The Press.
London, England, 1854-04-22 00:00:00

362

right of seizing an enemy's goods in a
neutral ship has been invariably maintained
by this country, at least, since the time of the
first EDWARD, although the law and practice of
nations upon this point may be traced to a
much earlier period.
And the reasons which have led to the
establishment of this rule are sufficiently clear.
One of the main objects in warfare—and espe-
cially in modern warfare—is to weaken the
resources of the enemy by injuring or cutting
off his foreign commerce ; and this can only be
effectually done by intercepting it, even
although protected by a neutral flag, the
neutral ship being in such case entitled by
the law of nations to the full freight of the
cargo or goods so seized. That there is here
a • conflict of rights and interests is very
evident. If the neutral flag is permitted to
protect enemy's property, a most important
belligerent right is defeated. If, on the other
hand, the latter right is exercised, the privi-
lege of the neutral to carry on his accustomed
trade is violated. It is clear that these two
rights cannot coexist. The one must of ne-
cessity give way to the other; and the ques-
tion for practical solution is, which of the two,
according to the principles of justice and the
general interest of nations, ought to prevail ?
The laws and practice of war have hitherto
decided in favour of the belligerent right as
the more important of the two. It is true that
the neutral may suffer both inconvenience and
loss through the interruption of his usual
trade; but, on the other hand, the sus-
pension of the belligerent right may enable
the enemy to carry on his entire commerce
under the protection of a friendly flag, and by
this means a contest between two naval Powers
might be indefinitely prolonged, to the general
disturbance of the great society of nations.
Such have been the reasons, political and
moral, which have been generally advanced in
favour of the rule hitherto maintained in
England; and not in England alone, for it is
equally observed in the United States, which,
of all countries, is perhaps the most interested
in its abolition. The decisions of the Ame-
rican Courts upon this point have been no
less uniform than our own, and it reflects
high credit on the former that, notwithstand
ing the advantageous position occupied by
the States for carrying on a neutral trade
between hostile European Powers, the law
of nations has been inflexibly maintained.
" During the whole course of the wars," says
Mr. Chancellor KENT, " growing out of the
" French Revolution, the Government of the
" United States admitted the English rule to
" be valid, as the true and settled doctrine of
" international law; and that enemy's pro-1
" perty was liable to seizure on board of
" neutral ships, and to be confiscated as prize
"of war." We can quote no higher American
authority than this distinguished judge.
The new doctrine of free ships, free goods, so
recently announced, comes in fact, not from
America, but from Russia. It was first for-
mally promulgated by CATHERINE the Second,
when she placed herself at the head of the
armed neutrality in 1780. What were the
objects of that celebrated league? Osten-
sibly to secure the freedom and security of
commerce ; in reality to weaken and destroy the
maritime power of England. Frustrated at that
time by the firm attitude of the British Ministry,
this great confederacy again reappeared in
1800, under the auspices of the Emperor
PAUL; but his sudden death, and the victory
of Copenhagen in the following year, speedily
dissolved the compact. A convention was
afterwards entered into with Russia, in which
the contested point respecting neutral ships
was expressly given up by that Power. Lord
Nm.soN, so rarely heard in the Senate,
the occasion of
-11) being
Id the fol-
Leration of
After ex-
terms of the
had put an
,ured to be
in 1780,
Northern
free goods—
itself, so con-
injurious

made a short speech on the occ
this treaty (13th of November, 180,
conclpplip . avywukil recommenc
lowi , • .• ,• •le thBcareful consith
her vixens. A
pr, . ;neral tern
..4
co u- • 91,1' "It had
" • 71.6 ,0i rr - deavoure
,
" e s.,•"j - neutrality
" a , T..r.:1• .ittation of the:
"P. • :(,s4l4lrps make free
" a , laibitstrous in itsel
" trary to the law of nations, and so