"annoying the enemy and injuring their commerce." It may be said, and with great probability, that hostilities conducted by buccaneering companies are not likely to furnish edifying examples of forbearance. But they can only plunder, and imitate successfully Her Majesty's cruizers. Both are stimulated by booty. The comparative degrees of eagerness we need not investigate. The Paris declaration binds only those who were parties to it. It therefore does not bind the Americans; neither would it bind this country in a war with them. goods safe 5. The second "solemn declaration," the most Enemy's important of all, was a prodigious advance in under neumaritime law reform. The ancient Consolato del tral flag. Mare had declared, more than six centuries ago, that merchandize belonging to an enemy was confiscable, though found in the ship of a friend. This harsh rule, unless qualified by treaty, was invariably enforced by the English Prize Court, though it was not always followed by the Continental states. But it has been reversed and extinguished by the Congress of Paris. The change is pronounced by M. Hautefeuille to be a mighty triumph of civilization over what he calls the "ferocious maxims of the middle ages;" and it is thus justified by Lord Clarendon : In the course of the last two centuries, one hundred and thirty international engagements have * 1 Comm. 98. E Lord Der been made between the principal powers of the world, in all of which, with eleven exceptions, the rule, "Free ships, free goods," is contained. What I deduce from that is, that in time of war, and in the heat and animosity of war, men lay aside this principle and resort to extreme and violent measures; but that when at peace, and under the influence of reason and judgment, they never hesitate to declare that that should be the rule of civilized nations. Every other maritime power in the world has protested against our practice, and at the commencement of the Russian war, England was the only power which upheld the right of seizure.* The words which have introduced this important revolution are the following: The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. A death-blow is here given to the authority of many valued judgments of the Prize Court, and many cherished doctrines of the jurist; which are wholly swept away if we suppose the second "solemn declaration" to be binding. 6. Lord Derby has serious misgivings as to the by's appre- working of the second "solemn declaration." He thus expresses his apprehensions: hensions. "I confess that I regret-and I expressed my regret at the time,t-the sacrifice which as I thought my noble friend * had made in 1856, when he consented on the part of the government of this country to the principle that enemy's goods should be safe on board neutral vessels. I thought this a dangerous concession for a country situated as ours is; and I remonstrated against it."† Lord PalAc- good au merston's 7. Lord Palmerston, on the other hand, forebodes no evil from what was done at Paris. cording to his Lordship," the idea that the results guries. of war depend upon the capture of an enemy's goods on board of neutral bottoms can only originate in a mind wholly unacquainted with the most familiar lessons of history." Alluding to the fact that Queen Victoria had at the beginning of the Russian war, in March, 1854,§ waived her right to seize enemy's goods in neutral vessels, Lord Palmerston, in his Liverpool speech, on the 7th November, 1856, stated that while the effect of the waiver was not "in any degree to impair the power of the belligerents against their opponents, it yet tended to mitigate the pressure which hostilities inevitably produced upon the commercial transactions of countries that were at war." || 8. The following imaginary but trying case was on the 7th February, 1862, put by Lord Derby: Case put by Lord Clarendon. Times, 7 Feb. 1862. Star, 6 Feb. 1862. § Intrà, p. 99. Times, 8 November, 1856. Answer by Lord Granville. "If we had gone to war with the Federal States, I will ask, in passing, what would have been the result of our adoption of the doctrines of the congress? We had an agreement-I won't call it a convention-with France. We had no agreement with America. In the event of a war with America, therefore, American merchandize on board a French vessel would, by our obligations with France, be safe against our cruizers; and American commerce would enjoy impunity when carried on in French vessels, owing to an agreement in which America had no part. Thus the treaty would have a very one-sided operation, and one nation would secure all the benefits without being a party to it, while the other would sacrifice all its advantage, because she was a party to it. That is a position in which England ought not to stand towards any country whatever." * 9. Earl Granville answered by showing the course which Great Britain would take under the new regime. His Lordship said :— "I think the noble earl was not quite right in the illustration he gave of the effect of allowing neutral ships to carry the goods of belligerents. If a war arose with the United States, I have no doubt that our first operation would be to blockade, and that in a very efficient manner, all the ports of that country, thereby putting a considerable and speedy check upon the American trade. And so far from its being a disadvantage that any commerce which she carried on should be carried on in neutral bottoms, it would be quite the reverse." *Times, 7 Feb., 1862. 10. The third "solemn declaration" of the Neutral Paris Congress is that goods safe under enemy's Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband flag. of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag. Here no change is introduced so far as this country is concerned; for it was ever the English and American practice to respect neutral property in hostile ships. The ships indeed were captured, but the goods of the friendly owner were uniformly surrendered to him. In this respect the practice of some Continental states differed from our own; but the difference is only matter of history, and need not be gone into; the new jurisprudence of Europe on the high seas now being that the neutral flag protects an enemy's property; and that neutral property is safe, though found under an enemy's flag. SO- What blockades 11. We now come to the fourth and last " lemn declaration" of the plenipotentiaries, bind by the namely, that Blockades in order to be binding, must be effective-that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. On the subject of blockades we have already said enough. The "solemn declaration" does * See suprà, p. 27. Paris decla ration. |
