nations. He opposed the motion.

Mr. Liddell supported the motion, urging the disadvantages under which the existing state of the law placed this country. Why, he asked, should British vessels be debarred, in time of war, from advantages conceded to neutrals, thereby crippling our own trade and encouraging that of rivals? The proposal to exempt all private property from capture, he granted, was new; but this was no objection to its justice, and it was only carrying our relaxation of the old law a little further.

Sir G. Lewis said the question raised by the motion was of paramount importance to this country, and the House should not arrive at a precipitate conclusion in regard to it. The terms of the Resolution were very general; they involved the question of privateering and that of the exemption of all private property. Mr. Horsfall should have moved an Address to the Crown in a form that would have brought the question fairly under the consideration of the House, his present course being most inconvenient. He took a different view of the whole subject from Mr. Horsfall, pointing out the difficulties with which it was encumbered. As to the doctrine which would assimilate the law of maritime warfare with that of land warfare, he denied the position that in the latter private property was respected; by the law of land-war, as recognized by civilized nations, private property was not respected.

Mr. T. Baring observed that, under the Declaration of Paris, which he neither blamed nor ap

proved, in the event of a war with France, the trade of the world would be carried on under neutral flags, and the object of the motion was to elicit the opinion of the Government and strengthen their hands in their negotiations with foreign Powers to effect a change of the law which would benefit the commerce of the world, and must sooner or later be adopted.

Mr. Lindsay, who began by obviating objections to the form of the motion, contended that Mr. Horsfall had taken the only course open to him. All that his Resolution asked the House to do was to declare, that the present state of the law was ill-defined and unsatifactory, and called for the early attention of the Government. He proceeded to argue that the law was not in a satisfactory state, and that it gave undue advantages to neutrals. He denied that wars were affected by the losses of individuals; on the contrary, he had no doubt that the destruction of private property tended to aggravate and prolong war. He insisted upon the changes which had taken place in the course as well as in the extent of our commerce since the last maritime war, and upon the insufficiency of our naval force to protect it. The question, he observed, affected not merely particular interests, but the whole community, who would have to pay in time of war enhanced prices for commodities.

The Lord-Advocate observed that the Resolution did not indicate how the law could be better' defined, or put in a more satisfactory state. It was argued, in support of the Resolution, that the subjecting of the private pro

perty of belligerents to capture at sea was contrary to the rules of legitimate warfare, and opposed to the interests of this country. He did not know whether the Resolution did not go further; whether it was not meant to extend to blockade. Now, he suggested that these matters were too important to be discussed with any benefit in that House; the solution of these questions did not rest solely in our hands, and could be practically effected only in some unforeseen crisis. The interests of this country, so far from being imperilled by the present state of the law, lay the other way. The change desired would, in his opinion, strike what might be a fatal blow at our naval supremacy. The abstract principle of the law was, that you were entitled to take enemy's property, private as well as public, wherever you might find it, that principle being tempered and relaxed in particular cases of private property by the humane practice of all nations. He believed that the interests of humanity would be prejudiced, not benefited, by the change, the result of which would be to place us in a chronic state of war, that would press upon our resources; our navy would dwindle away, and our supremacy at sea would vanish.

Sir S. Northcote considered that it would be unadvisable to adopt the Resolution; but he protested against some of the doctrines propounded by the Lord-Advocate, who, he thought, had failed to grapple with the real question. That question was, what was the real position of this country, and how its maritime power, upon which its existence depended, was affected

with relation to international law since the Declaration of Paris. He contended that the foundation of our naval power was the commercial marine of this country; and, looking at the effect of that Declaration, it ought to be clearly understood whether the Government intended that we should remain as we were, or should go forward, as some desired, or, as others advised, go back. Not overlooking the claims of humanity, he, as an Englishman, regarded the question as resting upon the comparative advantages and disadvantages to England involved in it. He regretted that the arrangements of 1856 did not at the time undergo full discussion in that House; but it was not too late to repair the fault, and he hoped the result of the present discussion would be to induce the House not to allow the whole question, a very difficult one, to be put aside in a sweeping and summary manner. He was not prepared to adopt the Resolution, which he hoped would not be pressed to a division.

Lord H. Vane defended the Declaration of Paris, observing that Mr. Horsfall invited them to go a step further, on the ground that the concession already made would throw our commerce into neutral hands. He was of opinion that a relaxation of the law, under certain conditions, would not endanger, but would benefit, the commerce of the country.

Mr. Buxton agreed that the question depended upon the effect which the proposed modification of the law would have upon our naval supremacy, and

argued that, since the Declaration of Paris, our ships, in time of war, would be confined to our own ports, our trade carried on in neutral bottoms, and our sailors tempted by higher wages into the service of neutrals.

Mr. Massey observed that the question was not as to the satisfactory state of the maritime law, but the terms of a Convention which had superseded that law. The practice of privateering was sanctioned by the law of nations, and the rule that a neutral flag should not cover enemy's goods had been the public law of Europe up to the Convention of Paris, which had abrogated both these laws. Mr. Horsfall proposed to complete the code, and give in future immunity to private property. The Convention of Paris had, in fact, conceded the great bulk of his proposition, and it was not denied that, as it stood, it would infallibly inflict injury upon the shipping interest of this country, which had suffered more than any other by the operation of free trade. The proposition of Mr. Horsfall would remedy this injustice, and render the code consistent. He would not say whether the Convention of Paris was politic or not, but the concession had been made under no pressure by the five leading Powers of Europe. The argument that the termination of a war was hastened by the destruction of a nation's commerce was refuted by experience, and, when he was asked to what security he trusted for the observance of the law of immunity, he replied that it was to public opinion, the dominion of which had increased and was increasing. He

recommended, however, the withdrawal of the Resolution.

Mr. Bentinck considered that the whole question turned upon the Declaration of Paris; whether, in the event of war, we were bound by the Declaration. The motion called upon the House to affirm or deny a proposition to which he assented, while he dissented from the remedy proposed.

Mr. Bright had no doubt that the motion had been drawn up in its present form in the hope that the Government might accept it, as it did not pledge them to anything, but left them to take whatever proceedings they might think advisable hereafter. The Government had been blamed for the course they took in 1856; but he was of opinion that it was necessary and proper, and could not be avoided. But under the Declaration great injury would result to belligerents in time of war. We had agreed to make war less burdensome to ourselves and to an enemy, but we had done it in such a manner as to inflict very grievous injury upon a great and important class. What did Mr. Horsfall propose? To include the ship as well as the goods,-a proposition which logically followed the other, and the effect of which would be to render war remote and unfrequent. Arguing from the vast number of captures of British vessels in the short war with America in 1812-14, when our tonnage was only 3,500,000, he asked what would be the injury to British commerce when our tonnage had grown to 12,000,000 or 13,000,000. In the end, it

would not be possible to resist this proposition, to which other countries were already favourable.

The Solicitor-General, Sir Roundell Palmer, reviewed the arguments adduced on either side in a speech of great cogency and power. He said it appeared to him that the arguments in favour of the Resolution were founded almost entirely upon the Declaration of Paris. But there were reasons in favour of exempting from capture enemy's goods under a neutral flag which did not apply to a proposal to let enemy's ships go free. It was argued that, in the event of war, a great part of our carrying trade would pass into the hands of neutrals; but unless the advantages preponderated in favour of a change, it was wise to submit to sacrifices rather than imperil the great interests of the nation. He urged, on the other hand, the evils that would spring from adopting the recommendation of Mr. Horsfall, and pointed out what he considered to be, fallacies in the attempt to establish an analogy between maritime warfare and warfare on land. The advocates of the proposition, he observed, had abstained from touching upon the subject of blockade; but it would be difficult to draw a clear line of distinction between other maritime belligerent rights and the right of blockade, and after the concession contended for had been yielded, an argument would inevitably spring up against blockade. With regard to the securities for the mutual observance of such a concession, he cited an instance from the recent despatch

of Mr. Seward upon the affair of the Trent, which, he remarked, should be a warning to us not to trust too much to engagements with other nations, for the breach of which plausible excuses would never be wanting.

Mr. Walpole admitted a large part of the arguments of the Solicitor-General to be conclusive upon the question; but those which dealt with the Declaration of Paris were not, in his opinion, so conclusive or satisfactory. He dwelt upon the inconveniences and the difficul ties attending that Declaration, which gave up a point of importance, abandoning a safeguard and protection of our maritime supremacy; and he called for some more cogent argument in its favour if it were to be binding upon us, or for some assurance that this one-sided Declaration should be, if possible, amended.

Lord Palmerston observed that nothing was more inconvenient than for the House to adopt a general and abstract Resolution, and the Government, if called upon to act upon this Resolution, could only guess at the course they were to pursue from the arguments urged in support of it; but the arguments were so discordant that he was at a loss to know which were to be their guide. This, he thought, was itself sufficient reason why the House should not assent to the motion. With regard to the Declaration of Paris, the only new point was, that an enemy's property should be free from capture in neutral vessels, and he insisted that it was wise and politic to adopt that principle, and he did not hesitate to say

they had no intention to go back. Then came Mr. Horsfall's proposition, which, it was said, was a logical sequence of the Declaration. This he denied. The Declaration related to the position of neutrals in time of war; but the proposition referred to the position of belligerents towards each other. His opinion was that if we gave up the power we possessed, and which every maritime nation exercised, of seizing an enemy's ships, thereby reducing war almost to an interchange of diplomatic relations, we should cripple our main arm of strength, inflict a fatal blow upon our naval supremacy, and commit an act of political suicide. Mr. Disraeli considered this to be the most important question that could engage the attention of the House, and that the Declaration of Paris had given up a cardinal principle of our maritime code, which, it was a general belief, would lead to important consequences to the naval strength of the country. Referring to the speech of Lord Palmerston at Liverpool, he contended that he had actually recommended the policy which he now characterized as suicidal. He could not, he said, support the proposition of Mr. Horsfall, nor could he agree with Lord Palmerston that the Declaration of Paris should not be changed. He found that there was a statesman of high character who was strongly impressed with the alarming operation of the Declaration of Paris-the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs-who had declared that, in his opinion, the Declaration ought to be altered.

Mr. Horsfall, expressing his

satisfaction at the full discussion which the subject had undergone, withdrew his motion.

A proclamation issued by Gen. Butler, the United States Commandant in New Orleans, respecting the treatment to be adopted towards women who should show any affront towards the United States Flag in that city, was the next incident in the America war which furnished occasion for comments in Parliament.

Lord Russell, in reply to questions from Lord Carnarvon, said he had every reason to believe that the proclamation of General Butler, at New Orleans, that women who showed contempt of Federal officers and soldiers should be treated as prostitutes plying their vocation was authentic, but that it would be disavowed by the Federal Government. Supposing there was no intention of putting it in force, it was likely, if not immediately disavowed, to give the soldiery a licence for great brutality. With respect to the rumour that England and France intended to offer their mediation to the belligerent parties, it was entirely without foundation. In his opinion, the present time was most inopportune for such a course, and no good would come of it. There was no intention on the part of the Government to mediate at the present moment.

A similar question was addressed by Sir John Walsh to the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. The hon. Baronet commented in severe terms upon this extraordinary proclamation, which, he thought, would be universally reprobated by public opinion in this country; and it would, in his opinion, redound to