in quest of an anchorage safe and quiet enough for so Chap. XIV. long and troublesome an operation as the transhipment of heavy guns and munitions of war. The fourth, which sought the shelter of the French coast, was three nights at work, anchored within a stone's throw of the beach. We have seen, undoubtedly, that a vessel may be built, equipped, armed, commissioned, and employed as a cruiser, without having ever entered a port of the nation under whose flag she sails. Whether it is just and expedient for all nations that this should be prohibited, is an open question: at present it is not prohibited. Yet it is plain also that it is quite possible for one belligerent to draw from a neutral in this manner succours so formidable, so noxious to the other, and verging so closely on an actual infringement of the rule, that the Power suffering from them might be forced, or exasperated, into declaring war against the neutral in self-defence. Some difficulty would, I fear, be found in framing any definite rule, at once satisfactory to belligerents and not oppressive or vexatious to neutrals; and this difficulty would not be diminished by the tendency which has, as I think, been lately evinced by the United States to strain the application of international law, and divert it, to some degree, from its proper office to uses which it is ill-calculated to serve. For it is surely an error to treat rules of this kind as if they had all the sharpness and precision of municipal law, and created the same definite obligations, with the same perfect right to have every breach repaired by appropriate satisfaction. This is not their use or intention, nor are they capable of being so employed. It is expedient for the peace of the world that Governments should take a broad and liberal view of the duties which they owe to one another, and should perform them with ungrudging alacrity. But this would become impossible, should the belligerent, on his part, insist on pressing these duties with the technical strictness proper to an ordinary legal obligation. Vaguely Chap. XIV. defined as they are and must be embarrassed by many difficulties encroaching apparently, and tending in reality to encroach, on the internal sovereignty of the neutral, and requiring the frequent exercise of judgment and discretion-they would, if widely construed, and at the same time rigidly enforced, become vexatious and oppressive to all neutral nations, and an inexhaustible source of quarrels. Neutral Powers would be driven in self-defence to confine them within narrow limits, and to watch with the utmost jealousy every attempt to extend them. Our main practical reliance in this matter is on our own laws and regulations, and on those of other maritime States. By these the general obligations of neutrality are practically enforced; and, being everywhere within the control of a sovereign legislative authority, they can be moulded with a freedom and precision unknown to international law. On this branch of the subject something remains to be said, since the imperfections, real or supposed, of the neutrality law of Great Britain have been more than once referred to in the course of this chapter. It has been assumed and affirmed on the part of the United States- 1. That our neutrality law is defective. 2. That we have refused to amend the defect. 3. That the defect is or has been pleaded as an excuse for the failure to fulfil an international obligation. 4. That this plea is bad. You are masters, it is said, of your own legislation. If a more stringent law was wanted to enable you to fulfil your international duties, then it was your duty to have a more stringent law. This last proposition, which is often advanced as if it were a truism, is only true with a qualification. Nations are not bound to be endued with perfect wisdom and foresight; they are therefore not bound to possess laws in which no imperfection can ever be discovered; and, where the law is such as, in the exercise of ordinary Chap. XIV. foresight, might be deemed reasonably adequate for its purpose, unforeseen defects, brought to light by unforeseen circumstances, afford a real defence against a charge of injurious negligence. As regards vessels not armed for war and not carrying arms as cargo-a description which includes every ship that left this country during the war for the Confederate service the only difference between the neutrality law of America and that of England is that the latter is the more severe of the two. Both are framed on precisely the same model: the American Act indeed furnished a model for the English; but the language of the English 1 The American Act contains the following clauses, which were introduced in 1817, and which are not in the English Act:— "Sec. 10. And be it further enacted, That the owners or consignees of every armed ship or vessel sailing out of the ports of the United States, belonging wholly or in part to citizens thereof, shall enter into bond to the United States, with sufficient sureties, prior to clearing out the same, in double the amount of the value of the vessel and cargo on board, including her armament, that the said ship or vessel shall not be employed by such owners to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property, of any foreign Prince or State, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace. "Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the Collectors of the Customs be, and they are hereby, respectively authorized and required to detain any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes, and about to depart the United States, of which the cargo shall principally consist of arms and munitions of war, when the number of men shipped on board, or other circumstances, shall render it probable that such vessel is intended to be employed by the owner or owners to cruise or commit hostilities upon the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign State, or of any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, until the decision of the President be had thereon, or until the owner or owners shall give such bond and security as is required of the owners of armed ships by the preceding section of this Act." It will be observed that the first of these clauses applies only to armed ships belonging wholly or in part to citizens of the United States, and the second to vessels manifestly built for warlike purposes of which the cargo shall principally consist of arms and munitions of Chap. XIV. Act, laboured and cumbrous in the extreme, from the anxiety to stop every loophole through which a way of evasion might be found, is more strict and searching than that of the American. It may therefore be fairly assumed to be such a law as ordinary foresight would deem reasonably adequate for its purpose. The English law, however, though in terms more stringent, appears to have been enforced in practice less freely and readily than the American, the working of which is assisted by a more efficient local machinery (the institution of "District Attorneys"), and is also less embarrassed, perhaps, by the fear of illegally interfering with private rights-a fear always present to the mind of an English public servant, and kept alive by the constant responsibility of every subordinate to his chief, and of the chief of every department to Parliament. Greater reliance is there placed on local officials, and a larger measure of discretion given to them, and the questions of fact on which the legality of a seizure depends are not submitted to a jury. The British Government, as we have seen, formed the opinion in the winter of 1862 that some amendments" which would have the effect of giving greater power to the Executive to prevent the construction war. Neither of them, therefore, could have been applied, had they been a part of the law of England, to the cases denounced as violations of neutrality during the late war. It is stated by Mr. Bemis, an able American lawyer, in a letter published in 1866, that the Act of 1817, when introduced into Congress, was entitled "A Bill to prevent citizens of the United States from selling vessels-of-war to the citizens or subjects of any foreign Power, and more effectually to prevent the arming and equipping vessels of war in the ports of the United States, intended to be used against nations in amity with the United States;" and that the first section prohibited the fitting out and arming by American citizens of "any private ship or vessel-of-war, to sell the said vessel or contract for the sale of said vessel, to be delivered in the United States or elsewhere to the purchaser" with intent to cruise, &c.; but that this section was struck out by the Senate, and the title of the Bill changed. The Act as it was passed contained no such prohibition. in British ports of vessels destined for the use of Chap. XIV. belligerents" might usefully be introduced into the Foreign Enlistment Act. The British and American Acts, however, being substantially identical on this head, Mr. Adams was asked to ascertain whether any corresponding amendments were likely to be adopted in the United States. The American Government thought no changes necessary in its own law; and, by the time this answer arrived, Her Majesty's Ministers themselves appear to have become convinced that no difficulty existed in enforcing the law beyond that of procuring evidence. They continued, during all the remainder of the war, to enforce the Act as it stood, and they detained every ship as to which there was any ground for suspecting that she was intended for the service of a belligerent. But subsequent cases-in one at least of which the Executive had to pay for having overstepped the limit of its legal powers-seem to have revived the original doubt; and the whole question was referred in 1867, by Lord Derby's Administration, to Commissioners, who were instructed to consider the "character, working, and effect of the Neutrality Laws of the realm," and report any changes which it might appear desirable to make in order to render those laws more effectual. This Commission, which reported in 1868, advised in effect that the prohibitions of the Act should be enlarged; that the despatching of a ship with knowledge that she would be employed in hostilities by a belligerent, and the building of a ship with intent that she should be so employed "after being fitted out and armed either within or beyond Her Majesty's dominions," should be embraced within those prohibitions. They added a recommendation, probably of greater practical value, that, where reasonable and probable cause should exist for believing that a ship was about to be despatched contrary to the enactment, or, having been built or fitted out contrary to the enactment, was |