of the case and the relative positions of the belligerents, the benefit of such violation is all on the side of one of them to the damage of the other, and is of great and substantial advantage to the former, and of grievous injury to the other. In such case, the omission to exercise existing means to prevent the injury done to the suffering nation, where prevention could give no just cause of complaint to the other, being a simple enforcement of the laws made for the equal protection of both, — may, in reason, and in the spirit of the law of nations regulating neutrality, be considered an unjust departure from it, and a virtual complicity with the enemy. And the case becomes more aggravated, when not only a great and distressing injury, which might be prevented, is thus permitted against a friendly power, but the nation, by which it is permitted, itself becomes a great gainer by means of it, and so participates with the other belligerent in the benefits of this breach of its own laws.

Since the above sentences were written, the report of the last debate in the British Parliament on this subject has been received, in which Lord Palmerston, if correctly reported, explicitly admits that "the American Government have a distinct right to expect that a neutral will enforce its municipal law, if it be in their favor;" thus conceding the principle as of even broader application that that above claimed. This is a concession of no small moment in reference to previous debates, in which he was understood fully to sustain the Solicitor-General in the position, that the foreign-enlistment laws of a neutral nation were municipal laws only, in the enforcement of which the belligerent had no such interest as would justify complaint because of the failure to compel obedience to them; which position the preceding suggestions were intended to contest.

Now, it is a peculiar and most prominent fact in the history of the present Rebellion, that the rebels (having

neither ships, arms, nor men for naval warfare, nor a single port where a ship could be constructed and fitted out which is not strictly blockaded, and being without a single armed vessel of any important force at sea, built, or fitted out, or armed, or manned anywhere within their own asserted territorial or maritime jurisdiction, and having little or no commerce exposed to capture) have, nevertheless, on the ocean, under their flag, several large, heavily-armed vessels, which were built, equipped, armed, and mainly manned, by Englishmen, in English ports, or under the protection of the English flag until setting forth upon their piratical career for the plunder and destruction of American shipping;—that the crews of these vessels have in fact destroyed many hundreds of thousands of dollars by sinking and burning American ships, having no port into which they dare attempt to carry them. as prizes for adjudication; that many more such vessels are notoriously in process of construction in England, to be fitted out, armed, and manned in like manner, for the same purpose; and that this destruction and endangerment of American ships have already diverted a very large part of the carrying-trade, both foreign and domestic, from American to English vessels, and are daily tending to increase English commercial prosperity in a ratio at least equal to the injury to the shipping interests of the United States.

Another hardly less remarkable fact is, that while England is thus industriously and zealously aiding the rebels, and furnishing them the most efficient means which they now possess of maintaining their Rebellion, no other country has furnished a solitary vessel, great or small, or assisted in the furnishing of one; while three of those countries at the least - France, Russia, and Spain - have abundant means of doing so, though, so far as a selfish interest is involved, no one of them has an equal temptation.

If this state of affairs be indeed reconcilable with reasonable good faith on the part of the English Government and

people, -if these vessels are thus built, equipped, armed, manned, and furnished to the rebels, in such manner and under such circumstances as to involve no breach of the law of nations, and to be in no such contravention of the neutrality laws of England as reasonably requires the interposition of her Government to prevent it in good faith to the United States, then it is our duty to acquiesce in the evil, as a misfortune for which we have no cause of complaint against her, and to seek relief only in efforts to capture and destroy them.

If, on the other hand, these doings are in substantial violation of the law of nations, or in plain contravention of municipal laws made to prevent such interference between belligerents on friendly terms with England, -laws which could be enforced without any just cause of complaint on the part of either of the belligerents, and the enforcement of which, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, is plainly called for by a just impartiality, then a good cause for complaint, and for claiming full indemnity, will be made out.

Nor does the law of self-defence stop here. For, if it could be shown that these proceedings were in derogation, neither of the law of nations, nor of the existing neutrality laws of England, but that they are nevertheless so injurious, in strengthening the arms of the rebels and in weakening our own, as, unless prevented, to endanger the restoration of our Government to its lawful authority, and put our national life at hazard, it would then become justifiable by the law of self-preservation, lying at the foundation of all codes whether of international or of civil law, to account those thus furnishing essential aid to our enemies as their allies, and so our enemies also, and to declare war against them; — it being obviously absurd to deny that one who is put on the defence of his life is under any obligation to stand quietly by, and see the enemy, while seeking to destroy it, supplied with the

essential means for doing so by another, and to waive all right of self-protection against them. If that protection be not given by the Government in the control of its subjects, it must be sought in the only way left to injured nations.

20 AUGUST, 1863.

II.

LAWS OF NEUTRALITY.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

THE primary principle of neutrality under the law of nations. is the strictest impartiality in regard to each of the belligerents. "The neutral is justly and happily designated by the Latin expression, in bello medius. It is of the essence of his character, that he so retain this central position as to incline to neither belligerent." *

The law of nations prohibits the enlisting of soldiers or sailors in the territory of a neutral nation for service in the army or navy of a belligerent at war with any nation which is at peace with such neutral, and also the fitting-out of any military or naval expedition therein for such service; and the doing of any such act by the neutral, or the suffering it to be done within its jurisdiction, with the consent or connivance of the Government, is just cause of reclamation, — and of war, if satisfaction be not given. All captures made by vessels thus fitted out are in the nature of wrongs, and impose upon the neutral nation the duty of preventing them within its territorial limits, and of restoring to the injured parties the property so taken, if found within its jurisdiction.†

So a capture made by a belligerent ship within neutral territory, or by the boats of a vessel lying there, although the actual seizure be made without the territorial limits of the

Phillimore on International Law, vol. iii. § 137.

† 5 Wheaton's Rep. 385, "La Amistad de Rues."

7 Wheaton's Rep. 496, the " Arrogante Barcelones."

7 Wheaton's Rep. 520, the "Monte Allegre."