No. 3.

31, Essex-street, Strand, London, April 21, 1876. MY LORD, I have delayed replying to your lordship's letter of the 5th instant, in the expectation that I should receive from you an answer to the letter of the 10th March, addressed to you on behalf of this League, which letter you then acknowledged and for which you were so good as to thank me.

In the fear that the letter may have escaped your attention, Lam directed respectfully to ask when the Council may expect to receive from your lordship an answer to the letter in question.

I have the honour to be, my Lord, your obedient servant,

A. HILLIARD ATTERIDGE, Secretary to the Maritime League.

The Right Hon the Earl COWLEY, K.G.

No. 4.

Draycot House, Chippenham, April 24, 1876. SIR, I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 21st inst.

Having taken part in the negotiations which led to the Declaration of Paris, it would not be right for me to enter into any correspondence relating to that transaction. I hope therefore that the Maritime League for the Resumption of Naval Rights by Great Britain will not think it an act of discourtesy if I feel myself precluded from entering further into the subject with them.

COWLEY.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant, A. H. ATTERIDGE, Esq.

No. 5.

31, Essex-street, Strand, London, May 10, 1876. MY LORD, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th ultimo. In reply to it I am directed by the Council of the League to notify to your lordship that as you have declined to answer the questions addressed to you in our communication of the 10th instant, they intend to publish your letter to that effect together with the letters to which it was a reply. We presume that your lordship will have no objection to our taking

this course.

I have the honour to remain, my lord,
Your lordship's obedient servant,

A. HILLIARD ATTERIDGE,
Secretary to the Maritime League.

The Rt. Hon. the Earl CowLEY, K.G.

No. 6.

Draycot House, Chippenham, May 11, 1876. SIR,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of yesterday's date. Although I cannot consider the publication of the correspondence to which your letter refers as free from objection, I have no desire to hinder it, and beg you to inform the Council of the Maritime League for the Resumption of Naval Rights by Great Britain that I put my letters entirely at their disposal

I have the honour to be your

A. HILLIARD ATTERIDGE, Esq.

obedient servant,

COWLEY.

Lord Palmerston's Policy.

FROM MR. EVELYN ASHLEY.

1. That the representatives of England in Italy were, by Lord PALMERSTON'S orders, in communication with the revolutionary leaders in Italy, and apparently were as much accredited to them as to the Governments.

2. That Lord PALMERSTON, the minister of a country which left the Jesuits in peace, made it his aim to drive the Jesuits out of Switzerland.

3. That Lord PALMERSTON was the enemy of the temporal power of the Pope, and that he thought by taking away his temporal power his spiritual power would be destroyed, which he regarded as a good thing for Europe, Catholic and Protestant.

4. That France entered Italy against Austria with England's (PALMERSTON'S) consent.

5. That he pressed the French Government not to replace the Pope at Rome.

6. That Lord PALMERSTON brought about the annexation of the Punjaub, against the advice of the Duke of WELLINGTON and Lord HARDINGE.

7. That Lord PALMERSTON favoured the annexation of Scinde.

8. That Lord PALMERSTON, in 1848, proposed to Lord JOHN RUSSELL a treaty with the United States, making privateering piracy. 9. That in 1848 he suggested International Arbitration, and that he spoke against it in 1849.

10. That he was in favour of German unity in 1848.

11. That he accused Lord PONSONBY, our Ambassador, November 27, 1849, of thwarting his policy at Vienna.

12. That he accused the Times of working for Russia, May, 1860, whilst in the same year, Mr. HORSMAN denounced him in the House of Commons for his intimacy with Mr. DELANE.

13. That General LAHITTE, French Foreign Minister, openly in the Chamber charged Lord PALMERSTON with duplicity in the PACIFICO affair.

14. That in February, 1850, he wrote to Mr. WYSE, at Athens: "In fact the only one claim which could admit of discussion in regard "to its amount is that of PACIFICO, and if his documents are right, as "I believe them to be, his claim is as clear as the rest." That on the 22nd of May, 1850, he wrote to Lord JOHN RUSSELL: "The very "doubtful claims of PACIFICO in regard to his Portuguese documents," and he proposes to Lord JOHN "an arrangement with Greece and "France-it would save our honour."

15. That LOUIS NAPOLEON stated to him at Compiègne that the Emperor of RUSSIA told him that "he would spend his last rouble and sacrifice his last man to prevent the establishment of a Greek Empire at Constantinople." To which Lord PALMERSTON is also opposed. Vol. ii., page 47.

16. That he declared to Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT his view to be that by sea and land the Turks could beat the Russians. Was this to

induce Mr. SYDNEY HERBERT to sanction our interference as a protection to Russia? September, 1853.

17. That he did not believe, September, 1853, in the disaffection of the Turkish Christian subjects; that he did not believe in the oppression of the Christians by the Mussulmans. He declared it an oft-repeated tale got up by the Russians; that he knew Russian agents had been trying for months per fas et nefas to provoke insurrection; that the Christians in Turkey knew too well the nature of Russian rule not to dread it above all things; that he declared to Lord ABERDEEN that the Christians were better off in Turkey than under the Governments of Russia, Austria, Rome, and Naples.

18. That there was not sufficient Christian element in European Turkey to form a Christian state.

19. That" a reconstruction of Turkey is neither more nor less than "its subjection to Russia, direct or indirect, immediate, or for a time delayed."

66

20. June 16, 1854. "There is not the slightest danger of the "Russians getting to Constantinople. The Turks are able to prevent "that."

21. That the descent on the Crimea, and the attack on Sebastopol were forced on his colleagues by Lord PALMERSTON. Page 60, vol. ii. 22. Mr. EVELYN ASHLEY gives a memorandum of Lord PALMERSTON'S first interview with CREPTOWITCH, in London, in which Lord PALMERSTON appears to snub him; but it is kept out of sight that CREPTOWITCH had previously come over to England, that Lord PALMERSTON had gone to meet him at Hastings, and had stayed, we think, fourteen days at the New Grand Hotel there with him, doubtless to give him a carte du pays,

23. That on two occasions Lord PALMERSTON writes a letter to BRUNNOW violently attacking Russia in an unpresentable form, requesting him to communicate its contents to GORTCHAKOFF, to whom his slight or no acquaintance does not warrant his writing! Thus blinding his colleagues by having a very strong letter to show, which not being a despatch need never reach GORTSCHAKOFF.

"International" Law.

No less than three self-constituted bodies were sitting in the course of last Autumn upon this subject: two of these at the Hague, and one at Paris. Between the two bodies which sat at the Hague, both occupied with the same subjects, and at which, in some cases, the same persons appear as speakers, the Times makes the distinction that the "Institute of International Law" is a more learned body than the other, the "Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations." The first of these consists, we are told, of less than fifty members, chiefly jurists and publicists, and meets once a year, while in the interval, committees sit to consider special questions, and report upon them.

It is well to know to what we are exposed by this unremitting activity. On this occasion the subjects on which reports were read were:-1. Private International Law; 2. Regulation of the procedure in International Arbitration; 3. A new wording of the three rules of WASHINGTON; 4. The Brussels Conference; 5. Private property on the high seas; 6. The application of European International Law to the Nations of the East.

We can only notice here the proceedings with reference to the fifth subject. The question was first raised whether "the Declaration of Paris, combined with preceding Treaties, had the effect of introducing in a definite manner into the domain of the Positive Law of Nations the principle of respect for the private property of the enemy under a neutral flag;" and "if it were otherwise, would it be desirable that this rule should receive general and definite consecration."

We beg particular attention to this: that some of the members were of opinion that the rule of the Declaration of Paris had passed into the domain of Positive International Law in a way which would oblige even the States which had not adhered to it (United States, Spain, Mexico). All were unanimous in expressing a wish that the principle should receive "a universal and definite consecration." With reference to private property a Resolution was carried by a majority that "merchant vessels and their cargoes cannot be captured if they do not carry contraband of war, or try to violate an effective and declared blockade."*

We are not therefore surprised at the Times considering this body to be a learned one, and more learned than the " Association," for this latter did not deal with the Declaration of Paris, except in so far as an English barrister, Mr. HOSACK, read a paper before it on the subject, which we are happy to say was in condemnation of it, and which, judging by the summary given by the Times, which we subjoin, must be a paper of great

merit.

"Mr. JOHN HOSACK pointed out that the Declaration had led to much discussion both in Europe and America, and that great uncertainty existed as to its true character and its probable effects. The United States had, in the first instance, refused to become parties to the Treaty on the ground that thay could not abandon the right of privateering. In England, meanwhile, the shipping interest had taken the alarm, because in the event of war the whole commerce of the country would be transferred to foreign bottoms. A party had consequently arisen which maintained that all private property at sea ought to be as free from capture as private property on land. Mr. HOSACK maintained that this notion was founded on a singular fallacy, for in no age or country had private property on land ever been respected in time of war, and in support of this view he gave In conclusion he asserted that the various examples from modern events. old rules of maritime war, which were well defined and universally understood, were preferable to the new rules, which settled nothing and unsettled everything."

It is, however, alarming to see that this Congress appointed a committee to draw up the "cardinal principles for an international maritime code."

It also occupied itself with the question of " International Arbitration;" and on this subject it may be said to have done good service. For in the course of the discussions two points came out with perfect clearness. There is nothing new and nothing difficult about Arbitration when two countries It is Mr. RIwish to submit their differences to such a mode of settlement. CHARD himself who tells us that in the Middle Ages cases had frequently occurred in which nations submitted their differences to the decision of the Faculty of Law of some great University; private individuals were also not unfrequently selected for the same purposes, besides the very numerous instances of reference being made to a Crowned Head or the ruler of a Republic.

* Mr. Montagu Bernard and Sir Travers Twiss gave in papers of reservation in regard to enemy's merchant ships, the former stating that "to forbid the capture of them by a maritime belligerent Power was to deprive it of its best, and perhaps only, means of defence."

Abrogation of the Declaration of Paris. The following Notice of Motion has been given :—

Friday 14th July. On going into Committee of Supply:

MR. PERCY WYNDHAM,-To move, that the object of the Declaration of Paris respecting Maritime Law, signed at Paris on the 16th of April, 1856, was as expressed in the preamble, to endeavour to attain uniformity of doctrine and practice in respect to Maritime Law in time of war:

That it is moreover obvious that the whole value that might be supposed to attach to any such Declaration, as changing the ancient and immemorial practice of the law of nations on the subject, must necessarily depend on the general assent of all the Maritime States to the new doctrines :

That the fact of important Maritime Powers, such as Spain and the United States, having declined to accede to the Declaration of Paris, deprives that document of any value as between the Governments that have signed it :

That the consequence of some Powers adhering to the new rules, whilst others retained intact their natural rights in time of war, would be to place the former at a great and obvious disadvantage in the event of hostilities with the latter:

That Great Britain being an essentially Naval Power, this House cannot contemplate such an anomalous and unsatisfactory condition of international obligations without grave misgivings :

That, independently of other considerations, the failure, after twenty years negotiations to bring about general adhesion to its terms, necessitates the withdrawal of this country from what was necessarily and on the face of it a conditional and provisional assent to the new rules:

That this House, whilst desiring to leave the question of opportuneness to the discretion of Her Majesty's Government, and having confidence in the repeated declarations on the subject of individual Members of the present administration, think it desirable to record an opinion that no unnecessary delay ought to take place in withdrawing from the Declaration signed at Paris on the 16th April, 1856, on the subject of Maritime Belligerent Rights.

Lord ROBERT MONTAGU,-On Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM's Amendment, to move, as an Amendment,

That the time and manner of enforcing the ancient Maritime rights of this country rest with the Crown as advised by Her constitutional advisers, who must also determine the force of alleged Treaty engagements,

All Petitions should reach London by the 12th of July, and Members of Parliament should be requested to present them in their places in the House of Commons on the evening of the Debate, 14th July, and to support the Motion with their votes.

The reasons why Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM has complied with Mr. BUTLER-JOHNSTONE's request to bring forward this Motion will be understood by referring to the Report in the Times of the 21st June, of the last meeting of the Maritime League, or to the discussion which took place in the House of Commons on Thursday, June 22. Petitions may be sent to Mr. ATTERIDGE, at the Office of the Maritime League, 31, Essex-street, Strand.

Printed and published by C. D. COLLET, at 31, Essex-street, Strand, London; and Sold by I. A BROOKE, 282, Strand; Birmingham: MORRIS, High-street, Digbeth; Keighley: GREGSON, Low Gate; Manchester: Heywood, Deansgate, and HIBBERT 67, Shudehill. And by all Booksellers and Newsmen in Town and Country.-July, 1876.