LEAVE. MOTION WITHDRAWN. (Hansard, 5 July 1859)

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR
said, that he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act (59 Geo. III., c. 69), so far as it relates to transports and store ships. In the Motion he was about to make, he had the support of the General Shipowners' Society. The Act which he sought to amend was brought in by Lord Liverpool in 1819. It was passed, no doubt, to put down the spirit of adventurous enterprize which had at that time been excited, the purpose of which was to give succour to the revolted colonies in South America. Previously to the passing of that Act there existed the Act of the 29th Geo. II., by which it was made unlawful for any subject of the realm to assist a foreign Power. That statute was passed to put down the Jacobites who were conspiring against the House of Hanover. Its provisions had, however, previously to 1819 become a dead letter, as the rebellious Jacobites had been put down. Accordingly the Act which he now sought to have amended was brought forward. It purported to repeal certain sections of the Act of the 29th Geo. II., but in reality it introduced a principle before that time unknown in the laws of England, and which, he thought, it had never been intended to apply. That principle was contained in the 7th section, which made it unlawful for any one to equip in this kingdom a transport or store-ship for any foreign Potentate carrying on hostilities against any other foreign Potentate, when this country was in a state of neutrality as regarded the contending parties. He complained of this provision. It was difficult to say what might be considered contraband of war. 701 The question had been raised since the commencement of the present hostilities as to whether coals were not contraband of war. The Austrian Government had lately declared them to be so, and therefore unless the Act were amended every collier now clearing in the Tyne or the Wear with stores of coal for the French Government—and there were many in that position just now—might be proceeded against by the English Government for an infraction of our municipal law. What the shipowners complained of was that our municipal law stepped in and enacted a special penalty for an offence which was already provided for by the law of nations. The Act was, moreover, full of difficulty and capable of perpetual evasion. For instance, it declared that no ship should be fitted out within the United Kingdom; a shipowner, therefore, had only to send his vessel over to some neighbouring port, and the Act would not touch him. Again, the Act was only directed against ships employed by any foreign "Power, Potentate, or Sovereign," so that by employing ships through the medium of some private citizen, any Government might completely evade the Act. Therefore, because this Act was tortured to a purpose it never was intended to apply because it rendered more complicated and difficult the neutral policy of the country, and was, moreover, open to evasion, he asked leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of amending it. If ever there was a time when this should be done, it was now, when such a modification had taken place in the spirit of international law that belligerent nations might carry on their trade in time of war, and when there existed such severe distress among the shipping interest that it might be truly said that there lay sicco subductœ litore puppes. That which was now denied to the shipping of this country other countries had the benefit of. America had no such provision as this, and at the present moment American vessels were chartered at high prices, some in the port of London, and some in American ports, and were going into the service of France, while British-owned ships could not engage in the same service.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS
said, he conceived that the hon. and learned Member 702 had not made completely intelligible the full extent of the proposed change of the existing law to which he asked the House to assent. With respect to the Act which it was proposed to amend, he must, in the first place, take the liberty of remarking that it was not an Act the policy of which was confined simply to the prevention of privateering. It was an Act intended to carry into effect what at the time of its being passed was admitted on all hands to be a true principle of international law recognized by every country—namely, that it was the duty of a neutral nation not to interfere or give assistance to any of the belligerent Powers. The international obligation was not confined to the prohibition of privateering, but extended also to the prevention of furnishing supplies of war or other belligerent means to the parties engaged in war. This was the policy of the Act of 1819—a policy which was not by any means confined to England, but which the United States in particular had previously insisted upon in a remarkable manner, and which, in his belief, was embodied in their legislation, though he could not say to what extent. The Act of 1819 was therefore not brought into that House on the false pretext of amending statutes which had become obsolete; it was founded on an acknowledged principle, and had been the law of this country, recognized by all the different Administrations since that period. Such being the law of this country, embodying a recognized principle of international law, and there being now a war on the Continent, and the belligerent Powers appealing to this country to enforce the law, to the enactments of which attention had very properly been drawn by the Royal Proclamation which had been issued on the advice of the late Administration, what did the hon. and learned Gentleman ask the House to do? At the precise moment when the exact provisions of that law were of great importance, the hon. and learned Gentleman asked the House to alter those provisions in a material respect. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to repeal the enactment with respect to transports and storeships. By the existing law it was penal to equip a transport or storeship with the intent of its being used by one of the belligerent Powers. But if the alteration of the hon. and learned Member were carried, it would be lawful for a merchant in any English port to fit out a vessel for the service of France or 703 Sardinia or Austria. He confessed that for any such alteration of the law, even if abstractedly expedient (which he altogether disputed), the present moment appeared most inopportune; and such being the case, he did not feel himself justified, so far as he could collect the hon. and learned Gentleman's meaning from his speech, in assenting to the introduction of the proposed Bill. Therefore, unless stronger reasons were shown for this measure, he trusted that the House would acknowledge that the proposed alteration of the Foreign Enlistment Act would be a proceeding scarcely consistent with the national faith, and might be considered as affecting the neutrality which this country had faithfully observed up to the present time. He, therefore, trusted that the House would not give leave for the introduction of the Bill.

§ MR. BOWYER
said, his objection to the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend was that he proposed to repeal provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which simply gave the sanction of the statute Jaw to the law of nations. The hon. and learned Gentleman had fallen into an error with regard to that law, for he laid it down that the law of nations only forbad the equipping of privateers or armed vessels to take part in hostilities between foreign nations, but the principle of law which applied to such vessels applied equally to the equipment of transports and storeships for the purpose of aiding any of the parties to a war between States with which this country was at peace. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed the repeal of the Statute Law on the ground that such repeal would prevent England from being involved in difficulties which might peril her neutrality, hut he thought such a course would have an entirely different effect, for it would render the Executive of this country powerless to prevent breaches of international law. It was true that vessels employed as transports or storeships would be subject to be taken as prizes by the Powers engaged in hostilities, but he thought the process of taking ships in the open seas by force, and having them condemned as prizes, was liable to much more inconvenience, and was much more likely to produce unpleasant feelings with foreign Powers than the simple process of providing by our own law that international law should not be violated in this country. The existing statute law enabled the Government to step in and to prevent breaches of inter- 704 national law in limine, and he thought such a course was much less calculated to produce angry feeling between England and foreign countries than if our subjects were allowed to violate international law, and foreign Powers whose interests suffered by such acts were left to do justice to themselves by seizing the offending vessels by force, and having them condemned as prizes. The principles of international law had been correctly laid down by the Home Secretary, and he would suggest that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton would act wisely by not pressing his Bill at present.

§ MR. COLLIER
said, that the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer), on his part had mistaken the doctrine of international law. But however that might be, he understood the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour) to amount to this, that if other countries left their shipping to be dealt with according to the principles of international law we should do the same. If our merchants contravened the law of nations by fitting out their ships for transports let them be dealt with by the law of nations, let them be seized as prizes, but let us not interfere by a law of our own, in a manner that other countries did not deal with their shipping. If the question were whether we should legislate at all upon the subject—whether Parliament should assent to such an Act as was passed in 1819—he (Mr. Collier) would be inclined to oppose such legislation; but he felt the force of the observations of the right hon. Home Secretary that such a law being in existence, and hostilities being in progress, by any legislative interference at this time we should lay ourselves open to the imputation of abandoning our neutral position. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. and learned Member for Southampton would not press his Bill.

MR. DIGBY SEYMOUR
said, as the general feeling of the House seemed to be that the present was an inopportune occasion for proposing an alteration of the law, he would not press his Motion.