsla be Mrs those rutin*-,-led with the great transactions of war. It bus been a subject o. great sallals, tiuri to us to rellert tlia' - ... , ,k? u..._ i . St Tne COIIIint'll'Ul IliMt'viiiipt \1Mgovernment of Kngland. In on ett w ith thai uf Kram-e, mm.* baiige? and rela isiluus In lh? doctrine ?i war wnbli, without in any degree impairing the power of the beillgtu enl? against their oppouenia, maintained the roill? ol I'ua tllltle*. yet tended to tnr U.atr the pressure which hnatillt Inevitably pio.lma upon the leinmenial trmiea-tloD* "I' ountrles thui are at war. I rannm help aoping that thru reUiatiaoa of-Wonncr dm trine*, wiin h were eetahllalied in the mginningof Ihe war, pr*' ticeo i,nr.ng Ita <a>ntinuauee, aud which hare been euiin latllled by lurnml enguuemeiiU, may perhaps be Mill further exti mletl?(hear, hear)?arid fe 'he court* "/ timr thr niinftp/rt of trtir itl'irh an 'Tpjthi*! to Andtlill'* htf hiott m/>v artrniiel, eMaal rf-r/ttioh, to liM'l/itte hff mmi?(beer, beer)?oml that |tneib frr> p-' 1 o ahull eo looi/'t It* rjpttoetl to tliereuliia on a her ewe. (idles ol ' hear, hear.") If we look at the ?iample of loriner period* we aball not Hod that any powerful country war ever vani|iil*hed by loose* unstained by iiullvl Unala, It la the i oolite's 01 armtea hy land, or lleele by era thai deelile the great nmt. an ot national and It la pefhapa to lie desired that these conflicts ehoold lie eolillned to the bodlea a- ting under the order* and direitlona ol Ihe reapeciite Stales. it'heeri.) Now bo i Mr. Horn!all) derired no better las tiiuony than those orders iu Council and that admirable ipeecli. (He.ir, hear.) Me had heard it aatd that naval ofln.ers wuubl not like to be deprived of their prune money,and that thnro would be mi encouragement to young men to outer the navy if the course which be waa advueating should be adopted. But be would not insult our naval officer* by supposing for one moment ihad th?y woreacbtoted by auch unworthy motives. (Hear.) He could epeek for ihrtsa whom lia had the honor of know nig. ami it mas a libol upon every one of them la eay so. (Hear, hear) Thoy all know that, so far from there being a difficulty In obtaining OfSoors for the navy, there wero hundred- and thousands who could not get Into It. (Hear, hear.) But, oven euppoeing that her Mgjealy'g naval offirers were actuated by audi sordid motives, was not prim money given up in lWdV (Hmir.) Well, they wero told hy many that there was no use In entering Into those treaties became there would be ati end of treaties when war Iwoke out. Hut this would lint he an ordinary treaty, It would lie the same ha the I eclaratmn of I'ai la; it would not lie abrogated by war. hot would tie au agiueiucnt aa to the mode in it h.i It war should bo carried on. (Hour, hear >. He i nine now to wbii. appeared to many the moat dull cult | art of the rpwrdtoii, namely?the subject of block ade. lie deepiy regretted that he was absent, owing to m Imposition, ou 1'rlday night, and Hint he had nui had He | rivilogo ol Iwleiimg to the Interorting debate wbrli ilvti look plae.o. On the subject of the blockade the Bo uthorn porta he fell bound to ?ay that the sent unenia of ihomj w horn In- had Uto honor to reufesoiil wero |u , MAKi/H 2s, lsea.?TRIP favor at wpwliH it. (Hear, ktkr.) Ha bow came la question with regard to which a groat injustice had baea dona la America whaaarar It waa discussed. Thay had baaa told that Amsrica would aot give up the right of privateering, but what aha had caotaoded for from Aral to laat waa what be was contending for now, that the ship and the cargo should be put upon the acme footing. (Hear, hear.) What was the statement of President fierce whan the Declaration of Paris was submitted toblm!* It was as follows:? The proposal to surrender the right to employ privateers ia professedly founded on the principle that private property of unoffeuding non-combatants, though enemies, anou 1 be exempt from tbe ravages of war. But the proposed surrender koes little way in carrying out that principle, which equal'y requires that such private property should not be seized or molested by national vessels of war. (Hear.) Shoull the leading Powers of Europe concur in propoi-iug, as a rulr of international law, to exempt private property uiou the ocean from seizure by publie armed cruisers, as weil as by privateers, the United States will readily meet them upou that troad ground. (Hear, hear.) Therefore it was not fair to say that the United Stales would not give up the right of privateering, f Hear, hoar.) They would not give it up unless the great Powers y Europe were willing to take the still wider ground thai ell private property should be free. (Hear.) There waa in another correspondence a very appropriate letter from the noble lord tbe Foreign Secretary to Karl Cowley, in which, in anticipation of the civil war which bad since broken out in America, be proposed to invite both parties to act upon the principles which had been laid down in the second nnd third articles of the Declaration fit Paris with respect to the rights of neutrals. It seemed that ultimataly America agreed to adopt the very words of the Declaration of Paris; but subsequently a letter from Lord Lyons to Lord Russell stated:? o??-J ?".J itnAn /law KafAwa wasfflrdav nnd asked mc to give blm a Hat of Ibe Power* which have acceded to tbeDqclsrallou of Paris an maritime law. He *ald that he had observed a list of those Powers in your lordship's despatch to me of the J8tb of May, which I had left with him for a few days. I readily agreed to send him the list- He went on to tell me that he was endeavoring to disentangle

a complication which had been produced by Mr. D*yton at Paris. Mr. Dayton had, he said, been Instructed to state to the French government that the government of lh> United States preferred the proposal of Mr. Marcy, by which private property would be altogether exempted from capture, but tfast, nevertheless, they were willing, if necessary, to aocede at once to the Declaration of Paria. "pure and simple," and to postpone the discussion of Mr. Marcy's proposal to a more propitious moment. Then^n the 29th of Juljr, 1861, Mr. Adams wrote to Lord Russell:? Mr. Dayton Informs me "that some time since he made a proposal to the French government to adopt the declaration of the Congress at Paris at 18M, with au addition to the first clause, in substance the same with that heretofore proposed by bis predecessor, Mr. Mason, under instruction given by Mr. Marcy, then the Secretary ol Stale of the United States; to that proposal he received an answer from the French Minister of Foreign Affaire declining to consider the proposition, not for any objection entertained asainat it. but because It was a variation irom tbe terms of the original agreement, requiring a prior reference of it to the other parties to that Convention. This answer does not, in his opinion, make the ultimate acceptance of his addition impossible, and he does not feel as if he ought to abandon the support of what be considers as so beneficent an amendment to tnu original plan, until be bas reason to despair of success; he has therefore requested to know of me whether I have reason to believe perseverance in this direction to he Iruitless. For my part, I entirely concur in the view enterI tained by Mr. Dayton of the value of this amendment; I nls? know so well the interest that my government takes in I its adoption as to be sure that it would ret use to justify a further pro edure on our part which waa not based upon s reasonable certainty that success Is not attainable, at leaat at the present moment. I have therefore ventured to state to Mr. Dayton my belief that I have that certainly; I bare therefore mentioned to him what I have likewise rommunl. cated to the proper department of the government of tho United States?the fact that in the lust conference I had the honor to hold with your lordship, allusion having been made to the amendment of Mr. Dayton, 1 said that that amendment waa undoubtedly the first wish of my government, and that I had Instructions to press It if th?re waa the smallest probability of success; but that I supposed this matter to have been already definitely acted upon: to which I understood your lordablp to slguily your assent, and to arid ihat 1 might consider the proposition as inadmissible." He >ra* merely making out now that tbe Foreign Minister re. fused again the proposal of the American government that all private property on the ocean should l>e protected. Lord Kugscll, in a letter to Mr. Adams, confirmed this representstioft, saying, "As far as 1 am concerned, this statement is perfectly correct." It appeared that the American, French and English governments agreed to accept the declaration of the United States in accordance with the Paria declaration, and it appeared that Lord Russell thought it necessary to propose to add the fallowing words in signing the agreement wilb the United States ? Her Majesty's government does not Intend thereby to undertake any engagement which shall bare any hearing, direct or indirect, on the iuiarnal differences now prevailing in the United States, He waa not now saying whether tha noble lord was right or wrong in insist lug upon llieae words, as Lord Cowley had previously tutormed Lord Russell by letter that Mr. Dsyton hardly concealed from M. Thowvenel that the objo-t ol hi* government, in agreeing to sign theeonveniion, was to torcc the Western Powers to treat the Southern prlvaleers a* pirates, arguing that.as tbe government of Washington waa the only government recognised by tbn foreign Powers, the Southern States must, as far as lorciga Power* were concerned, b-- subject to the consequences of the acta of thul government. Again,no tbe 23d of August Mr. Adams, in writing to Lord Russell, said:? The government of the United Stales are at last prepared lo sign and seal an engagement pure and simple, and by so Oiling t<> M'Tince ine nop** OI aiiaiuiug HI i.-mm no oar (ursent, an improvement of it, to which they hare always attached great value. But, just at the moment when iheircMtcurrrnce with the rtewa of the other inarallme Power* of the world would seem to l>e certain, they ore met with a paepw* aitlon from one. If cot more of the portion, to a" oinpany the art with a proceeding somewhat novel and anomalous in this case, l>-in - the preaenlatioH of a wriiten declaration, not making a part of the convention itself, bnt intended to follow the signature, IO the elf eel thai "her Majesty does not intend thereby to undertake any engagement . which shall have any hearing, direct or inilircat, on the internal dlflerences now prevailing in the United State*." Obviously aVonsent lo accept a particular exception susceptible of so wide a construction of a joint lu' strutiient, tiiad* by one of the nartles to It In Its own lavur at the time of signing, would justify the ides thai miihh advantage it, or may be suspected to be, intended to ho taken bv the other. The natural ellcct of such an accompaniment would seem to-l a to imply that the government of tne United States might he desirous at this time to lake s part in the declaration, oat from say high purpose or durable policy, hut with the view of securing some smalt temporary object in the unhsppr struggle which la going on at 'mine. Such an tnlrrence would spofltnll thevalue that might le- attached to the art .tself. The mere toleration ot it would seem to be ecpilvalenl to a confession of their own wesktoaa. Kalher than am'h a rword should be made it were a thousand times better flint the declaration remain unsijtied lorn or. If the parties to the instrument are not to sign It upon tortus of pertoct reciprocity, with all their dune* and obligation* under it perfectly equal, and wlibout equivocation or rosorvslion oi any kind on any a do, then II la plain lltal the proper season fur such ast oiigKgemeni lias not yetarilred. ft were much wiser lo put it oil until nailou* can understand each ulher better. lie wag prepared to* say that it wag butter that the American government did not gigu the declaration with the addition of the proposed words, l*?ouiise ju opening was now lel't*for tho British government to consider this matter in a somewhat dtflureut light I runt that in which l.... . i.. Ii*..? ****nlM,t ,l in t lie I'uiiraa nl' tliis cur. rexpondence, and in aome future corres|ioudeiiia ilia question disc -usscd might be that all private property should bo reapected. lie litxl lieeu anxious to state ax clearly as ha oould the view which ho believed to he genoraily entortained bv the commercial community. (Hear, hear ) Ho wax quite aware of tho jealousy wiih which any mutton or thu kand was viewed by the executive government; but he trusted the noble lord would cx ease him if be ventured to rofe-r once more to the noble lord'* speech* the concluding nlixervaiioo* of w inch con stunted almost a direct invitation to bring Di.k nil),eel before the House. The noble lord, on tbe ocensiou to which lie had already alluded, ended his -|ie. . h in the pdlowring terms:? ^ Oenih-tnen, tbe covei nmentnUviv* fe -I* dee pi r indebted to the gr--at ontanierplai uoinniiiiuih a which are k hi enough to Impart to ii*. trom time to time, ti.clr suggestion* uir the r-mruy of rxlsiing evil*. Wi-kuow well thut no executive government can he ?o perfectly informed of ?ll the detailed operation* of mm mem* *s to lie abl", without meh assist auce, to devise those tin usiirr* who h may 1)' heal i alctilaled to net I roe the industry of the i wintry, and to give tlie greatell development to commerelal enterprise. (Hear, hear.) lie was aware that In calling attention to thIn sub|ert ha hail discharged tlx- tank only In un itnporfeci manner. Inn lie truslod that the Honna would alliriu the reaoluiion ha Intended to move, lie united this in tho immo of tho ootntnerco of the country. and of civilisation. humanity and piatica. (Hear, hear.) The honorable tneml-er con eluded by moving tbe following resolution.?--That ibe Mate of international maritime law , its otic- ling bell gereiita and neutral*, la unsatisfactory, and r: Hi* lor the early attantion of government. Mr. Conines seconded the resolution. The question having been put by the fpoaker, a ,-hort pause eusued, during whtoik no member prcs* nted him S'-ll to speak to tho motion. At length The Atiokskv liOKRvi. rose and addressed tbe House. Heraidth.it after the able manner in which ihu motion had been brooglil forward be had expected that before he should have hail occasion to rise some further discussion on tho atalo of the law aa allecting Die rights of neutrals would have been raised. Tbe lion rable member bad dc scribed tba existing state of tbe law to be unsatisfactory ill |K>int of policy, ami there could be no doubt thut tliiw question of policy was one of great impor tame, for, whatever might be the o|ln!onx of members of that Mouse, or oven of tbo government, on Die |>olicy of the law. It waa impossible lor any on-- rfceto <-lie-dually to mterpoaa lor an alieration of tba law without tbo cooenrrem a of other States. Tho honorable mornba- had stated correctly, with the except ion,how the law stood previous to the lltissiau war. It. was true that pi Ivataoring was an admitted belligerent right, and that enemy's goods under a neutral flag were liable to capture and confiscation. Hut thr KltrU will u?i* not a- r*n't* tknt nnttral food* uwl'r an reemy'i Jlag uxTr als* lurVc In npiurr. l'rohably the him oritble gentleman Ul nee.n leu into error r>y me terms ?.r the order in Council Issued by her Ma;eaty at the commencement of ibe war with Knout. Thai document ret forth that her Majesty wae willing to waive the right of seizing enemy's peoperty'takon on board a neutral venal, unless It waa contraband or war; and wont on to tay that it wan not her MayesIy 'a intention to dann th> eonfi* "lum of n- viral i m;y*ty net being umlntband of ivar found on lonrd eneniy'i ikif t It waa, no doubt. Jual and expedient to issue such a declaration, plainly apprielng naulrala wTioae intern tii wore concerned of the conditions on whb'h this country intended to < arry on the war. bill the honorable member waa wrong in the Inference he Irid drawn that previous to that date, by well established en tariiaiional low, the goods of a friend on hoard the ship oi an enemy were liable to capture and confls- at ion. Thu law on thta matter tvaa well defined and well understood. ,ta long age at lT.>t the law of natlona as sOectlng the goods oi neutrals had been dm tared In this country on 'be higlvust authority. SirGeorge Lee, Judge ol the Prerogative Court, I>r. Panl, Advocate fieneral, Sir Dudley Ryder, Utornny Doner el, end Mr Murray, utterwarda lord Han-ideld, Solicitor General, laiu down tho following propositions viral, the goods of an enemy en board the sMp of a friend may bo taken. Secondly, tbe lawful giexls of a friend on board the ship of an enemy ought to be restored. Thirdly, contraband good." going to th" enemy, though the pro petty ol a friend .may lie taken aa prize, because tbe tupplying ol the eneaiy with mean* which enable him better Pi carry on the war, i* a dnparluie fruiu neutrality.' Tbe honorable gentleman had next alluded to the Do-la ration of Paris. That doclarutlnn tuvulvad four pro|? at lions, two of which had reference to the ancient ataio ol tbu law, asd the other two boro upon the alteration! which were then Introduced. Tlio first point or tho lm deration, that "privateering la and remains abolished,' waa an nudoubled waiver of the belligerent i Ight tola- u< leltors of luafpio. T he second propoeil Ion, that, "wig LK SHKKT. the exception of contraband of war, the neutral flag covered the enemy's goods," also introduced a new rule of maralime law. But the third and fourth propositions, that "neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, were not liable to capture under an enemy s hag," and that "blockades in order to be binding must be effective," were mgrely statements of the antecedent law. The honorable member's speech, in fact, contradicted that portion oT his motion which alleged that the present state of international law was ill defined, because be himself had clearly defined and expounded what the law waa. Whether the law were politic or Impolitic, It was not involved in any doubt or obacurity. The honorable member further said that In couaequonce of the adoption of the Declaration of Peris an advantage would be given to neutral carriers over the ships of a belligerent. No doubt, such would be the case; but he did not agree with the honorable member that the effect must he entirely to put a stop to the trade of a belligerent, seeing that where the belligerent was a strong naval Power, and especially where she was mistress of the seas, her lleot, as in former wars, would effectually protect her mercantile marine. (Hear, hear.) To a Power which was weak at set the results pointed out bp the honorable gentleman would doubtless follow. But we were and always hoped to be the stronger Power, and he did not think the country need shrink from the task of annihilating the commerce of the enemy, and at the same time of protecting our own. (Hear, hear.) The concession made by the Declaration of Paria in favor of enemy's goods being protected by the neutral flag was, as its terms denoted, a concession desired by and made to neutrals. The policy of that change ho would not discuss; indeed, It would be rather late to do so; and he understood the honorable member to contend rather that this country ought to go further and give universal protection than to find fault with its having been a party to that arrangement. But the universal exemption from capture which the honorable member desired would not be a concession to neutrals at all? (hear, hear)?neutrals did not dsstre It; they would rather continue in possession of that actual or Buppoaed monopoly which the honorable member had pointed out. Such a change in the law at would enable an enemy in time of soar to carry in safety between his own ports and the ports of the other belligerent hit own goods in hit oton ships would not only go beyond anything which had been proposed and discussed t'n modern times, but would very much exceed any relaxations in the rigor of the maritime code which, as far as he ioat aware, had bein suggested by the writers on international law. lie uiu qui ??/ mat because a progiosition was novo! It was cot 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 more expression of opinion by that House. Whatever was done must be accomplished, not by a single government or Cabinet, but by the concurrence of all those nations which were, or aspired to be, powerful at sea, and which hud consequently an equal interest in the subject with ourselves. (Hear, hear.) Ho ought to apologise to the House for having touched upon the question of policy, while, so far as the question of law was concerned, the honorable gentleman had relieved him from the necessity of making any lengthened remark. He had, in point of fact, abandoned one part of his proposition, and had shown no good roason for calling upon the government to take any action on the other. Sir G. C. Lrwra?'The question which has been raisod to-night is of first ruto importance. (Hear, hear.) It would bo of great importance to a country which has not a powerful national navy and a vast mercantile marine, but to England, situated as she is, it is of paramount importance that this question should receive a right decision when discussed in Parliament. (Hear, hear.) I trust that, whatever may be the result of this debate?whatever muy be tho fate of the motion submitted by the honorable member for Liverpool?we shall not come to any preci pitate conclusion, or one of which wo may hereafter have occasion to repent. (Hear, bear.) Tho honorablogontloman has proposed " that the present state of international maritime law. as afTecling (he rights of belligerents and neutrals. Is iU-dofined and unsatisfactory, and calls for tho early attention of her Majesty's government." Tho terms of his motion are as general as H is possiblo to frame them. They bring under review the whole state of international maritime law, as affecting tho rights of belligerents and neutrals. Hence they involve tbo quostion of privateering; they involve the question of the aeutral flag covering the enemy's gooda; they involve the question of the sanctity of private property on tho sea. But the honorable member, Instead of making his speech ooextensive with the terms of his motion, directed his arguments to one single point, via., that the enemy's flag should cover the enemy's goods. That is the whole extent of the speech which lie made and tha recommendation which ho ofiered to tho House. Mr. H< rskiu.? IF hat I contended for was that all private property should be respected. (Hear, hear.) Sir G. C. I.kwis?Precisely?that tho private property or tho enoray should not be taken out of the enemy's ships. By the Declaration of Paris neutrsl goods are sacrod under the enemy's flag. Mr. Bbiuht?And the ship al.-o. sir G. C. 1.xwi.?Very good: the argument is that the ship should be sacred as well as the goods under the cnomjfg flag. Such is tho proposition of the honorable member for Liverpool, and. that being so, it seems to me that the more correct course, as far as this IIouso it concerned, would have been for tbe bonoranie gentleman 10 mure ui aq dress to the Crown, requesting her Majesty to use her influence with foreign l*owers for tbe purpose of meting the principle that the enemy's flag should cover the enemy's ship and goods a maxim of international maritime law. That would have brought tbe que?IWn which the honorable member has argued lu rly under the consideration of the House: but at present any gentleman who thinks, for instance, that privateoring ought to be con tinned, or thai the clauses of the Declaration of Paris ought to bo re|>ealed?who, in short, entertains views entirely opposed to thoiio which haro been advancod tonight?might with perfect propriety ssy to the honorable member for Liverpool, "I do not agree with your speech, but I approve your resolution, and therefore shall vote for it." (Hear, hear.) It seenir, therefore, to me that if the honorable gentleman succeed e<l in carrying his resolution he would not neeeeeanly give ciwct to his opinions. The government would say we are not bound by the speeches of individual members, wo nmst look to the general terms of a resolution and act accordingly. Therefore, I say, if be wished to establish th e principle, that the ship and goods of an enemy aro to be resiiectod in war by the belligerent, he ought to have embodied that proposition in a distinct resolution and submitted it to the House; he would then have raised a distinctive Issue on which we might have acted, fllcar, hear.) lint I must say that the proposition which he ha.s submitted is not unfair,but mctt incr.n?mient. 1 have no doubt he thought it was a convenient mode of raising tlto question, and, jierbaps, when he came to eir. body bis principle in terms, he was afraid to look it in the taco, and therefore preferred to take refuge in generalities; hut I must rope.it, I cm hardly conceive a more inconvenient courso than that which hoe been adopted in bringing every important pr n ciple under the consideration of Ihe Hotise. Well, Sir, thera have l>een many occasions on which the rights 01 neutrnls and belligerents with regard to maritime wn have lioao agitaied in Kurope. In the first place there was mi' ceiuoraica irrami nmimnj 1>1 jiwi; mil 1IIU principles laid down in that year by Russl i and concurred in by other Powers w,r mtirrly ion limy I to Iht Jlay cuivrynti 'nmiy's and aUo mainly, / think, tn Ihr yveAinn nf Llorkade*; hut I feel confident thut If any ynlleman will examine the ncguUai ions, the convenI imi.i anil treaties 01 that period, lie will not And a single trace of the principle thai a lelhgr.ient ii notUi L*jmnntlrd to cajitVTr th ; ships or foods ?./ his mr.my. In 1S00 tlio same question wan again tevived. und again there is a total absence of such an assert i< Ii and the reason In pern* tly obvious, I huurmed neutrality of both those venrs was a representation of tlio iutercets of neutrals. Neutral* havu no uitcrc^l in the principle which the honorable iiieiiibur recommend- to the acceptance of the Hon*" One honorable gentleman, indeed, woo spoke, treated t Ins question as one involving the intoreat of neutrals; but It ia impossible to conceive a greater mistake. Neutrals,so tar as thoy have auy 1 itetesl, hove an Internal dnei tly the opposite. If lliey wishod to become the carriers oi the world ther would naturally wish that the shipe and gnoda ol Ilia belligerents should be exposed to 11.-I4. Tbereiore, 1 say that neutral an such, liuve no in iciest in the question. 'I hen ihcro I another reason why on theM occasions the nrnied neutrality did not start this question, 'lhi.se wlsi advised that sine of nll-urs WdW personaacipiaiutcd with the principles and elemonta of intematbiual law; hut I must be |*>nmtlcd, w ith great res [suit to the honorable gentleman, to say thai his speech seemed to overlook the most fundamental doc. trlnos of international law. because you may make a cum pact with a uetural State (hat in ttmeol war you will respect the neutral Hag. Kor instance, we have now a coin pact with franco and other continental Powers that we will iv ton the prihciplu that the neutral Hag covers tlio enemy's goods, so that if wo were to seizo American g< csls under the French flag we should be guilty nf a x io ialiou of engagement with France. Thrronrf try internaHiatal law yon can mill, - a ?xl/id cmxJprwvn'. with rttjwi to th' jrim \jitf that th> m u'rol fay rows rwtny't gaud.'; hat rhrn you ijotn war wtth a nation, war puts an ml tn alt Irraltrs ami tnpayrmml* in th' nalwrit of a trmty. (Hear, hear. I Therefore U we land unfortunately n short tune ago. tound ourselves involved in hostilities with the I'mted Slates, and if we lind previously hail a treaty with the I uilud Mlates recognizing the principle that belligerents wero to spare one another's marine, the very act of war would have put an cud to that treaty, and tt would have been In the discretion of either Power whether or no they would act on that principle. Suppose you make such an engagement, how are you to rely on the honor of a belligeiont observing It, because by tlio concert of all civilized nations yon may alter all the principles of international law' It is con c lvable, fur axamplc, thai hy the general agreement m nations the principle Tor which tho honorable gentleman contends might be established, but It ts inconceivable that a treaty belwesn two belligerents which Is In derogation of tho general principles of Internsllonal Inw should bind them during the con tmuencn of war. An honorable gentleman referred to the Declaration of Parle; he tairi *t ??' n>* a treaty but ft Oetlamtion, and therefore it muel be atami.?,,/ in the emnt of ivar. Now, / entirely di'pnte that inference or statement. I presume he mo ms to say that it m binding In rcwpcct of neutrals id time til war. No i/oh If w are bound it? rerpoct of France or Fur tin if ire are at war with the Unitetf State*; ltd it it an ahfiirdityfo sappers that if me are at mar with f ranee or Rwnin it would ha or any Mntfing fffect nimn n<, etr-jA t'n rei/ard to rmr honor. (Hear.) All I tay it, it it no' Liinternational law. We am not bound to a.-aert extreme bo||j. gorent rights, but without any au?h troaijr we might say wo will not capture the mercantile marine of an enemy. Well, I he honorable gentlemen the member for Honltoe epoko with great censure of the Declaration of Paris, and i said wo wore In such a position we mint either advance , or recede?our present |srsltion waa untenable. We hud made a declaration restrictive of our power of carrying in a maritime war, and we should tlnd It nccesauiy to violate tlint engagement. Ho objected that 1 befure ihe Crmioan war hy proclamation wo inodtbnd our belligerent rights, and tho honorable member for lJvorpo< I read from the proclamation tho par-sagos f which were equivalent to the declaration of I'nrls; thoro i forc.wh'n tho war waa ended and the declaration of neutral ti Ire was raised in Paris, It seemed tho proper and unt ral cohii-o for our Plemgot- ntiary lo agrto ti 1 this prlltclpU wlii< h had been ( oiiM i'tflled by the exeiui > live getfi't'oi' Mtit at Mm commencement ?i the wa< of / i i i which Parliament had full notice, and to which Paritm Die til had at no tune objected. If it had been thought tnai the principle that the neutral (lag shall not cover the goods wai> esaeutial to t?a effective conduct of not maritime war by this country, why wan it abandoned at the Cunimoui emcnt of the Crimean war,and no vuice mis d against it during the coutinuance of that war 1 The honorable gentleman overlooked that important element. The honorable member for Northumberland (Mr. Lid dell) did not ultogetlier seem to approve of the modiu operandi of the honorable gentlemau who made this motion; he teemed to be aware that there was some difficulty in establishing a binding engagement between two belligerents; and with respect to tlio cast of America, it is said that the government of tbo United States is willing to asaeut to thia principle combined with certain others. Bui if the United Slate* of America approve to kin lily qf the principle of not capturina enemy'l shij<* and goods, why (L-n't they establish that frinciple with respect to the Southim States f (Hear, ear.) Hero is a tine opportunity for the govornmeut of Washington, acting on that principle. (Hear, hear.) There is a war actually waging in which they are involved , why not act on that principle at oncer No doubt it is said that the Southerners are rehels, but in the exchange of prisoners and in the mattor of the blockades they have been treated in all respects as belligerents. If that be the case, why does not the government of Washington show its forbearance in not capturing onemy'S gO<.ds? (Hear, boar.) I ttromqty suspect that th* exasperation w/ti.h exists between those two contending I'owert renders any such forbearance utterly impracticable. The honorable member tor Noithuaaberland seems not altogether to trust to this plan of mutual forbearance by belligoreuts during war, and be proposes that England should call a congress. [Mr. Liddell.?"Invito a congress."] Well, that we should invite the nations of Europe to meet in congress and thai we should submit to this oougress the question raised in to-night's debate. But, then, be annexed a condition which I am afraid, if strictly fulfilled, would rondor the convening of the congress a somewhat remote event, be* cause hs said that it was a necessary condition that the parties composing the congress should not be actuated by any special or national interests, but have solely in view the general good of mankind. (Laughter.) My little acquaintance with the history of congresses dose not land me to anticipate that it is oxtremoly easy to form a congress upon that condition, and I am afraid if we wait until a congress be formed in which the mombers are wholly regardless of the interests of their own repsective nations, and are devoted to promoting the universal happiness of the world, lb* meeting mast be postponed until the Greek Kalends. (Hear.) Hia proposal, no doubt, la a philanthropic and well moant proposal, but it only shows the difficulties with which tho subject is incumbered, and thoneccssitjr 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 resolution embodying the result of his argumontg. As to tne i evolution, 1 really do not know that I I'eol any difficulty in saying that any branch of international law is illdefined, because every branch must bo ill<h fined, as it is not law laid down by any Legislature, and is only to be collected from tho decisions of the courts of different countries, and the writings of different text writers. In a certain sanso intornational law may always be said to be llldefined. At tbe same time I really believe that if any part of international law Is bettor defined than another, it is the question relating to procedure In soizing different classes of guods belonging to difierent uations, and particularly since tho Declaration of Paris. There is another part of the question, upon Which the honorable baronet the member for Dundalk much instated and which I know he has often brought forward in discuasion. It is montioued in an able pamphlet, which I have no doubt many honorable members bare read, and unlesa It receives examination is calculated to make an impression on tbe mind?I allude to the statement that we ought to assimilate the laws of maritime to tha laws of land warfare. If the House will pea mit me, I will examine for a few momenta what strength is duo to that argument. I is said, in the first place, that all private property, is spared in land warfare. I must begin by meeting that assertion by a most formal denial. (Cheers.) I say that by the lawa of land warfare, as recognized by tbe most civilized nations, and according to the moat mat practice, private property it not retpoied. Tt it retperted only to far at it mitt the present convenience of the belligerent armi>t. I believe there norer was an army uoder more strict discipline, in which tho commander waa teas disposed to permit excesses by the soldiery, or in which there wee a greater disposition to spare the country which waa the theatre of the war, than the Duke of Wellington's army during tbe Peninsular war. What was the practice of that urmyt When they arrived at a village at night the proper otficor told ont a certain number of ho'utea, tbe roofs were stripped off, and tho timber was used as firewood for boiling the men's suppers. That certainly was not very remarkable reapec t for private property. (Hear.) 8ueh are tbe necessities of war. Tha army must bare food, and the lood roust be cooked. They cannot carry fuel with them, and if thoy eannot carry fuel they must take il. With rvgbiu iv miuron vi *? ri vhvu oiupu n, mmj wu ^ who hu only 4 supor.li U1 acquaintance with tha subject mu't know the extent to which the systom of plundering conquered countries was carried. I do not bolioro that there i* on rerord a single campaign In whic h private property has been respected. No doubt it is reelected to a gn atcr extent in recent times than in the warfare of the middle ages. Sinoo tho Thirty Years' War and the wars ef Louis IV. there is no question we have advanced considerably by tho forbonrance of belligerent Powors, and mure humane end more civilised maxims have prevailed. But it is not by treaties or compacts hot ween belligerent Powers,or by such resolutions as this, tbst this result has been produced. It has beon produced by the genoral softening of manners and tho general improvement of humanity. We may hope that similar results will bo produced in maritime warfare, but they will not be producod in ihe miuuer which tho h.ioorabio member points out. (Hear, hear.) In the first place, I deny the truth of the principle that private property is respected in land warfare. There is anotbsr important distinctioa between land and maritime warfare, upon which tho whole aucstion may be considered to turn. When you conquer a country you conquer its government, and whan you have conquered its government you have conquered that engine by which the country can be plundered. (laughter.) Perhaps the language which I have used may be somewhat homely. nevertheless, it does expre*s the exact truth. (Cheers.) And If ony gentlemen will inquire what hapoencd in Horlin ditringthu French occupation,aft-r ll s battle or Jena, and the French conquest by Napoleon, bo will learn that the Freuch poascased in the Prussian government a most eiTicient engine for plundering that country. 1 remember hearing at Berlin in 1832, from persons well informed upon the subject, that there were still in ovinias of the Prussian monarch! in which the breed , of agricultural horse* hud Dot yet been restored. I un that as an Illustration of the way In which tho government raise contributions in a conquered country. With retard to tho sou there is no similar engine. There is no government which exorcisos any imwer at aoa. The ea u merely the highway of tuition*, It m not the tobieciql government or of rorereicnty, and the nIy way in which a bclligrrmt tan exrrxur any control rwr the jcrxjurty of n rmietfl/ ating cm the tea it by capture l y mean/of armnl thifJt. With regard to the question of assimilating land warfare and sua warfare, the real assimilation wnselti cted by the declaration of Paris, when this count ry surrendered the right of privato warfare? when this country abolished privateoring. (Cheeis.) there is the real analogy between land and aea wariare of whieh I ho honorable gciitleiuan is in search. We do not licrinit a single private individual to go out on a plundernig exi<editloii. We conflno the contest to the aimyof the State. At the same time, we do not restrain that army wising private property whenever such seizures may be necessary. Wo do not allow a private person to plunder on bis own account. Wo used Io allow lilai to plunder on his own account at sea by granting letters of marque. That principle we have abandoned; and If iiiiinrtiniatcly a war hiul happened with the Unu gB States. 1 do not think it likely wo should havo had re> course to the system of privateering against tho Vnitnd states, although they were no partioa to the declaration ol Paris, illear, hear.) I think thi? country hat d/fin\'imty i*>nonmed the principle of praaLerring. To that extent I am quite ready to agree to assimilate land warfare and nuurilime wariare ; but I do not assent to the honorable gentleman s pro|K>sition that the nrnied ships ol a country are not to be allowed to take merchant ,shi;e. With our fleet at Portsmouth or Plymouth to allow enemies' shlps'to 40 In and out freo I rum capture seems to me to be carrying the doctrine of forbearance In lima of war to sn absurd |?int. (Hear, hear.) It is almost like Interdicting ourselves from the me ot gunpowder or ordnance iu lime of war. Of course wo may, lr we think lit. renounce tbo right to capture merchantmen, not by prtvat' ers. but by our armed ships, if tho opinion of tho rtvili/ed world condemned the practice, lint, I think the House would come to an unwise and premature decision if?upon a vague generality, a morelormula which really might admit of auy construction, but which is to eceive a is-cnliar interpretation from tho s|s'Och of tho honorable member who moves I be resolution, while it in.iy receive various interpretations from the different persons who support it?they wore to call upon the government to subscribe to a |irliiciple I labia to such formidable and wotghty objections. (Hear, hear.) to tin speech of tfio right honorable gentleman the secretary for War. The rl^ht honorable gentlemen, -tpeakuic of tlio Convention of Parle, not only referred to y the possibility or that Conventli n being broken through n lime of war anil no< eselty, but went further, ami Raid that no compact and no treaty made In pe.ics Is binding in war. Now, aa I understand it, the Part* Convention was made in time of poacu iu order to provide against gomo ef the worst evils and horrors of war. Sir. (J. t\ I*ww (interrupting)?'Thla Is so important a point that I should feel sorry if any misunderstanding arose. What I meant to guy, and \t hat 1 believe I did say, was this?that I eoneelvcd the Declaration of Parte in t?e binding as between thla country and neutrals during the existence ?i war, and to be equally binding with a treaty, though it was only a declaration; but that If we were ut war with any of the partica to that Polara tion, then, like other treaties, it would ce.iae to have a binding alteri as regarde thit belligerent. (Hear, bear.) Mr. IIakimi continued?That convention was made between six or seven States, including the great maritime Powers of Kurope. I believe the only greal maritime l*nwer of the world not Included Is the United States. Therefore It wotira operate In time of war upon them ail except the two belligerents. But does the right honors. ?bla gentlemen mean to say that we urn now to discuss whether that was a wise provision or not! The Attorney Uenersl would not enter into the discussion of the merits of the Paris Convention; be treated It us an accomplished fact, which must bo adhered to. And, boing now ths law as far as regards Ike governments that were parties to it. the question fur us is, how will It net upon our mercantile navy and our commerce? As I understand the m?n?r. by that, convention yon hold neutral*' goods h irail's* whrevec thoy may bo found, and von nbo make tho neutral llag cover enomy'a goods. What, then, would happen in rnso of a war be. tween this country sod franco" Is It not cvtd?ut that tbo whole o| your carrying trade won d pasa Into the hands of U'lilralsl' (Hear, hear.) You retarded your mt visfnti >n laws. I do not now blame you for (hit. i nm alw.tys lor mutton and gradual progress; but wlicn once a step is rondo I atn not lor going back. But In lime of war tlio neutral Hag would. I repeat, carryall jnair commerce, and your ships would ho placed at a great disadvantageae eompared with every other mnritnne jiower III tne v orld. I cannot, there:ore . help Hooking that it u it wise lh,11(1 to consider this s h o i In timaaw

Other newspapers of the same day