Grossbri 11. März 1862. No. XLVIII. Powers. It is a question, no doubt, for negotiation with other Powers, and must be left in the hands of the Government. Whether the Motion ought to be in the form of an address to the Crown or of a Resolution is really a matter of very minor importance, and certainly would not call for the decided opposition which has been offered to this proposition by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman will not listen to it at all. He says, "You might as well agitate whether there shall be privateering or not, or whether you will upset the whole Declaration of Paris, as even entertain this question." And he quarrels with my hon. Friend the Membar for Liverpool for not agitating questions which we all thought settled. Again, he says, „You make a general Motion and confine your speech to a particular point." Why, it is that particular point which we are desirous to press on the attention of the Government. I am as anxious as any one for the supremacy of the navy of this country, but I cannot understand how you can advance that supremacy by damaging your commerce and your shipping interest. Do you mean to say that your navy would be less effective if it were not bound to protect your mercantile marine, or that you would have less naval force to employ against your enemy if it were freed from the duty of convoying? Why, what country has most commerce afloat, most property to be seized? Surely England. What country would gain most by the preservation of that property? It is England. You say that your object in war is to injure your enemy. What country would be so much injured in war through her commerce as England? It might have been a question, before the Declaration of Paris was signed, what course we ought to have taken. But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that if you wish to benefit your commerce and at the same time to increase your efficiency as a belligerent at sea, you ought gravely to consider the Motion before us. The right hon. Gentleman says, that the Duke of Welligton burnt houses in Spain when compelled to do so by the necessities of the army. Well, but you do not want to take a merchant ship for fuel, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman's argument entirely fails. The right hon. Gentleman adverted to the suggestion of a Congress, and said, that if you are to expect a meeting of diplomatists to consider the welfare of commerce, you must wait till the Greek Kalends. For my part, I do not see why a Congress should not meet and calmly discuss this question in the interests both of commerce and of Europe. I do not know what course my hon. Friend will follow, but I have heard with regret the announcement that the Government will not entertain this question, and that one reason why they will not do it is because the United States did not adopt this principle towards the Southern States. Why, that is the case of a struggle between two great sections of one country, and not an international dispute. It therefore constitutes no ground for opposing the views of my hon. Friend. I firmly believe that, sooner or later, this principle will prevail. It may be resisted by the present Administration, and yet I had certainly thought from the speech which my hon. Friend quoted that it would not have encountered opposition from the noble Viscount's Government. I thought from that lan Grossbrit. 11. März 1862. guage that the noble Viscount had seen that it was necessary to moderate No. XLVIII. the horrors of war, and that the Government was disposed as much as possible to protect the private property of their own countrymen as well as of others. But, whatever course the Government may take as to the Resolution of my hon. Friend, whether they object to it as too general or not put in proper form, I am confident that the time will come when the House will not turn a deaf ear to the prayer which is addressed to it by the great majority of the commercial interests of the country. Debate adjourned till Monday next. No. XLIX. GROSSBRITANNIEN. Aus der Unterhaussitzung vom 17. März 1862, betreffend eine Motion von Mr. Horsfall auf Aenderung des unbefriedigenden Zustandes des Seekriegsrechts. Debatte.) (Fortsetzung der Mr. Lindsay said, Objections had been taken to the form of the Motion. That was a course which was very frequently pursued. The fact was, that when a principle was not easily answered, it was common enough to take objection to the form in which the principle was put before the House. There were many in the House who had long held the opinions expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall). He (Mr. Lindsay) had long done so; and after the Declaration of Paris in reference to the rights of neutrals had been adopted, the international maritime law of the civilized world had, in his opinion, been placed in so very unsatisfactory a condition, that early in 1857 he brought the subject under the consideration of the House. At that time the noble Viscount, then, as now, at the head of the Government, said the question required the gravest and most deliberate consideration on the part of the Government. The noble Earl the present Foreign Secretary, who was not then in office, said the question was one of the utmost importance that the facts stated by him (Mr. Lindsay) were very serious, and that he would like to hear some statement on the part of the Government on the grounds for entering into the Declaration; and he concluded by saying that the whole matter was very unsatisfactory, while it was most grave in its bearing on our naval supremacy. He (Mr. Lindsay) had also brought the subject under the consideration of the Merchant Shipping Committee, of which he was a member, and that Committee unanimously reportet that it was desirable for the true interests of this country that all property not contraband of war should be respected during war. The subject was not therefore new. Now, if the Resolution offered to the House by the hon. Member for Liverpool sought to pledge Her Majesty's Government to make all private property exempt from capture at sea, he No. XLIX. Grossbrit. 17. März 1860. No. XLIX. could well understand Grossbrit. 17 März 1862. - though he held to that principle that the House would require time for further consideration before agreeing to it. But all that the Resolution asked was, that the House should affirm „That the state of international maritime law, as affecting the rights of belligerents and neutrals, was ill-defined and unsatisfactory, and called for the early attention of the Government; and he did not see how it was possible to controvert the truth of that statement. When he considered the vast change introduced by the Declaration of 1856, and its bearing upon all classes of the community, he thought they could hardly do otherwise than declare the present state of things unsatisfactory. In dealing with this question they must consider it, first, as it affected ourselves, and, second, as it affected our enemies. With regard to ourselves, the reasons which had been adduced why a change should not be made were, first, that our ships and commerce were spread over every sea, and required our fleets to defend them. Then it was said, that if we took the step in advance proposed, we should deal a fatal blow at the naval power of England, and commit an act of political suicide. On the other hand, by allowing the present state of things to remain, it was said that we should retain the great source of our power, which was our ability to destroy the commerce of the enemy. Now, as to the first of these objections, let them suppose that unhappily we were at war with France. In that case, let us ask the question, would we require our large fleet to protect our ships and commerce on the sea? No; for the simple reason that all our commerce would be conveyed from this country under neutral flags. No sane merchant would ship in any other than American, or other neutral bottoms, so long as there was a remote danger even of British ships being captured. The result would be that all British ships would be laid up in port or transferred to neutral nations. Thus, then, the objection that we should require our fleets to protect our ships and commerce, in his opinion, entirely fell to the ground. Again, it was said that our fleets would be required to destroy the commerce of the enemy; but what applied to our own commerce applied equally to that of the enemy. The merchandise of France would be carried in neutral bottoms. We should therefore find in the commercial intercourse of nations no opportunity for the display of our maritime superiority. But did the destruction of private property help to restore peace? He did not believe it had that effect, and the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston) had expressed a similar opinion at Liverpool some years ago. He (Mr. Lindsay) believed that the destruction of private property, instead of bringing war to an end, tended to prolong it. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of War (Sir George Lewis) that war put an end to all engagements of the nature of treaties, so far as regarded the nations at war; and that if we were engaged in a war with France, it could not be supposed that either France or England would respect the Declaration of Paris. But it must be borne in mind that Austria, Russia, Prussia, Sardinia, Turkey, and forty other Powers, were also parties to it; and if we were involved in a war with France, that country would take good care, if we desired to violate the treaty, to call upon the other nations to remonstrate with us, * * Grossbrit. 1862. and, if necessary, to take part with France in seeing that England observed No. XLIX. the stipulations of a treaty to which they all had been consenting parties. 17. März Thus we might be placed in a very awkward position. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) said he admitted the Declaration of Paris must give advantage to neutral vessels over those of belligerents, but that he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Horsfall) that the further effect of the Declaration would be to put a stop to our carrying if we were belligerents, because we were so strong at sea as to be able to defend our maritime flag everywhere. But he (Mr. Lindsay) believed, that if a war were to arise between this country and any other great maritime nation, it would be impossible for our navy to ensure complete safety upon the high seas to our vast commercial shipping. The hon. and learned Gentleman said we were able to protect it during the great war of the first French Empire. But had he ever considered the vast change which had taken place since then? In the last year of that war the total amount of our imports and exports together was £60,000,000 sterling, while their value in 1860-61 was close upon £300,000,000 sterling. Our shipping at that time amounted to about 1,000,000 tons, while now it was close on 5,000,000 tons, of which 500,000 tons was steam-shipping a description of ship then totally unknown. Did any one suppose that it would be possible to maintain a fleet capable of efficiently guarding such a mercantile navy as this? Again, the character and course of our commerce was entirely changed. We had entered into great relations with other countries, and had steam-ships constantly crossing the ocean at a speed which would enable them to distance almost any of the ships in the navy sent to convoy them. There were mail steamers daily leaving our ports for distant parts of the world. These must continue, or we should come to a standstill, because now we depended so much for everything we wanted upon foreign nations. Take the articles of corn, cotton, and sugar alone. The value of those three articles imported every year into this country was not less than £75,000,000 sterling, a sum which was a great deal more than the value of the whole imports and exports in 1814. Again, looking at the account of British and foreign vessels entered inwards and outwards at the ports of this country, they amounted, including the coasting trade, to no less than 55,000,000 tons anually. That was a state of things entirely different to what prevailed in 1814, the period to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. Then it was said that this was a shipowner's question a mere commercial question. If hon. Members could show that the loss of the shipowners would be for the benefit of the community, then he would agree with them that this was a shipowners' question rather than one affecting the people generally. But upon whom did our operatives and mechanics depend, except upon our merchants and traders? and it was a question, therefore, in which every person in this country had a deep interest. Take it even upon the narrow ground of increased price to the consumer. Freights upon bulky articles, such as corn and cotton and sugar, would be enhanced threefold, and every article would be increased in cost to a greater or less extent. 17. März 1862. No. XLIX. Or look at it on the ground of pecuniary loss by the maintenance of the Grossbrit. right of burning, plundering, and destroying our enemy's property; but we had more property afloat to be burnt, plundered, and destroyed than any other nation, so that we should be sure to be far the largest sufferers. He had not intended to occupy the time of the House so long, but as his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Cobden) had been unable, just then, to take part in the debate, he had ventured to make these observations to the House. He trusted that if the House should not be prepared to affirm at present that all private property ought to be respected in time of war, it would at least declare our international law to be in an unsatisfactory state, and that the subject required the grave consideration of Her Majesty's Government. Sir Stafford Northcote: It would not be for the honour of this country to say that we were looking forward to the time when we might be able to violate a treaty which we had made on this subject. And yet such was the language held by a Minister of the Crown on this question of war and the violation of treaties. They all knew that there were stipulations and treaties which war immediately put an end to; but were all treaties made even in contemplation of war to be set aside? If so, they were going back to a state of barbarism. He always understood that the meaning of international law was, that war was to be carried on upon principles laid down in a time of calm. What was the meaning of many articles contained in treaties, if treaties were dissolved by war? Take a very common case, and one which would be found provided for in many treaties to which this country was a party. In case of war breaking out, a certain time was to be given to the subjects of a belligerent Power to quit the ter ritories of the other belligerent. Was that a stipulation which war put an end to? Again, with regard to a treaty stipulating that public debts should remain payable in time of war, was that also done away with when war broke out? He would quote the following passage from Chancellor Kent's Commentaries. He says „As a general rule, the obligations of treaties are dissipated by hostilities; but if a treaty contains any stipulations which contemplate a state of future war and make provision for such an exigency, those stipulations preserve their force and obligation when the rupture takes place. The obligation of keeping faith is so far from ceasing in time of war, that its efficacy becomes increased, from the increased necessity for it." And he goes on to cite the instance of the exchange of prisoners of war. Now, this was a matter which ought to be cleared up, whereas it was now left in studied vagueness. The most opposite opinions were entertained on this subject, some persons being anxious to go forward and others to go back. The latter, he ventured to say, were lapping themselves in a fool's paradise, for they thought it the simplest thing in the world to get rid of those treaties. It was idle to suppose that treaties could be got rid of when war broke out; and he should like to know whether the Government had considered the question from this point of view. There was another point on which great confusion existed. A good deal had been said about the |