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

THE IRESH MILITIA.

Mr. ESMONDE begged to ask the Secretary of State for
the Home Dapart.nent whether it was the intention of
4overninent to enrol the Irish militia; and if so, when it
was intended to embody them.
Lord PALMEMPON said it was the intention of the
Governmeat to take steps to embody the whole or a por-
tion of the Irish militia. With regard to training, it must
be leinembered that there was a difference between train-
ing and embodying; as embodying meant that the men
9hould keep their arms for the whole year. If the num-
ber of men enrolled was sufficient, the training would take
place, but h hardly thought there would be a sufficient
number for that purpose iu the present autumn.

FAIRS AND MARKETS (IRELAND.)
Mr. ESMONDE begged to ask the Chief Secretary for
Ireland whether it was the intention of Government to lay
on the table, during the present session, a bill for the re-
gulatio❑ of fairs and markets in Ireland?
Mr. KEOGH, in the absence of Sir J. Young, said it
was the intention of his right hon. friend to introduce such
a measure, but not to proceed further with it than to en-
,ble him to collect the opinion of the grand jurors in Ire-
land upon it.
TREATY OF ADRIANOPLE.

Lord J. RUSSELL brought up a copy of the despatch
written by Lord Aberdeen on the Treaty of Adrianople.

NAVAL PRIZES.

Mr. J. G. PHILLDIORE rose to move that it is the
opinion of this house, that however, from the peculiar cir-
cumstances of this war, a relaxation of the principle that
the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful
prize, may be justifiable, to renaunce or surrender a right
so clearly incorporated with the law of nations, so firmly
maintained by us in times of the greatest peril and distress,
and so interwoven with our maritime renown, would be in-
consistent with the security and honour of the country. The
bon. gentleman said it was his intention to call the atten-
tion of the house to the extraordinary deviation which had
recently been made from the principle by which Great Bri-
tain had hitherto been guided in her maritime affairs. That
principle was that the goods of an enemy iu the ship of a
r'riend are lawful prize. There seemed to be a general opinion
that the policy now adopted by the Government, if en-
grafted on our system of maritime law, would cause a great
change in the miseries of war. He was of a different
opinion, and it was because he was of that opinion that he
was induced to trouble the house with the observations he
was about to make. The principle which he had stated,
and which had been abandoned, was laid down by all the
authorities. It was first laid down in the Consolata del
Hare, which had been confirmed by Grotius and Vattel,
It was erroneously supposed that the law of France was
loss severe than that of England, but in fact it went much
further than the principle he had laid down, and even
confiscated a friendly ship with enemy's goods on board.
There had been private treaties, but thee° private treaties
had been made in such a way as to do no injury to this
country. They were made with France and with Hol-
land, with whom we had been always at peace in naval
warfare. The first that the principle that free ships made
free goods was enunciated by that remarkably unscruplous
monarch Frederick the Great, who obtained an exposition
des motifs, which, however, was completely answered. In
liBB the Baltic Confederation was formed, but we refused
to allow that principle. He thought he had established
his position aslar as maritime European authorities went.
But there were American authorities. In 1793, Mr. Jef-
fereon, writing oe this subject, sai..l,,•—`! The general law
nations was that the goods of an enemy were lawful
prize if found on the vessel of a neutral." There was also
a letter from Secretary Pinkey on the same subject, incul-
cating tho same principles. There was also the opinion of
:-,"haticellor Kent, who said :—" Neutral ships do not
create a protection for an enemy's property, which may
be seized if found on board a neutral vessel beyond the
limits of the neutral's territory." The same principle was
laid down by Mr. Wheaton, in his book. Then Chan-
eellor Kent said,—" There is also a marked difference in
she rights of war carried on by land and sea." But was
it true that continental proceedings formed a striking
cantrast to our own ? What was the character of Turenne ?
,Vhat was the character of Frederick the Great What
were the instructions given to the French generals during
she last century? The fact was that the injury committed
'u continental war was often wonton and unnecessary,
whereas in maritime war it was absolutely essential that
that which alone could justify any war, that which would di-
minish the enemy's power should be dons. There being no
doubt as to the authorities, let them now consider the rea-
son of the thing. He took it for granted that those prin-
ciples should prevail which would render war less probable,
but if the principle that free ships made free goods was to
prevail, it would have a tendency to increase the probabi-
lities of war ; it tended to make a neutral nation involve
other nations in war because they then gained advantages
from which at other times they were excluded. What
principle was it that
contraband of war, and onwhich they confiscated a ship
allowt,bthere
oetcrdek
oamaduy th bilmet himself.
belligerents. a ort
prohibited neutrals from carrying
carrying despatches, or which attempted to break a
dtohethpatri
bncipalenetuhtaratl they
return,and t r
butsure
thatex pe nrdeel:sultu'rstrahe heyichwhoeuldcounlodt
should
surely
lthereoidtupwl ydwramas anothernisuoctdesirablee btheeobtained
greatest
b tteprinciple
bs
they
blood
possible
'Mowed their enemy to enjoy a great many of the advan-
tages of peace, which he would enjoy if he was allowed to
carry on by neutral ships that commerce which he could
not otherwise carry on. He could perfectly understand
his hon. friends the members for Manchester and the West
Riding, who held the benevolent., but as he thought, the
mistaken principle, that war ought to be abandoned. If
they went upon the
Mr. T. MITCHELL saaigdriee
have the advantage of
war against him, then they peace while they were carrying on
principle that their enemy. should.
eaQtenis Quite enitehaeurseovferesoee.
their ships and isband
trusted that they would
their army. For these reasons he
should be consistent to recall
would second the resolution,
because he had promised some time ago to do so, but he
to his resolution.
that
coutherelcould
b be
could not concur in the first part of it.He certainly had no
interest in objecting to the relaxations which had been made
was no man well acquainted with Russia who was not of
employed against that country was closing the trade with it.
obpyinthioenGtohvaetrnthmeengtt
That country exported of late years about 15,000,0001.
worth of produce annually, a large portion of which went
directly in the shape of revenue to the large landowners ;
and if they stopped up that outlet it was tantamount to
coercion believedtha
destroying the revenue of the landowners—the only class
that had any influence on the Government except the Em-
peror himself. The proper course we should adopt was to
stop the whole export trade of that country. Instead of
that considerable relaxations had been made. The First
Lord of the Admiralty had no doubt acted from the repre-
sentations made to him, but he (Mr. Mitchell) was con-
vinced that the course pursued was an erroneous one. In
December, when it was almost certain that a war would
take place with Russia, two of the most eminent merchants
went to Lord Clarendon and asked if it would be safe to
make the usual advances to Russian merchants. Lord
Clarendon, more frankly than he Should have expected,
told them it would be highly unsafe for English merchants
to make those advances. They did not make them, and
the consequence was that the value of goods in Russia de-
clined 20 per cent., and most of the Russian houses ab-
stained almost entirely from trade with Russia. A. few
houses however bought is considerable quantity of goods at
sed
a reduction of 20 per cent. cau Ss the general feeling in
the trade, and by Lord Clarendon b s
information, and when
war proclaimed they went clamorously to the Government
and said " We bought these goods before any declaration
of war ; we had no idea of war, and we call on you to let
us take the goods away from Russia." A period was gained
no to the 15th of May, and he believed that 115 vessels
went to Riga, and at least half the goods they were loaded
with were actually bought at Riga after the declaration of
war. Then it was intimated that a blockade was to take
place of Archangel, but it wash not known when, and
is wome
vessels were being about, at t_ _ t, to be sent to
Archangel to be taken away before the n blockade. Then
with regard to the Black Sea, they had had a distinct inti-
mation that there would be a blockade of the Black Sea,
but no blockade had taken place, and neutr Ivessels were
g •ne there earning most enormous freights ; and while
going there earuine most enormous freights; and while
English merchants had refrained from operations, a nunr•
her of Greek merchants were buying up goods at rates
which would yield a high profit, and wore loading these
neutral vessels which wore getting freights, which he hail
no hesitation in saying would pay 50 per cent. on the cost
of the vessels. He spoke of the feeling of trade, and he
said if they were to have a blockade let them know when
it was to take place, so that they might be put on the same
footing as their neighbours, and act accordingly. Now,
with reference more particularly
to the motion, there was
no doubt that to a certain extent they could not prevent
the transit of goods between Prussia and Russia, and if
they prevented the inspection of goods on neutral vessels,
the trade would be extended. The fact was, that goods
sent from Russia might be readily 'distinguished. He
happened to know that great fear was entertained that if
the right of search was exercised in these neutral vessels,
Russian goods would be recognised and seized. Another
alteration had been made. On the 11th of April a letter
was received either from the Foreign-office or the Board
of Trade (he rather thought from the Board of Trade),
stating that any British merchant buying goods, the pro-
perty of an enemy, would
be liable to have those goods
seized. On the 15th of April, only four days afterwards,
an order was made by the Privy Council, entirely abro-
gating this letter, and stating that they were perfectly

free to buy goods in Russia, and to have them shipped
Now that had had a most important effect on the trade
with Russia. Up to that period the English houses
connected with Russia, and who, he might say, had
nearly the whole trade of that country—and they were
most of them houses of 50 years' standing or upwards—he
happened to know had a very strong feeling indeed to do
nothing against the law of this country. Of course he
could speak for his own house, but he believed he could
speak for all the great English houses, that they had made
up their minds not to buy any produce of Russia which
would have been unlawful and could have encouraged the
enemy. They, therefore, as a body, determined to have
nothing to do with it. But on the 15th of April they
found it was lawful to engage iu it, and from that
moment they did engage in it. It might be main-
tained that if English houses did not embark in the trade
foreign houses would, but practically that was not so. On
the frontier towns of Prussia there was hardly a house
possessed of large capital, and without the aid of British
capitalists it would have been utterly impossible for them to
have bought goods in Russia and brought them to Memel.
He had no doubt that the order of the 15th May had led to
English houses purchasing goods in Russia and bringing
them to Memel. The same trade was now going on, and
the Emperor of Russia was affording the merchants every
possible facility; but he was speaking there as a British
subject, anxious for the speedy termination of the war,
and he had taken this opportunity of expressing his opi-
nion that these continual relaxations in the law, and this
utter state of uncertainty, were highly detrimental to
British commerce, and was so felt by all classes connected
with the trade. He did not say the First Lord of the Ad-
miralty was responsible, but he was or the Privy Council
were. On these grounds he supported the resolution.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH—The resolution of th 3 learned
gentleman contains two distinct propositions. One is that
" from the peculiar circumstances of this war a relaxation
of the principles that the goods of an enemy in the ship of
a friend are a lawful prize may be justifiable." That is
one position. The other proposition is that "to surrender
a right so clearly incorporated with the law of nations, so
firmly maintained by us in the time of the greatest peril
and distress, and so interwoven with our maritime renown,
would be inconsistent with the security and honour of the
country." Therefore the motion of the learned gentleman
raises two distinct questions; one a practical question of
political expediency, the other a theoretical question of
international law. The theoretical question is whether
the subjects of a neutral state ought to abstain altogether
from carrying in its ships the goods of belligerents, and
herefore, whether a belligerent state ought to have a
right of confiscating the goods of its enemy not contraband
of war on board the ships of a neutral state. Assuming
that the subjects of a neutral state ought to abstain alto-
gether from carrying in its ships the goods of a belligerent,
then the practical question of political expediency is, whe-
ther, in existing circumstances, it would be wise and politic
for this country to seize Russian goods not contraband of
war on board neutral vessels, or whether it would be more
politic and expedient under existing circumstances to waive
for the present that belligerent right. Now with regard
to the practical question of political expediency, the learned
gentleman has admitted in his resolution and likewise
in his speech, that in the peculiar circumstances of the
country a relaxation of the principle that the goods
of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful prize,
may be justifiable. I will assume, for the sake of argu-
ment, that the principle laid down is a sound one, and I
will endeavour to demonstrate to the house that in exist-
ing circumstances it would be wise and expedient for this
country to waive this right. But, first, I will consider the
theoretical question of international law. The learned gen-
tleman asks the house, by the terms of his resolution, to
declare that to renounce or surrender a right so clearly in-
corporated with the law of nations, so firmly maintained by,
us in times of the greatest peril and distress, and so inter-
woven with our matitime renown, would be inconsistent
with the honour of this country. Therefore, if the house
wereof thist° country: gle
e
. to
tained in it. I tttohhiimsnkai
en-
tertained. Therefore, in order to induce the house to any proposition of the thisntrtua resolution,
nhh ofuo sr
which
tewwv ieol rlu tlanhd ode pledge
oingts eihateyii othsnboe
enl cfo: honour
of r:
en-
tertain the resolution, the bon. gentleman ought to prove
that the proposition is indisputably proved. The learned
gentleman has cited many learned authorities in favour of
the rule for confiscating an enemy's goods. He began by
tracing the origin of it from those dark ages that immedi-
ately followed the downfall of the Roman empire. He
quoted the Consolate del Mare, which was not drawn up
till the eleventh century. Then he quoted Grotius. But
many of the rules that were laid down by Grotius in his
celebrated work have become obsolete in consequence of the
progress of humanity, and nothing could be more bold and
meagre than the chapter in the great woi k of Grotius on
the rights of neutrals—l mean the third chapter of his
work. The reason is obvious. Grotins wrote at a period
when the rights of neutrals were little understood, and less
cared for. In fact, Grotius had only in one single place
distinctly referred to the right of confiscating an enemy's
goods. The only case where he quotes from the Consolate
del Mare in the fourth chapter, in which he merely quotes
it without asserting or denying it. Therefore I deny the
right of the honourable and learned gentleman to quote
the authority of Grotius in favour of the principle that
the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful
prize. The hon. and learned gentleinau..also quoted the
authority of Vette], who is a very able writer, but iu the
chapter in which he treats of confiscating an enemy's
goods in a friend's ship, he merely states that the rule in
question is a law of Europe without assigning any reason.
The learned gentleman likewise mentioned the names of
gentlemen learned in the law, but those gentlemen aro apt
to assume that what is law ought to be law; but the hon.
and learned gentleman has omitted to mention a great
many authorities on this subject. What ought to be the
public law of nations, though it is in accordance with the
present public law of Europe. For the present public law
of Europe may, like the municipal law of many of its in-
dividual states, be imperfect in some respects, and require
amendment ; because the present public law of Europe has
derived its origin from two distinct sources, partly from
those abstract notions of what is right and just which form
what is termed the law of nature ; partly from the custom
and usage of nations in their intercourse with each other.
It is evident that those rules of the present public law of
Europe which are based on correct notions of what is right
and just cannot require amendment. Not so those rules of
the present public law of Europe which have been founded.
on custom and usage ,• for the custom and usage of na-
tions, especially with regard to war, have frequently
been at variance with correct nations of what is right and
just ; and the jusbelli which has chiefly been founded upon
custom and usage has differed in different nations and in
different sets and families of nations; it has varied in the
same nation at various periods of its history ; it has
changed with the change of the religion, manners, and in-
stitutions of a nation. Grotius says, " that is often, jus
quentiunt in one part of the world which is not so in an-
other." According to Montesquieu "every nation has its
own law of nations, even the Iroquois who beat their pri-
soners
have one, they send and receive ambassadors, they
know the laws of war and peace, but the evil is that their
law of nations is not founded upon true principles." The
question is, is the rule of the English law of nations with
regard to the capture of enemy's property onboard neutral
ships founded on true principles or not? Though this
rule has been generally acted upon by European states in
their wars with each other, yet the majority of them have
maintained and still maintain, that the rule in question is
an improper one, and have constantly endeavoured by
means of treaties to expunge it from the public law of
Europe, and to substitute for it the rule that enemy's
goods should not be liable to confiscation on board neutral
ships. I will refer briefly to the arguments which have
been urged against the rule of confiscating enemy's pro-
perty on board neutral ships by the persons whom I will
call the advocates of the extension of neutral rights. They
say, that in the earlier periods of history and among the
less civilised nations, the rules of war were far sterner
than at present, that the maxim, that it is lawfal for
a belligerent to injure his enemy by every possible
means, was acted upon to the fullest extent, that neutrals
scarcely existed, their rights were unknown, and the law
of war was the will of the most potent belligerent. But,
say they, the tendency of civilisation has been, and still is,
to mitigate the severity of the code of war, to establish
and enlarge the rights of neutrals, and to protect weak
neutrals against the tyranny of powerful belligerents ; that
this tendency has as yet, however, produced less change in
the rules of war by sea than in the rules of war by land;
that at present the rules of maritime warfare are the same
as those which were practised in war by land in rude and
barbarous ages; that for instance, private war by land
eosithowwshlbiflhihbebetepatjiihdirhtitelirelterftohtainhri
ti:etnei
has been abolished, but private war by sea is still sanc-
tioned by the code of maritime war; that to seize the
private property of the peaceful subject of an enemy for
the sake of gain is repugnant to the usages of modern war
by land, and is an act which would meet with the con-
demnation of all civilised nations, but to do similar acts on
the sea, and even to hire foreign buccaneers with a license
to pillage peaceful merchants, are conformable to the pre-
sent rules of maritime war. Now, say the advocates of
the extension of neutral rights, though valid reasons may
have been assigned why the laws of war should be sterner
by sea than by land, why the rights of neutrals should be
more limited on the ocean than on the continent ; yet no
valid reason has ever been assigned for treating neutrals on
the sea in a manner that neutrals on land have never been
treated since the existence of neutrals was recognised.
(Hear, hear.) They affirm that the rule of capturing
enemy's property on board neutral ships was introduced
into the public law of Europe at a period when the rights
of neutrals were little understood and less eared for, that
it was a misapplication to neutrals of the Roman law with
regard to the subjects of belligerents. For when the Eu-
ropean states which sprung from the dismemberment of
the Roman empire began to emerge from the barbarism
consequent upon the downfall of that empire, the want of
some rules to determine the conduct of sovereign states to-
wards each other began to be felt, and attempts were made
to frame an international law. The early legif4;inwail__
made those attempts were conversant only with the
law many
law, and they adopted as rules of their public laan
law.
maxims taken without alteration from the .I.tom
of neutral
In this manner (say the friends of the extension
public law
of neutrals. For the Roman law walsawn
Rune. They pun-
or carrying on board
rights)E uro pea, brave
wh which
rhraoar
bweaesn
very introduced
in injurious
riiict,tuos the
ot,t: faptiltitehb
the
iioncoßotifeaourmeefearaorinfaei
of nations, but only the municipl
lawt
h e sounbljecttsi eotefilltme'el
tlotiwti aiiiiidaseptehtiedenetnenmef,itetsmhj7ost-f
The 1
entitledr to prohibit, pro-
hibited,
ought
question
io,uatTdetabi esnhihnsatetesteosticoliyrrgaotvseasobilef:
eloivrwixoterweinieistittgg.
ieel
h%tiovniehwtgsf,thinihcertetßeoeht with
ought3.ltal werelte regard
Ihmno,ltimo eet
smnttaeeoieo. Roman
nt: neofl
ti
ise)rybdrae:l):tvtteoiths°‘ih,l
ou.
ia3entn(
s' f'
t ,
onuec Rome
t iee
neutrals,i s r i
bl i
us •t
confiscation of the goods and
even of the ships which contained the goods of the enemies
of Rome. The sovereigns of Europe adopted the provisions
they applied those provisions not only to their subjects
whom they as sovereigns were entitled to command, but
they
over whom they had no sovereignty whatever. It is self-
evident, however, that because a sovereign is entitled to
issue certain commands to his subjects, and to punish dis-
obedient subjects, it does not follow that the URN MT.

reign is entitled to give the same commands to free and in-
dependent nations, and to punish the disobedient as if
they were his subjects. Now, under the Roman law, the
ship upon which the goods of the enemies of Rome were
seized, the ship which was confiscated for containing those
goods, and the trade which was prohibited with the enemies
of Rome, were the ship and the trade of the subjects of
Rome, and not of neutrals. By adopting as rules of the
public law of Europe the rules of the Roman law with re-
gard to commerce with enemies, the sovereigns of Europe
have at various periods and repeatedly laid claim to and
exercised three rights very injurious to neutrals, namely,
the right of capturing enemies' goods, not only on board
the ships of their subjects, but also on board the ships of
neutrals; secondly, the right of confiscating, not only th©
ships of their subjects, but also the ships of a neutral state,
for containing enemies' goods ; thirdly, the right of pro-
hibiting, not only the trade of their subjects, but also of
neutrals, with the enemy. Tho two last of these claims
have long since been abandoned in theory, though not in
practice ; the first alone now exists, and the friends of the
extension of neutral rights affirm that it is destined to
share the fate of its companions, and ought immediately to
be expunged from the public law of civilised nations. They
affirm that a neutral state is entitled in reason and justice
to say to a belligerent, " As a neutral, I have nothing to
do with your quarrel, you may injure your enemy as much
as you like, provided that in so doing you do not injure
me ; you may hit your antagonist as hard as you can, but
you must not strike me in order to hit him ; and if he
hurt you, you must not retaliate upon him by hurting me.
All that you, as a belligerent, are entitled to deman cf
me as a neutral, is, that I will not take any part against
you ; that I will not directly succour and aid your enemy;
that when you are fighting I will not furnish him with
munitions of war ; that when you are blockading his
ports, or besieging his towns, 1 will not interfere, nor
supply him with the means of prolonged defence ; but:pro-
vided that I abstain from doing these things, as a neutral
I am entitled to carry on with your enemy a trade as free
and unrestricted as he and I may think proper to permit."
For, say the friends for the extension of neutral rights, the
sea is free—Grotius has proved it, and Seldon was unable
to refute him. Therefore, no portion of the ocean is the
exclusive property of any state, except that portion of it
which is temporarily occupied by the ship of is state, over
that portion the state whose ship occupies it has for the
time sole and exclusive jurisdiction. A neutral ship is a
floating portion of the territory of a neutral sovereign ;
its inhabitants are his subjects ; they are bound to
obey his municipal law, and no other law ; if they
commit crimes on board the ship, they are tried
and punished by his penal law ; and the ownership
of every article of property on board the ship is deter-
mined by his civil law. Therefore, say the friends of the
extension of neutral rights, addressing a belligerent sove-
reign, your quarrel, with which the neutral sovereign has
nothing to do, rnd to which as a neutral he ought to be
perfectly indifferent, cannot destroy his rights on the free
ocean, cannot entitle yeu as a belligerent to interfere, with
his floating territoi y more than with his fixed territory.
But it must be admitted that the subjects of a neutral
sovereign the inhabitants both of his floating territory,
and of his fixed territory, ought not to directly aid and
succour your enemy ; for if he were to sanction such con-
duct on the part of his subjects he would cease to be a neu-
tral, and would become your enemy ; therefore, he ought
to prohibit the inhabitants, both of his fixed and of his
floating territory, from directly aiding any succouring your
antagonist ; and he ought to authorise you as a belligerent,
and you ought to be authorised by the law of nations to
enforce that prohibition, by visiting his ships and confis-
cating contraband of war, and by seizing his vessels in the
event of their attempting to break through your blockade.
But though it must be adulated that the subjects of a neu-
tral sovereign ought to abstain from doing those things,
the evident aim and intention of which are to directly suc-
cour and aid your antagonist,—ought to abstain from all
acts which, if done by his commands, or by his ships of
war, would justify you in treating him as an ally of your
enemy ; yet it does not follow that the subjects of a neutral
sovereign are bound to abstain from doing those things,
which without directly succouring and aiding your antago-
nist, may tend to benefit and enrich him ; and by enrich-
ing him. may tend to strengthen him; and by strengthen-
ing him, may tend to render it more difficult for you to
vanquish and overcome your enemy. For you must admit
that the established and universally recognised laws of
European warfare permit the subject of a neutral sovereign
to do many things of this description ; that according
to the present public law of Europe, he is entitled to
trade with your enemy, on every description of goods
except contraband of war. He is entitled to enter
any one of your enemy's ports which is not strictly
blockaded ; he is entitled to laden his ships with goods
and merchandise of the produce or manufacture of your
enemy ; he is entitled to carry off those goods and mer-
chandise, and to sell them in other ports. You cannot
deny that the subject of a neutral sovereign is entitled by
the law of nations to do all these things ; but you affirm
that he must do them subject to this strange and extraor-
dinary condition —that during the period that he is carry-
ing the goods in question from one port to another they
should legally cease to belong to your enemy : and (say the
friends of the extension of neutral rights) in order to as-
certain whether this extraordinary condition is fulfilled
you claim as a belligerent the right of stopping neutral
ships on the highway of the free ocean, not only for the
purpose of ascertaining their nationality, and whether they
are carrying contraband of war to your enemy, but for the
purpose of searching and minutely inquiring and examining
into the legal ownership of every single article of property
on board a neutral ship ; and if you find anything on board
the ship which you fancy belongs to your enemy—any pro-
perty the purchase of which from your enemy you suspect
has not been completed according to the strict and techni-
cal rules of your law, you claim as a belligerent the right of
detaining the neutral ship, and of compelling it to change
its route, and enter one of your ports, in order that your
judges may inquire into and determine the ownership of
the property in question. Andif your judges decide that,
according to the technical rules of that portion of your mu-
nicipal law, which you call your law of nations, the par-
chase of the property in question has not been completed,
and that its legal ownership is still vested iuyour enemy you
claim the right of confiscating that property. And (say the
friends of the extension of neutral rights) you claim the right
of causing thee powers to be exercised not only by the
commanders of your regular ships of war, over whom you
have direct control, and who are gentlemen, and have the
honour and interest of their country at heart; but you
claim the right of delegating these powers—at all times
odious and vexatious, and which may be used to the great
detriment and injury, and even destruction of the trade
and commerce of neutral states—to the freebooters, bucca-
neers, and foreign cut-throats, who man your privateers,
over whom you have little or no control, scourges of the
ocean whose object is plunder, and who can only be dis-
tinguished from pirates by the mark of your licence to pil-
age. (Hear, hear.) Now (say the friends of the extension
of neutral rights) your stakes as a belligerent give you
no more right to enter a neutral ship to search for your
enemy's property, than to enter a neutral port to search
for your enemy's ships. (Hear, hear.) As long as you
and the neutral sovereign are at peace, you have no right
to meddle with any property on board his ship, except con-
traband of war. For he is sole and independent sovereign
on board his ship, and in virtue of his sovereignty all pro-
perty on board his ship belongs in fact to him, for he can
dispose of it, and does dispose of it, according to his will
and pleasure as declared in the rules of his municipal law.
Therefore, as long as you and he are at peace, you have no
right to ask any questions about any property on board his
ship, either how he became possessed of it, or upon what
conditions he acquired it, whither he paid for it in hard
cash, or obtained it on credit, whether he holds it for his
own use or in trust for any body else. To insist upon ask-
ing these questions, to insist upon determining them in
your courts of law, to exercise any power over a neutral
ship which the neutral sovereign, does not concede to you,
nor admit that you are entitled to exercise according to
what he considers ought to be the rules of international law,
are acts of violence to which neutrals have submitted only
when neutrals have been weak and belligerents strong, and
which neutrals have resisted and will again resist whrever
strong enough to defend their rights. Such is the lan-
guage which the friends of the extension of neutral rights
consider that they are entitled to hold towards a bellige-
rent power that claims the right of confiscating enemy's
goods, not contraband of war, on board neutral ships.
They would tell the learned gentleman that the position to
the eternal maintenance of which he would pledge the
honour of this house and country, so far from being indis-
putably true, is demonstratively false' and very many na-
tions would agree with them. For at various times the
great majority of European states have been induced, partly
by argument, partly by self-interest, to condemn the rule
of capturing enemy's goods on board neutral ships, and
they have repeatedly eudeavoured by treaties and conven-
tions with each other to expunge that rule from the public
law of Europe, and to substitute the rule that free ships
should give freedom to the goods which they contain. For
instance, I find that during the century and a quarter that
preceded the French revolution, the all but invariable rule
of amicable relations as established by treaty between the
great maritime powers of western Europe, viz., between
England, France, Spain, the United Provinces_ o Holland,f
and Portugal, was " free ships, free goods." That
is, that
the goods of the enemies of one contracting power,
on
n board er,bepiTentaghhciaees
belligerent, should not be liable to confiscation
ships of the other contracting power, being a neutroalf.
rule is contained in almost every one of the treaties
and commerce which England concluded ins hhe latter part
lof the 17th century and the 18th century, the powers
which I have just mentioned. This is
eahn. ilhopr)otrertiaienrtt.hfaaTtchtle.
which
I think it affords so strong a
havei precedent
the
Policy
nt
ewahticoh contains the prin-
ciplewhich her Majesty's Govetrrnematei
will briefly enumerate the
greoZtr,:',/aii
wwashtohmiantgnoooftif Westminster,
first English treatyfreoen
oPgorret
autgearl
ever
"free ships
in the year 1654:between John IV.
that warrior anti statesman,
yowfsheEc:ti,toaile the name and
ruled the destinies of tteurtfitsoonnnaarteeitvhniei
and whose alliance
flag of Englanbyd
was courtedarlerthece
Europe. (Hear.) In
the 23d article of that treaty it was declared, " That all
the goods and merchandise of the enemies of the said re-
public or king found on board the ships of either,
or their
people, or subjects, shall remain untouched." This treaty
was confirmed in 1661 and 1703, and continued unaltered
till 1810, when the rule of " free ships, free good" was re-
nounced. Therefore, for 156 years the invariable rule of
our amicable intercourse with Portugal was " free ships
free goods." (Hear.) I will next pass in review our trea-
ties with France. Iu the year 1655 the Lord Protector
concluded. a treaty of peace with Louis XIV in the 15th
article of which it is declared that, " Omnes naves ad sub-
ditos et populares alterutriusque pertinentes, et in marl
Mediterraneo, Orientali, sea ocean() negociantes, libera
sint, atque etiam onus sumn liberum reddaut, licit, iu illas
invehantur mercirnonia imno grans., regurninave qua alter-
utrius hostiuna sint." How long the treaty of 1655 con-
tinued in force lam unable to say. But in 1677 the rule
"free ships, iree good" was inserted in the treaty of com-
merce of St. German en Laye, and was the rule of our
amicable relations with France for the next 116 years.
During that period we concluded five treaties of peace and
three of commerce with France—namely, in 1677, 1697,
1713, 1748, 1763, 1783, 1786—0 f these only one (namely,
in 1697), and which lasted only for five years, contained
no provision with regard to the trade of neutrals during
war ; in all the others I have found an article which
either expressly contained the provisians that the flags
of France and England should protect the goods of
their respective enemies, or which renewed the commer-
cial treaty of Utrecht of 1713, which contained that pro-
vision in the fullest manner. I should observe that
the commercial treaties of Utrecht of 1713 were the

basis of the commercial relations between rtAliee-,11142
land and Spain before the wars of the French Revolution,
and they 'still are the basis of the commercial relations
between this country and Spain, and between Spain and
distinctiontheir
France. I will read an extract from the 17th art. of the
commercial treaty of Utrecht between England and
securitysail o f France :-" It shall be lawful for all the subjects of the
toQueen
Britainship
bwaenii
ntdhg ofa
athede
manner
who most
areoChristianf th libertye pr oip
ari
inned
(no Greatwithg.
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 the
same prince, or under several ; and as it is now stipulated
concerning ships and goods that free ships shall also give
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 cf 1766. This treaty ter urinated 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 89 years, the subjects of one party were en-
titled by treaty to carry on the coasting and colonial trade
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 i 3 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 freedom to
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 Spain
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
" '''wrimPlyinforemosahould be,guilty_of a breach of
treaty. With reference to our treaties will the 'Mita
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 It 3 years-namely, in 1667, 1668, 1674, 1675
1685, 1639, 1403, 1711, and 1716 ; and it continued in
force till the war of 1780, but was not renewed by the
treaty of Paris of 1781. 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 11.1 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 six
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 g 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 a 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 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 iu force till the wars
of the Fren h 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 Europe, from 1651 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 not 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 or 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-
ment, 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
subjects of belligerents. For during that period one
of the great maritime powers of the west has repeatedly
(as I have
treated neutrals as subjects, applied to them
_ew
with
already said) all the provisions of the Roman 1
re-
gard to trading with enemies,
has confiscated not only
enemies' goods on board neutral ships, but confiscated
neutral ships for containing enemy's good, and prohibited
all neutral commerce with enemies. Iwill '
instances of this conduct by the great maritime powers of
Western Europe within the last two centuries. In 1652,
the United Provinces threatened to treat as an enemy any
foreigners who should carry any merchandise to England,
and to punish him with the confiscation both of his ship
and merchandise. In 1089 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,
quo la robe d'un ennemt con fi
sque cede d'un ami ;" but also
declared that merchandise
of the growth, or manufacture
of the enemies of France to
whomsoever
be belonging should
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 company
s
with Holland, we declared a blockade of all the.ooaest of
the
France, without sending a single ship to 7,1_717
with
blockade, and we prohibited neutrals from
bothtr
their
France under the penalty of the confiscation.
ships and their goods. This was cannon law,
the famous
• on
as our third William called it, for it Lad no other sanction,
human or divine, save the force of a bullet. (A augh
In 1756 we prohibited the Dutch from trading with the
colonies of France, and laid down the famous. rule of war of
that year, in virtue of which we claimed a right of prohi-
biting
• ' '
all neutral traffic with the colonies and on the
coasts of our enemy ; this rule was much contested by the
Unite d States of Ameriea, and other powers, and was a
fruitful source of contention between them and us. Again,
in 1793, we concluded treaties with Spain, Prussia, Russia,
and the Emperor of Ger...any, for the purpose of forbidding
neutrals to trade with France. Lastly, iu 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 our
orders in council and the Berlin and Milan decrees. In
consequence of the 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 Europe,
who were generally neutrals in those wars, repeatedly
formed leagues to defend their rights as neutrals, and took
up arms for that purpose. The first armed neutrality, as
these leagues were termed, was a convention in 1693 be'

tween Sweden and Denmark to resist by force of arms tho
execution of the convention between the United Provinces
and England to put a stop to all neutral trade with France.
This armed neutrality seems to have been successful, and
the allies hul to abandon their project. In the war of 1711,
in consequence of our searching, and detaining, and
tlee
cap-
turing enemy's property on beard Prussian vessels, .
King of Prussia refused to pay the interest of the Silesian
Loan, until we had made reparation to his subjects by a
e
payment of 20,000/. The second and most. celebratedm
d
neutrality-wee in 1780 ;it objects were to resist on r
rarul_e
01-
war of 1156, with regard to trading with the colonies,
on the coast of our enemies, and to establish the rule that
" free ships should make free goods." This armed
neutra-
lity consisted of conventions which Russia concluded with
Denmark, Prussia, Austria, Portugal, and the Two Sicilies,
and to which Spain and Holland acceded. It attained
its object, and in the treaties of peace which we
concluded in 1783, with France and Spain, we recognised,
as far as those powers were concerned, the main prin-
ciples of the armed neutrality of 1780, and renewed trea-
ties, namely, those of Utrecht of 1713, which contained
the rule " free ships free goods." The third armed neu-
trality was concluded iu 1794, between Denmark and
Sweden, for the protection of their trade during the war
of the French Revolution : it was not successful. And
the fourth armed neutrality, the principles of which were
the same as those of the armed neutrality of 1780, was
formed. in 1890, by treaties that Russia concluded with
Sweden, Denmark, and Prussia. This armed neutrality
was speedilybrong-ht to an end by the murder of the Emperor
of Russia. The principles of the armed neutrality are to be
found in the treaties of 1782 and 1814, between Russia and
Denmark ; of 18330 and 1800, between Russia and Sweden;
and of 1818, between Denmark and Prussia. These trea-
ties and leagues show how anxious the Northern Powers
have generally been to expunge the rule of confiscating
enemy's goods on board neutral ships from the public
law of Europe, and to substitute the rule "free ships
free goods." 1 must observe, however, that the rule
" free ships free goods" is not contained in some of the
treaties between the Northern and Western powers-for
instance, it is not contained in the treaty of commerce of
Copenhagen, concluded in 1670 between Great Britain and
Denmark, which was renewed by the treaty of Kiel of
1814, nor is it contained in the treaties between Great Bri-
tain and Sweden, signed at Upsal in 1654, at Westminster
in 1656, at Whitehall in 1651, and all of which were con-
firmed by the treaty of Oretro of 1812. These treaties are
still in force, and from various articles in them the infe-
rence may be fairly drawn that we are now entitled by
treaty to confiscate enemy's goods on board neutral ships
belonging to Denmark and Sweden. Nor was the rule
"free ships free goods" contained in any of our treaties
with Russia. On the contrary, in the marine convention
of St. Petersburg of 1801, to which Sweden and Denmark
acceded, the second article declared that enemy's
goods should not be free on board neutral ships. On the
other hand, the treaties which Prussia concluded with
Austria, in 1785, with France in 1787, and with the Two
Sicilies in the same year, contained the stipulations of the
armed neutrality of 1780. The rule free ships free
goods" is also to be found in the treaties between Prussia
and Portugal of 1787 and 1793, the latter of which was
renewed by the declaration of 1815. The same rule was
contained in the treaties between Denmark and France
of 1663, 1742, 1749, and 1813. And according to eminent
French authorities-namely D'Hauterive and Hantefuille
-is still in force between France and Denmark. Conse-
quently at present the Danes are entitled by treaty with
France to carry Russian goods from one Russian port
to another Russian port, the ports not being blockaded.
The rule " free ships free goods" was also contained in the
treaties between Denmark and Spain of 1742 and
1814; and in those between Sweden and the United
Provinces of 1679 and 1686. I think that I have
referred to every, or nearly every, international engage-
ment of the two last centuries between the Northern
Powers, or between them and the Western Powers, which
contained a specific stipulation with regard to the goods of
an enemy on board the ship of a neutral. There were se-
veral treaties that contained no stipulation on the subject;
but those that did were about 4u in number; of them,
only nine (to every one of which England was a party)
stipulated that the goods of an enemy in the ship of a
friend should be lawful prize : the remaining 31 contained
the rule " free ships free goods ;" and most of them con-
tained the principles of the armed neutralities of 1780 and
1800. The armed neutrality of 1780 was an offspring of
the American war of independence. The United States at
once declared in favour of its principles, and adopted its
provisions as rules of public law of the-New World. For
the rule "free ships free goods" is to be found in the
treaties which the United States concluded with France in
1778 and 1800 ; with the United Pro4inces in 1782 ; with
Sweden in 1783, 1816, and 1827; with Prussia in 1785,
and though the rule was temporarily suspended in 1799, it
was re established in 1828. The only instance in which
the United States adopted the rule that the goods of an
enemy in the ship of a friend is lawful prize, was a treaty
with this country in 1791. Bat in 1795 the United States
concluded a treaty with Spain, which contained the rule
"free ships free goods," it was renewed in 1819, but with
this reservation, that the rule should only be acted upon
when all the belligerents assented to it; for example, the
ships of the United States, being a neutral, were only to
render ft ee the goods of the enemy of Spain, being a bel-
ligerent, when the enemy of Spain also acted upon that
rule. About 30 years ago the South American colonies of
Spain shook off the yoke of their mother country and be-
came independent ; they then entered into negotiations
with the United States; in those negotiations the United.
States declared that the rule of public law-that the pro-
perty of an enemy is liable to capture on board the vessels
of a friend has no foundation in natural right, and
though it be the established usage of nations, rests entirely
on the abuse of force. For these reasons, the rule " free
ships free goods" is to be found, I believe in every treaty
which the United States has concluded with the states of
South America : for instance, with Colombia, in 1824 ;
with the States of Central America, in 1825 ; with
Brazil, in 1823 ; with Mexico, in 1831 ; with Chili,
in 1832 ; with Bolivia, in 1836 ; with Venezuela, in
the same year ; and with Equador, in 1843. I should
observe, that in almost all these treaties with the states
of South America, the United States stipulated that the
rule " free ships free goods" should only be enforced when
all the belligerents assented to act upon it ; for, though
the United States maintained in the strongest manner
that the rule in question ought to be contained in the public
law of nations, yet they asserted that, if one belligerent
alone were to act upon that rule, and the others were to
adopt the contrary rule of confiscating enemy's goods on
board neutral ships, the belligerent who acted upon the
right rule would be unjustly damnified, and ho who
acted upon the wring rale would be unjustly benefited :
therefore, the United Settee stipulated in the treaties in
question that the rule " free ships free goods" should be
subject to the limitation which I have mentioned, until
the progress of civilisation and the consent of all civilised
nations should establsh it as an undoubted rule of public
law. France has also concluded numerous treaties with
the states of South America, in which it has been generally
stipulated that France should not impose upon neutrals
in time of war any other obligations than that of sub-
mitting to the laws of effective blockade. lam in-
formed that this stipulation is contained in the treaty
which France concluded with Brazil in 1826, with
Bolivia in 1837, with Eenador and Venezuela in 1843,
with New Granada in 1816, with Guatemala in 1818, with
Costa Rica in the same year, and with Hayti in 1852.
Lastly, I should observe, that the Ottoman Porte is at pre•
sent bound by its capitulation of 1601 with France, of 1675
with England, of 1783 with Russia, and prbably by those
of 1781 with Austria, of 1740 with the Two Sicilies, of 1782
with Spain, of 1680 with Holland, of 1790 with Prussia,
not to confiscate any goods, except contraband of war, on
board the ships of the nations which I have j ust mentioned.
I have now enumerated 130 international engagements be-
tween the chief powers of the civilised world ; they are all,
or nearly all, the international engagements between these
powers during the last two centuries, which contain dis-
tinct provisions, with regard to the treatment of enemy's
goods on board neutrals' ships; there are many treaties
which contain no provision on that subject, but of the 130
that do, only 11, to ten of which England was a party,
contain the rule that the goods of an enemy in the ship of
a friend are lawful prize, the remaining 119 contain the
rule, "free ships free goods." I have now shown that
during the century and a quarter which preceded the wars
of the French revolution the all but invariable rule of
amicable intercourse, as established by treaties between
this country and the great maritime powers of western
Europe, and the invariable rule between those powers was
free ships free goods. I have also shown that the general
rule of amicable intercourse, as established by treaty be-
tween the northern powers, between the northern and
western powers (with the exception of England), between
France and the New World, and between the Ottoman
Porte and the great powers of Europe, was free ships free
Pods. I am therefore entitled to assert that though it
hasbeen the custom and usage of nations to act upon the
ca enemy's goods on boar .1 neutral ships,
in and usage have been and still are held
by the
with
majority
niece with - of civilised nations to be at vari-
Now, an euVoot notions of what is right and just.
Mr. Austin, inen modern writer on jurisprudence,
"the rule sane unning
poati:eo
international law, states that
considered atretiTg
at the conduct of sovereign states
la rby its analogy to ated each other is termed
tions or sovereigns, not by tklaw, being imposed upon na-
perior authority, but by Positive command of a su-
nations. The duties whicliit rue
sanctions, by fear on the partraor:
generally current among
es are enforced by moral
probable evils in case
n-gueenrally received and re-
general hostility, and incurri g its"ereigns of provoking
they should violate maxims
spected." If this be a correct
law, or rather what ought to be into al of
ought to be a
international
lows that the rule, "free ships, free 9.1 na,,, it fol.
rule of international law, or at least
gentleman,
sition contained in the resolution of the (I) c"lthat the P
o-
namely, that the goods of an enemy in the'arateL
Idhave already
are lawful prize, is not indisputably true: and, it b not
sutip,
ifof a eee
uphold
dgentlernan to
indisputably true, the house ought
said, by agreeing to the motion of the learned
pledge the honour of this country to uprlai
Ihaveit for ever.
referred,
I must observe that in the treaties to which
with the exception of those which contained the ferred,
of the armed neutrality of 1788jand of 1800, the
ships, free goods" has been accompanied by the rulee" "free
ene-
my's
ships, enemy's goods," in virtue of which the g
oodeo of
neutrals were liable to confiscation on board enemy's ships.
This rule was a convenient one for belligerents. 'lt saved
them the trouble of determining the ownership of any pro-
perty on board an enemy's ship; and therefore those powers
who agreed to the rule " free ships, free goods," generally
stipulated that neutrals should pay for the lenity of that
rule,, by the confiscation of their property when found on
board an enemy's ship. Bat between the two rules of "free
ships, free goods," and "enemy's ships, enemy's goods,"
there is no logical connexion; the only connexion between
them is the jingling of a verbal antithesis. Now, every
writer, ancient and modern, on international law, has con-
demned therule "enemy's ships enemy's goods," as contrary
to the principles of public law. Grotius expressly condemn-
ed it, so did Bynkershock, Heineccins,, and Vattel, so has
Hubner, Maher, do Rayneval, and Hautefeuille. As
there is no logical connection between the rule " free ships
and free goods," and the rule " enemy's ships, enemy's
goods," it follows that we were under no logical nor moral
obligation to adopt the latter role, because we held it to
be right and expedient in existing circumstances to adopt
the former rule. I said that I would assume for the sake
of argument that a, belligerent state ought to have the
right of confiscating enemy's goods on boatel neutral ships,
and would then undertake to show that it was expedient
and politic in existingcircumstances to waive for the pre-
sent the right of confiscating
onenmeantsrteal.dmilt -di of Russian subjects
in the ship of a the
g°-
•
think every will now proceed to do Si,.so.
that it is all important for the
successful prosecution of the
war now waging with Russia,
that France and England should cordially co-operate by
Bea, as well as by land, It is t
that cordial
co-operation could not be attf
if -eviden
aimedone power were to
act upon one rule of maritime
war, and the other upon an opposite rule. For .complete harmony of action it is indis-
t _pensable that both powers should adopt of
the same tales maritime war. But as I have already
- the International laws of France an shown,
acang to
of maritime war were different. The
Frenchng and, their rules
by their law of nationsand
by numerous treaties to re-
aped enemy's goods on boanl tral
en ships; but they