The Sun.
London, England, 1870-11-02 00:00:00

THE NEUTRALII'Y OF ENGLAND.

- - - - - -
Last evening Professor Leoni Levi delivered an
address on " The Rights and Duties of England as 9
Neutral State " to the Vice-Presidents and the executive
of the National Reform Union at Manchester. Professor
Levi began by saying that there was much reason for
thankfulness in the fact that in the midst of the
present complications England was still on the
neutral side. Hitherto, just in relation as the bel-
ligerents or neutrals happened to be the most powerful in.
any war, so their relative interests had been upheld ail°
their right recognised. Well, indeed, would it be for the
world if we could diminish permanently the supreme inile"
ence and commandingtone which belligerents had assumed
both at sea and land, and if we could teach them
that there are higher interests than.the success of this or
that dynasty, or even the maintenance of the preSe3lt
limits and organisation of States. It was now admitted
that every State had a right, if it pleased, to remain
neutral, and it was for itself and itself alone, to decide
whether it should join in the contest or not, having regard
not only to the justice of the cause, but to the advantage
of espousing that of either party. Poland, Denmark'
Hungary, Italy, each in turn demanded of Britain to re'
liounce at once an ignoble neutrality, and to enter the
field for the protection of struggling rights and liberties.
But who could say what torrents of blood would bay
been shed, and what amount of wealth would have been
squandered in the attempt to maintain what,. after
could only be achieved by the people themselves, and by
moral rather than physical conquests ? At this moment 9
faint cry was uttered that England should go boldly to
the rescue of France in her terrible contest with Prussia.
But why should we imperil our own existence ?
had we to do with that awful struggle ? Surely no duty
of generosity or friendship could justify the unsheathing
of the sword and the perpetration of so much evil as war
brings in its train. But if we wished to remain neutral we
ought to act in a bona fide and open manner. To be neutral
meant to take no part whatever in the war, and to
act impartially towards the belligerents. There must be,
abstinence as well as impartiality. A neutral was no
compelled to be inactive in order to preserve his neutrality''
but he must not be active in favour of either belligerent,.
A neutral was not the judge between the belligerents. M
he was, so he continues to be, the common friend of both.
Let a neutral, however, be ever so "Careful in abstaining,
from any participationin the war and in preserving a stria
impartiality, he unfortunately could not help coming into•
contact with the belligerents. There was, in truth, 3
conflict of interests between them which ever and anon
manifested itself, and lead to troubles. The neutral
wished to go on with his trading unmolested, but he was
not allowed to do so, and over and above the losses, di°'
turbances, and dangers, connected with a state of war, t'ul,°
neutral iad to combat the pretensions of the ber
ligerents and many needless hindrances thrown,
in his path. During the Russian war in 181
Prussia largely benefited by the opening °
new inland communication with Russia, by which means
she supplied her with all those articles which W
theretofore sent direct from England by sea. This was e
new trade for Prussia, and it gave rise to complaints On
the part of this country, but England could not prevent
it. The merchant must be vigilant and ready to profit by'
every opportunity. The same wars which by blockades'
and still more effectively, by diminished resources'
close some of the most flourishing branches
trade, may also open other branches. And if tn°
belligerents, intent upon their mutual destruction open
for a neutral a novel source of trade, it was their works
and they had no right to object. Of far greater difficulty',
however, was the trade of the neutral with the belligerent°,
themselves. France and Prussia were now at war wit'
each other. But neither of them was at war with us, and
so far as we are concerned we ought to b
°
able to go on in our commerce with either, undisturbed'A
But on more than one occasion the belligerents na,
actually denied such undoubted right. Times had non
changed, however, and to a large extent neutral rib
were better acknowledged, yet there were grave difficulties
still connected with the trade of neutrals with belligerents/.
and prominent among these was that connected wit"
articles technically called contraband of war. Put in
articulate words the belligerents now said to
the neutral trader, " You are at liberty t°4„
carry on your usual trade, but you must not
carry to the enemy any of those implements of wIT
which may be necessary to him for his defence. We wt;
allow you to trade in any articles, but not in what we „eau
contraband of war. If you do ,Parry these, we shall tie
them from you." Nay, more, turning himself to the States.
one belligerent said, " You profess to be neutral,' 13111'
your subjects break the duties of neutrality'.
Prove your neutrality by prohibiting the o$"
portation of contraband ef war from your coasts,
Do not allow the sale of such articles in your country tO.
my enemy. Let not my enemy be supplied with anything
out of your dockyards or arsenals, your arm factories, or
your coal mines." But what right had the belligerents t°
impose any such restrictions on the neutral ? Allow thst
the belligerents had a right to restrict any one branch 0.1
trade, and we were at their mercyto restrict the whole, for
in reality all trade was a help to the enemy. But who!'
was contraband of war ? The list of contraband goods was
very large and very unsettled, and there was great uncer'
tamty as to what would or would not be considered con'
traband in different circumstances or wars. A striking
feature of our neutrality laws was their apparent incon-
sistency. In the present war our dealing, though perfectly
in accordance with the law of nations, did not act fairly,
and had already given rise to much correspen"
deuce. Both Germany and France stood ?
need of help from this country. But value
Germany could get neither ships nor arms in consequence
of our legislation, and the blockade of her ports, Franoe
might not only get arms in any quantity, but even coals'
whereby to supply her ships of war whilst in the very 94-'l,
of blockading the German ports. Could we wonder all
Germany's complaint, that whilst our markets were pro'
fessedly open to both belligerents, France alone was
practically receiving considerable assistance? But were we
to listen to the Prussian lament, and in the very midst
of war adopt the novel course of protecting the exports.'
tion of the materials of war generally as well as of coals
and other articles of double use, we should give reason to
France to complain. And had we not a formal treaty of
commerce in force with France by which England bound
herself not to prohibit the exportation of coals ? More„.
2 important, however, than the fair and equitable
operation of the Act towards both belligerents ws°,
its influence on British industry. The Act as now amended
prohibited even the building of ships of war with the
.owledge and intent that they would be employeu,
against a friendly State. Doubtless the more we restrained
our shipbuilders from accepting such orders the more We
encouraged foreign Powers to build such ships for there'
selves, and the more we discouraged private shipbuilders
from constructing such ships the more must our deper"
dence be on our naval dockyards. But extend the
operation of the Act to the manufacture and export of
arms and ammunition, of coals and blankets, as Prussia,
would desire, and our trade would indeed suffer. And
what a farce it seemed, to be so careful in not sending
these articles if it was legal to raise money in Englanu
for a belligerent, as the open negotiation of
a French loan in the midst of the war
clearly implied. Another important defect in the
law was whether, by coming forward publicly W
warn her Majesty's subjects against infringing
the laws of neutrality, by expressly prohibiting the builo'
ing and transport of ships, and the enlisting of troops'
we did not make other nations expect far greater thing°
than we meant to perform. These and other difficultie°,
made it clear that our, neutrality laws needed a thoroue
revision. They were incoherent in themselves, unfair 15
their application, and inoperative in practice.
After much hesitation he had come to the
conclusion that it would be better to abolish the Foreign
Enlistment Act altogether, and to have the same freedoui
of trade in time of war as we had in time of peace. Th?,
consequence of repealing the Foreign Enlistment Act
would simply be to rescind the prohibitions specificalli,
mentioned in the Act, and no more. The State would
only say, " I cannot interfere with the rights of trade of
the rights of labour of my subjects ; I will assume n°
responsibility for what may be done by private individuals
in the exercise of their rights." There were difficulties
connected with the laws of neutrality, but there need be
none in the proper appreciation of our moral duties
towards nations engaged in the dreadful struggle of war.

.ND.

livered
gland as 9
.e executive

Professor
i reason for

Ist of the

,
11 on the
is the bel-
powerful ia
upheld and
t be for the
creme influ-
assunaed
each them
se of thin or
le present
ff admitted
to renssia
e, to decide
slag e• r gad
advantage
Denmark,
itain to re:

o enter the
d ]ibertiee•
would have
.have been

the War
3t in the
)üblicly W
infringing
; the ban'
of troops,
der things
difficulties.
a thorough
3, unfair In
practice.
to the
he Foreign
ne freedom
ace. TO,
tment Act
specificall9,,
ate wool
n
trade or
assume no
individuals
difficulties
re need be
)ral duties
le of War.

s himself
in a letter
oits of the
met with
he action
was told,
ely 500.
ind I am
me by the
selves par'
, it is to be
'he follow'
to procure
but who
:—Thomao
Elliot
.0 survived
Evers and
g'
5 and sub'

survivors
fire in the
iubourg of
ever saw,
I bravery
i as coo 119
measuring
Legion of
cers, that
firmneso
lothes and
:us."
me of the
'or mixing
:oncern
L the camp
the batta:
soldiers of
my when
ik French•
is not the
as soon ee
nigh guar'

et case of
trd before
at West•
ropertZ
ear. be

the coo.