The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-05 00:00:00

r~

sale of the commercial relations between France; Eng-
and and Spain before the wars of the French Revolution,
land they 'still are the basis of the commercial relations
between this country and Spain, and between Spain and
France. I will read an extract from the 17th art, of the
.c._ommercial treaty of Utrecht between England *rid
/ranee :-" It shall be lawful for all the subjects of the
Queen of Great Britain and of the most Christian King
to sail with their ships with all manner of liberty and .
security (no distinction being made who are the proprie-
tors of the merchandise laden thereon) from the places,
ports, and havens of those who are enemies of both, or of
either party, without any opposition or disturbance what-
soever, not only directly from the places of the enemy
aforementioned to neutral places, but also from one place ,
belonging to an enemy to another place belonging to an
enemy, whether they be under the jurisdiction of t f
,
same prince, or under several ; and as it is now stipulate`"
concerning ships and goods that free ships shall also gi
freedom to goods, and that everything shall be deemed to
be free and exempt which shall be found on board the
ships belonging to the subjects of either of the confede-
rates, although the whole landing, or any part thereof;
should appertain to the enemies of either of their Majes-
ties, contraband goods being always exempted." The 17th
article of the Treaty of Commerce of Utrecht was repeated
verbatim in the 20th article of the Treaty of Commerce of
Versailles of 1766. This treaty terminated with the war
of 1793. I have shown, therefore, that from 1677 to
1793 the all but invariable rule of our friendly inter-
course with France ; the rule for at least 75 years
out of the 80 of peace, that was that " free ships should
give freedom to goods." It is worthy of remark, that
by the commercial treaty of Utrecht of 1713, which con-
tinued in force, except during periods of war, for the
subsequent 80 years, the subjects of one party were en-
titled by treaty to carry on the coasting and colonialtrade
of the enemies of the other party. I will now refer to our
treaties with Spain. The first, which contained the prin-
ciple, "Free ships, free goods," was the treaty of Madrid,
concluded in 1665. From that period to 1796, a space of
131 years, was concluded with Spain no less than 13 trea-
ties of peace or commerce-viz., in 1665, 1667, 1670, 1707,
1713, 1715, 1721, 1729, 1748, 1750, 1763, 1783. In every
one of those treaties there is an article which either ex-
pressly declares that "free ships shall give freedomlo
goods, or renews a treaty which contains that provision.
Therefore, for the 131 years ending with the year 1796,
the invariable rule of our amicable intercourse with f_fintiti
as established by treaty was " free ships free goods." It
is worthy of remark that the first additional article of the
treaty of Madrid, 1841, ratified and confirmed all treaties
of commerce which subsisted between England and Spain
in 1796, and consequently confirmed many treaties' and
among others the treaty of Madrid of 1667, which con-
tained the provision that •` free ships shall give freedom
to goods." The treaty of 1814 is still in force. Conse-
quently the subjects of Spain are now entitled by that
treaty to carry.in their ships the goods of the subjects of
Russia, and if we were to seize Russian merchandise on
board Spanish ships, we should be guilty of a breach of
treaty. With reference to our treaties with the United
Provinces. The first, which contained the rule that " free
ships shall give freedom to goods," was signed at Breda in
1667. It is contained in every one of the treaties which
we concluded with the United Provinces during the fol-
lowing 113 years-namely, in 1667, 1668, 1674, 1675
1635, 1689, 1i 03, 1711, and 1716 ; and it continued in
force till the war of 1780, but was not renewed by the
treaty of Paris of 1784. Therefore, from 1667 to 1780,
the invariable rule of our friendly intercourse with the
United Provinces as established by treaty-that is, the rule
for 111 years of peace-was that the ships of the United
Provinces should make free the goods of the enemies of
England, and be entitled to carry on the coasting and co-
lonial trade of the enemies of England, and reciprocally.
The treaties between England and the great maritime
powers of Western Europe to which I have referred show
that, in the interval between 1654 to 1793, we were Biz
times at war with France, seven times at war with Spain,
and three times at war with the United Provinces. We
terminated these wars by six treaties of peace with France,
seven treaties of peace with Spain, and three treaties of
peace with the United Provinces ; and during the same
period we concluded with the same powers and with Por-
tugal eighteen treaties of commerce or other conventions-
in all thirty-four. Of these only three-namely, two with
France in 1667 and 1697, and one with the United Pro-
vinces in 1784, did not contain any provision with regard
to enemy's goods on board neutral ships ; but all the
other treaties of peace contained a provision to the effect
that the ships of one contracting party, being a neutral,
should make free the goods of the enemy's of the other
contracting party, being a belligerent. I have now made
good my position, that during the century and a quarter
which preceded the wars of the French revolution the all
but invariable rule of our friendly relations, as established
by treaty with the great maritime powers of western
Europe, was " free ships free gs_ods." I think, therefore,
that it would be difficult for this house, in the teeth of
these facts, to agree to the resolution of the hon. and learned
gentleman, and to declare that it would be inconsistent with
the maritime renown, the security, and honour of this
country to do the very thing which, for a century and a
quarter, we generally did when we concluded %treaty of
peace or commerce with France, Spain the United Pro-
vinces, or Portugal. The rule " free ships free goods" is
invariably to be found in the treaties of peace and commerce
which were concluded between the other great maritime
powers during the century and a quarter which preceded
the French revolution. For instance it is contained in the
treaties between France and Spain of 1659, 1668, 1678,
1721, 1761,1768, which declared that the subjects of France
and Spain should enjoy all the privileges and favours ac-
corded, or to be accorded, to other nations by treaties, and
especially by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. These treaties
continued in force till the wars of the second French re-
volution. And in 1814, by the second additional article
of the treaty of Paris, the commercial relations between
France and Spain were re-established. on the footing on
which they were in 1792. Therefore the Treaty of Utrecht
of 1713 forms at present the basis of the commercial
relations between France and Spain ; and, consequently,
Spanish subjects are now entitled, by treaty with France
as well as with England, to carry in their ships Russian
merchandise without danger of confiscation. In the trea-
ties between France and the United Provinces, the rule
" free ships free goods," is contained in the treaties of
1662, 1678, 1697, 1713, 1739, and 1785. In the treaties
between Spain and the United Provinces, the rule " free
ships, free goods," is contained in the treaties of 1648,
1650, 1673, 1676, 1714, and continued in force till the wars
of the French revolution. In the treaties between Spain
and Portugal, the rule " free ships free goods," is con-
tained in the treaties of 1667, 1715, 1763, and 1778. The
rule "free ships free goods," was also contained in the
Treaty of the Hague, of 1661, between the United Pro-
vinces and Portugal, and continued in force till the wars
of the French revolution. I believe that I have now re-
ferred to every, or almost every, treaty of peace or
commerce which was concluded between the great
maritime powers of Western Earope, from 1654 to
1793. These treaties contain fifty-seven bilateral en-
gagements, of these I can only find three ; namely, the
treaty of peace of Breda between France and England in
1667 ; that of Reswick between the same powers in 1697,
and the treaty of peace of Paris in 1784, between Eng-
land and the United Provinces, that did net contain the
rule " free ships free goods." Every one of the re-
maining fifty-four bilateral engagements contained that rule
either expressly, or by expressly renewing and confirming
treaties that contained it; and many of these engagements
declared that the subjects of one contracting party being a
neutral, might carry on the coasting and colonial trade of
the enemies of the other contracting party, being a belli-
gerent. I have therefore shown that tor the century and
a quarter before the wars of the French revolution, the all
but invariable rule of amicable relations as established by
treaty between the great maritime powers of Western
Europe, was that "free ships should give freedom to goods."
But it must be admitted that the theory of the great mari-
time powers respecting the rights of neutrals on the ocean,
as expressed in their treaties of peace and commerce, was
altogether at variance with their practice and edicts during
war. The reason is obvious. During peace men's minds
are frequently calm and collected, reason and justice have
some influence over them, and the tendency of treaties of
peace and commerce, is to conform to what ought to be the
rules of international law. But in war, passion and hatred,
and seeming necessity, and the fancied interest of the mo-
, went, are apt to determine the actions of combatants, and
powerful belligerents, relying on their might, oftentimes
set at defiance the best established rules of war. If the
maritime rights of neutrals during war were to be in-
ferred from the custom and usage of the great maritime
belligerents of Europe during the last two centuries, the
inference must be that neutrals on the ocean have few or no
special rights by which they can be distinguished from the
ofsu Thenctasron:fltbleullairgietrietnnetsp.nwle'orsr dolt. itihneg twheasttpheraisod
repeatedly e v ry on e
treated neutrals as subjects, applied to them
confiscatedproliibitd.
t d not only
to trading with enemies,
already said) all the provisions ofhtslise
confiscated re-
gard
elaw(aswiithhaveneneunintriaels'shgirsdfosrocnonbtoaainrdingneenuet.rmayl
a
aiens.enelmnyl6asn2;
yentehmeies. I will.
.mention a few
tsowtorecaetntausr
great maritime powers of
enemy's good,
butta
instancesll ueutr a
lofeotmhims ecreenedwucitthb
merchandise to England,
the United Provinces
' Western Europe. within
and to punish him with the confiscation both. of his ship
threatenedth e last
foreigners who should carry any
and merchandise. In 1689 the United Provinces and Eng-
land concluded a convention, by which they declared a
blockade of all the ports of France, and prohibited neutrals
from trading with France, under the penalty of the confis-
cation both of their ships and goods. In 1543, 1584, 1681,
1692, France issued edicts by which the ships of neutrals
were to be confiscated for containing enemy's goods. The
French edict of 1704 contained not only the well known rule,
que la robe d'un ennemi confisque cede d'un ami ,•" but also
declared that merchandise of the growth, or manufacture
of the enemies of France to whomsoever belonging should
be confiscated whenever found on board the ships of neu-
trals. The latter rule, but without the former one, was
repealed in the edict of 1744, and continued in force till
1778, when a French edict established that " free ships
should make free goods; and that rule, I believe, at pre-
sent forms part of the maritime law of France. The con-
duct of Spain towards neutrals during war has been the
same as that of France. The Spanish regulations of 1702
and 1718 are said to have been founded upon the French
edicts of 1681 and 1704 (by which, as I have already said,
neutral ships were confiscated for containing enemy's
goods, and merchandise of the growth or manufacture of
an enemy, to whomsoever belonging, was confiscated
on board neutral ships.) These regulations were repealed
by the Spanish edict of 1779, which adopted the rule, that
" free ships should make free goods." Nor has this coun-
try in periods of war shown greater respect than our
neighbours for the rights of neutrals. By means of fic-
titious blockades we have repeatedly claimed the right
of stopping the trade of neutrals with our enemies. For
instance, in 1689, as I have already said, in c0021,"Z
with Holland, we declared a blockade of all the coasts
.se
t of g of
their
France, without sending a single ship to
rinff with
e
blockade, and we prohibited neutrals from cm
France under the penalty of the confiscation both
ships and their goods. This was the famous "cannon" law,
as our third William called it, for it had no other sanction,
human or divine, save the force of a bullet. (A laugh.)
In 1756 we prohibited
the Dutch from trading with the
colonies of France, and laid down the
famous rule of war of
all neutral that year, in virtue of which we claim _
claimed a right of prohi-
bitingtraffic with the colonies and on the
this rule was much contested by the
coasts of our enemy ;
United States of America, and other powers, and was a
fruitful source of contention between them and us. Again,
in with _ _
1793, we concluded treaties Spain, Prussia, Russia,
and the Emperor of Germany, for the purpose of forbidding
neutrals to trade with France. Lastly, in the war that fol-
lowed the peace of Amiens, the combatants retaliated the
blows which they aimed at each other by striking neutrals,
and vied in disregarding neutral rights. According to
Alison, the rage of belligerent powers, and the mutual
violation of the law of nations, could not go beyond <Tr
orders in council and the Berlin and Milan decrees. in
consequence of tho conduct which was pursued towards
neutrals by the maritime powers of the West of Europe in
their frequent wars, the powers of the North of Eu
who were generally neutrals in those wars, repea
formed leagues to defend their rights as neutrals, and
up arms for that purpose. The first armed neutrality, as
these leagues IMO termed, was a convoutioA ih 1693 be'