The debate which followed showed that neither by the Govern
ment nor by the House had the question been really thought out in the ten years since it was last discussed. Sir William Harcourt delivered a very able speech, showing that while the Declarations of Paris were all limitations of the rights of belligerents, adopted in the interest of the neutrals, the extension proposed is a limitation of these rights to be adopted in the interest of the private citizens of the belligerent Powers themselves, and is, therefore, not only different in principle from the Declarations of Paris, but even in some respects opposite, since it may be termed unfavourable to the neutral, as depriving him of a relative commercial advantage over the belligerent. Sir W. Harcourt contended, too, that the exemp- tion of all private property from capture at sea would be mis- chievous and not advantageous to England, since in time of war our Navy could shut up the war-ships of our enemies in. their harbours, and so leave our commercial marine free to carry goods as usual ; and he maintained that such an exemption would make the efficiency of blockades and the prohibition of contraband of war almost impossible, and altogether cripple the warlike resources of great Naval Powers. The Government did not take nearly so strong a line, —both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Attorney-General ,admitting that there was
Tench to be said for Sir John-Lubbock's chief proposal,—though -not- for- his desire to limit further the right of blockade, —bat -denying that the matter was in any• way ripe for settlement. Eventually the motion was negatived.
Previous page
