ENGLAND’S MARITIME RIGHTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5024, 1 May 1877, Page 3

ENGLAND’S MARITIME RIGHTS.

(From the Daily Telegraph, March 3.) Very wide and deep questions were raised last night in the House of Commons by Hr. Percy Wyndham, who, as is well known, is the spokesman of those desirous that England should withdraw from the famous Declaration of Paris on the subject of maritime belligerent rights. On the motion for going into Committee of Supply he moved a long resolution, ending with an affirmation that no unnecessary delay should occur before the object aimed at is accomplished. There can be no dispute on one point, that, in 1856, we gave up what had theretofore been regarded as a valuable right. We agreed, in common with the other patties, to the settlement then made, to sun-eider the power of capturing an enemy’s goods afloat wherever we could find them ; in other words, we formally established a principle/long demanded by neutrals in times of war, that free ships make free goods. Nor can it be denied that great advantages were thereby conferred, not only on all States not engaged in hostilities, but upon some States who might be our adversaries. It is equally true that down to 1854 England had steadfastly upheld belligerent rights in a severe form ■; that the great text-writers on international law sanctioned our doctrine and practice ; but that, when convenient, we relaxed the stringency of cur code on benalf of a friend or an ally. Mr. Wyndham called in the records of history to prove what were accepted maxima ; but.it is obvious at a glance that his learning did not help Ida case, since it failed to demonstrate that a course of action found expedient down to 1854 is expedient now. The law of nations is whatever the nations choose to make it ; and although in the process they are certain to consult precedent, they are aa free to modify the rules as their ancestors were to make them. The real issue to be decided is, whether in the interests of this country and the world it is wise or foolish to reduce maritime belligerent rights within the narrowest limits compatible with belligerency at nil. Hr. Wyndham contends that it is neither sagacious nor prudent. He insists that by yielding the right of capture we weaken our arm of offence on the seas, and deprive ourselves of a weapon which helps to bring the stress of war directly home to the hostile com-

munity. He quotes Lord Stowell, who condemned the notion of a “ military war and a commercial peace” as a thing totally unknown, He says, and the argument has some force, that by exempting from seizure enemies’ goods in neutral ships we give, all the neutral Powers an interest in prolonging the war ; and that, were we to adopt the extreme course of permitting all private property afloat during a war to go scot free, we should be bribing the nation against itself. Moreover, there are States which have refused to sign the Paris Declaration, and were we engaged in a conflict with them, while they could lay hold on our merchandise, we could not seize theirs, since we are bound, while they are not, by the rule that the flag covers the cargo. Perhaps the most cogent reason against the Declaration is that were a war to break out, English commerce, for safety’s sake, might instantly transfer itself to neutral vessels, and leave our vast trading marine idle in our ports. Strong as Mr. Wyudham’s case may be, it is not unanswerable. The Declaration of Paris was not made with a light heart, or in obedience to any theories. The allies of that period, when about to exert their force upon Russia, encountered some hard facts. First, they did not agree between themselves on the law of nations, and next they discovered that it the old sea rules were enforced, another enemy might enter the arena of conflict in defence of neutral rights. Unless we were prepared to quarrel with several Powers, it was urged, the ancient practice must be relinquished ; and, as a matter of fact, until the struggle ended, France and England waived their rights. The consequence was that Russian commodities were freely carried over Prussian railways and shipped from the North Sea ports, so that no pressure was exerted on the enemy beyond that involved in a change of transit. Mr. Grant Duff, who last night represented the Cobden school, and desired that the Government would carefully consider the present unsatisfactory condition of maritime rights, was perfectly correct when he said that the Declaration simply recognised the new state of things brought about by railways, free trade, and the temper of powerful nations. In such circumstances, and considering that the influences described have increased and are increasing, shall we abrogate, extend, or leave the Declaration alone? Mr. Grant Duff plainly expressed a disposition, shared by many persons, to advance on the path into which we have entered, and obtain the assent of all the Powers to what we may call the “ irreducible minimum” of belligerents rights at sea. . . . We are in this unpleasant position, that if we maintain, ns we shall maintain, the Declaration of Paris—the cogent and spirited speech of Mr. Bourke leaves no doubt on that head—we may, in the event of war, see our carrying trade fly away to neutral lands, while, were we to withdraw from the Declaration, we should run the risk of having to face a powerful hostile confederacy. Mr. Wyndham boasts that what we have done before we could do ao-ain—stand alone, if need be, against a Continent in arms. Possibly; yet the state of the world is vastly different from what it was in the days of Napoleon; and we are at least entitled to doubt whether the luxury would be worth the cost.

Nevertheless, while it is not possible, honorable, or desirable to go back, much serious deliberation is required when we are asked to push forward the maritime rights of neutrals. The fact that we have parted, and shall part, with power at sea, provided the views of Mr. Cobden prevail, should be distinctly recognised. The English navy will be restricted to operations against antagonist squadrons, the blockade of war-ports, the convoy of troop-ships, the protection of naval stations, and the labor of keeping open our ocean lines of communication with distant colonies and remote dependencies. There would, of course, remain the duty of defending our coasts and sweeping the channel clear of hostile fleets. What Power, situated like England, would consent to be bound in such fetters ? Great sacrifices may be made on behalf of commerce and good neighborhood, but we would be untrue to ourselves were we to surrender the “ sceptre of force” so completely as Mr. Grant Duff and his friends demand. Mr. Bourke’s able speech showed, what no one could doubt, that the right of capturing our enemies’ ships and cargoes will be upheld, and that the ludicrous spectacle of ironclads engaged in mortal combat while hostile merchantmen stood by to see the fray will not be witnessed on any sea where the English flag flies. . . . . As our trade has expanded beyond all precedent, so have our means of protecting it from foes. If we are dependent on foreign produce, food, and raw material, we are also able to build more vessels wherewith to convey home the needful stores. Steam has altered alike the conditions of transport and. of warfare, but no other State possesses greater supplies of coal, and, what is of equal moment, so many stations where fuel can be accumulated for the use of our marine. We therefore stand by the Declaration of Paris, but are not prepared to endorse the sweeping principles laid down or indicated by Mr. Jacob Bright and Mr. Grant Duff. 1 They would deteriorate the'pbsition of England, serve only the purposes of other Powers, and almost compel us, under all circumstances, in face of all affronts, and notwithstanding policies of aggression, to remain at peace. In times like the present the necessity for preserving in its integrity the might of England is an imperative duty on all statesmen who may be intrusted with the care of her immense interests, and it is impossible that either party should deal a deadly stroke at the heart of our strength—the British navy. (From The Times, March 3.1

The critical state of the Continent gave somewhat more interest to the debate in the House of Commons last night on the subject of our maritime rights than the discussion of the same theme possessed last year. It is undoubtedly an important fact that in 1856 we declared privateering to be abolished ; the neutral flag to cover an enemy’s goods, with the exception of contraband of war ; and neutral goods, with the same exception, not to be liable to capture under an enemy’s flag. The Declaration of Paris was undoubtedly a formal abandonment of claims which we once held to be an essential part of our naval policy, and which we were prepared to enforce with our whole strength. If England, the Continent, and the conditions of trade were the same in 1877 as they were in 1812, it might be difficult to answer the speech in which Mr. Percy Wyndham moved that the Government should take steps to free this country from the Declaration of Paris. . . . If tliis country were a belligerent, would that compact do an injury to it outweighing the gain thus obtained in time of peace ! That was the question most seriously discussed last night, and the opponents of the Declaration naturally tried to show that it robbed us of an important power to make war destructive. The hostile State, they pointed out, could send its goods by railway to the nearest neutral port and then ship them without risk. No doubt it could, and so far our means of inflicting loss are lessened. . . . Our navy is set free to

guard our own coasts; to blockade the ports of the enemy, to destroy hostile fleets, to protect our troopships and our military stores. Thus its functions have been more specialized. It has been made more distinctly a fighting instrument. A still greater gain is found in the fact that our trade is saved from destruction. “Our own commerce,” as Mr. Grant Duff observed, “is the only commerce which it could be worth while to cut up if there were no Declaration of Paris.” Mr. Wyndham and his supporters do not seem to have considered what enormous havoc would be inflicted on English ships by a score of Alabamaa. .' . . Mr. Eourke, who replied on behalf of the Government, emphatically supported the Declaration of Paris. The temper of the House was shown by the firmness with which it resisted a motion for the adjournment of the debate, as well as by the large majority which rejected Mr. Percy Wyndham’s motion. It has clearly made up its mind that the Declaration of Paris is alike necessary and beneficial