About the same time, Mr. Horsfall, M.P. for Liverpool, who had given notice of a motion on the subject of belligerent rights at sea, consented, at the urgent request of Lord Palmerston, which was seconded by Mr. Walpole, to postpone it, as the Government were not yet prepared to make a distinct statement. And a few days later, in answer to an inquiry on the subject from Lord Derby, in the House of Lords, Lord Granville stated that the Government were about to issue a proclamation warning Her Majesty's subjects not to depart from that neutrality Her Majesty was so anxious to preserve in the war which had arisen between the Northern and Southern States of America. After such a proclamation, no British sailor, if captured as a privateer and treated as a pirate, would be entitled to claim the official protection of his Govern ment. The proclamation referred to appeared on the 14th of May, announcing the neutrality of the British Government, and warning all subjects of the Queen to be strictly neutral also. It prohibited them to enlist for sea or land service on either side, to supply munitions of war, to equip vessels for privateering purposes, to engage in any transport service, or to do any other act calculated to afford assistance to either party. The effect of this proclamation came under discussion in the House of Lords shortly afterwards, Lord Ellenborough having complained that the language employed in it did not accurately define its intent, especially with reference to the terms " blockade," and "contraband of war." The noble Earl requested of the Government that some explanation might be given of the meaning of these phrases. Lord Granville explained that, as far as the Powers who were parties to the declaration of Paris were concerned, the definition of the word 66 blockade" as therein laid down was binding, but that that declaration did not change the law of nations in respect of those nations not represented in the Congress of Paris. He briefly explained what constituted a blockade, but added that in respect of "articles contraband of war" the meaning was ever varying, for while certain articles were looked upon by all nations as contraband, there were others in which the determination of a Prize Court would be necessary. Lord Derby thought Lord Granville's answer satisfactory. He was not inclined to quarrel with the terms of the proclamation, as it was impossible to give such definitions as would include all cases. It was necessary, he considered, that the Northern States should understand that this country would not recognize any blockade that was not effectual, nor would admit the power assumed by them of constituting privateering piracy and inflicting the punishment of death for such an act, as such a course of action would be contrary to the law of nations. Lord Brougham wished that privateering was, by the law of nations, piracy. Any subject, however, joining in an expedition against any Power at peace with Her Majesty was guilty of a piratical act, and his blood must rest on his own head. He then briefly declared his opinion of what constituted "contraband of war" and an efficient blockade. Lord Chelmsford dissented from the opinion expressed by Lord Brougham that Her Majesty's subjects joining in privateering expeditions would be guilty of piracy. The Lord Chancellor said that, although a subject by joining a privateering expedition would violate the laws of this country, still, if he accepted a commission from either of the belligerents he was carrying on a justum bellum, and was not liable to the penalties of piracy. Lord Kingsdown said that, if the Northern States chose to consider the Southern States as rebels, they had no right to consider and treat the subjects of foreign States as such, because the Southern States had been recognized by us as belligerents. It was impossible to define contraband of war. The subject then dropped. On the 3rd of June it was again taken up in the House of Commons. Mr. W. E. Forster inquired whether Her Majesty's Government would take any measures to prevent privateers sailing under the recognized flag of the Southern Confederacy from bringing their prizes into any port in Her Majesty's do minions. Lord John Russell stated, that orders had been given, under the advice of the law officers of the Crown, to prohibit armed ships and privateers belonging to the United Federal or the Confederated States of America from carrying their prizes into British ports, and that the French Am bassador had informed him that his Government proposed to act in conformity with the existing law of France, under which privateers could not bring their prizes into French ports to sell their cargoes, or continue there longer than 24 hours, on the expiration of which time they would be obliged to leave the harbour; this law applying only to privateers. He replied to other questions relating to the same subject. Sir J. Elphinstone asked what means Her Majesty's Government had taken to make the British seamen who were employed in the trade of this country, and many of whom had been employed in the American trade, aware of the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to America. Lord John Russell said a proclamation had been issued stating that this country would be neutral, and any British seaman landing at any British port would immediately become acquainted with the nature of the proclamation. Throughout the session the House of Commons exhibited a firm determination to abstain from any discussion which might involve an expression of opinion. on the merits of the American contest. This feeling was especially manifested in reference to a notice of motion given by Mr. Gregory for the 7th of June, on the subject of recognizing the Southern Confederacy. Col. Wilson Patten, at the commencement of the sitting on that day, made an earnest appeal to the hon. member for Galway to abstain from raising the discussion proposed by him as to the expediency of the British Government recognizing the Southern States. He said, that he was sure he represented the wishes of the great majority of the House in asking that a discussion, pregnant with so much risk and inconvenience, should be avoided. Mr. Gregory said, his object in giving the notice had been to endeavour to obtain a hearing for the Southern States, and that the House might have a fair and impartial account of the differences between the two sections. He should not, however, put himself in opposition to the wishes of the House, which evinced so strong a feeling on the subject, and would, therefore, postpone his motion for the present, with the hope that he should have an opportunity of bringing forward the subject before the close of the session. Happily, however, the session terminated without any debate on this delicate and complicated question being suffered to take place: Shortly afterwards attention was called by Sir James Ferguson to the detachment of 3000 men about to be sent out from England to Canada, and explanations of this step were asked for of the Government. The hon. baronet said he considered this force to be insufficient for any effective service, and yet large enough to be regarded as a demonstration. In that light he feared it would be viewed by the United States Government. He also alluded to the facilities for desertion from our army which would be offered in Canada. Lord Palmerston expressed his surprise at the insinuations which the honourable baronet, himself an officer in the army, had chosen to convey against that service with reference to the probability of extensive desertion. He was neither apprehensive of an invasion from the United States, fully occupied as they were, nor distrustful of the loyalty of the Canadians. The despatch of the troops was simply a measure of ordinary precaution, which Government would have been much to blame had they neglected. The honourable baronet had admitted the necessity of sending out some reinforcements; and he had effectually answered his own arguments against their excessive numbers, by complaining in the same breath that they were not strong enough. A great deal had often been said against troops being crowded on board small and inconvenient transports, but he believed it was the first time Government had been found fault with for sending them out in the largest and fastest transports to be had. The hon. baronet had also admitted that they could not be sent out in winter; they must therefore go in summer. In conclusion, the noble lord repeated his disclaimer of having any object whatever in despatching the troops in question to Canada, but the ordinary precaution, always essential in a country contiguous to another country where disturbances existed. Mr. Disraeli vindicated the justice of Sir J. Ferguson's observations. He thought the sending out of this reinforcement to Canada was not an act of sound policy. The United States would infer from it that our Government looked forward with suspicion to the contingency of hostilities. The subject then dropped. Soon after the commencement of the session, Earl Grey called the attention of the House of Lords to the policy recently pursued by Her Majesty's Government towards China, and to the treaty concluded by Lord Elgin with that Power. In an able speech, the noble lord entered into a detailed account of the rise and progress of British trade in China up to the conclusion of the opium war. The result of that war was a treaty obtained on the most advantageous terms to ourselves, but which, although faithfully observed by the Chinese Government, had been abused by ourselves. Instead of stifling the trade in opium, we had done our best to promote it, and, in addition, had introduced a trade more pernicious-the export of coolies-a slave trade in disguise. These abuses, due to a certain extent to the corruptibility of the Chinese officials, had led to acts of which we should have been ashamed, if we had been dealing with a more civilized country, and had at last even induced conscientious men, who had embarked in the trade with the most honourable intention, to follow the bad example, until at last the whole trade had become demoralized. This alone was a great evil, as it would help to spread a growing opinion that our standard of commercial morality was not what it had been, and would lessen the high name for honour which English merchants possessed all over the world. Lord Grey then endea youred to prove that our policy in China had injuriously affected our pecuniary interests, arguing that the state of anarchy and rebellion, which checked all internal commerce and communication in China, and the smuggling and piracy on her coasts dated from the treaty of Nankin and the opium war. Judging from the past, he said, it was impossible not to perceive that the recent treaty exacted by Lord Elgin was a further step in the wrong direction, and would produce like results. At the conclusion of the opium war, when the Chinese resources were unimpaired, we had required only 3,000,000l., but now, after a long rebellion and a costly war, we asked 5,300,000l. How was this sum to be paid without weakening the Chinese Government so much that the empire must at last collapse a result by no means desirable, even from a low point of view, that of interest? The object of the expedition up the Yang-tse was to overawe the rebels, but in doing so, the Government would be trying to stop abuses which they themselves had fostered, and he warned them that their efforts would be useless unless they were prepared to maintain a large and permanent military force in China. The treaty which had been concluded with China by Lord Elgin contained the germs of future difficulties, and he feared of future wars; and he begged their Lordships to consider the matter seriously, the more so as the same events were likely to take place in Japan, where similar abuses existed. This country, he asserted, might, had a different policy been pur sued, have obtained, without war or violence, the means of carrying on a large and profitable commerce with China. As it was, we had inflicted the horrors of war on the Chinese at an enormous expense to ourselves, and left our trade on even a more precarious footing than it was before. In conclusion, he expressed his regret that we had not, before acting in conjunction with the French, ascertained whether the French grievance was a just one. It was Lord Wodehouse said there would be no objection to lay the papers moved for on the table of the House. Those papers proved that Lord Elgin's intention in going up the Yang-tse was only to promote trade, and was perfectly unconnected with the rebellion. He could not agree with Lord Grey in the exaggerated effects which he attributed to the treaty of Nankin. very easy to impute all the blame of the opium trade to this country, but it was well known that, in spite of the Chinese law, opium had been and was introduced into that country, so that if we had enforced the prohibition of opium, we should have been doing that to which Lord Grey so much objected interfering with the Chinese authorities for the sake of enforcing Chinese laws. Alluding to the subject of the duties, he stated that we had taken steps to assist in collecting those which the Chinese were unable to collect for themselves, and had, as fairly as we could, endeavoured to carry out the stipulation of the treaty. As to the emigration of coolies, he entirely concurred with Lord Grey on the duty of foreign Go vernments to put an end to the traffic, but entirely dissented from his conclusions, in which he saddled the Government of this country with the responsibility of having promoted this traffic. As a matter of fact, the Government had done all they could to discourage it. In regard to piracy, the Government maintained a large naval force in the Chinese seas for its suppression. He complained that, while Lord Grey had objected to everything that had been done, he had suggested nothing himself for remedying the state of things. He then proceeded to vindicate the good faith of the British Government, and to insist that, if the Chinese did not observe the plain and simple words of the treaty, it became necessary to allow no evasion, but to enforce that observance if any intercourse at all were to be carried on. If the Chinese once entertained the idea that we would depart from the words of the treaty, they would circumvent us by their tricky diplomacy, and oblige us at last to cut the matter with the sword. The conduct of our troops at Shanghai required no vindication. The question was simply whether British merchants were to be plundered, or the rebels to be repelled from the town. However, he informed the House that there was no intention on the part of the Government to meddle with the civil dissensions of China, but only to uphold our rights, if menaced. In conclusion, he detailed the circumstances which led to the occupation of Pekin and the burning of the Summer. Palace, assured the House that the Government had no other policy in China than to cause |