The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-18 00:00:00

THE JURIDICAL SOCIETY.

This society assembled on Monday evening to
hear a paper read by Mr. C. Clark on the following
question :—" Is the capture of the Southern Com-
missioners from on board the mail steamer Trent de-
fensible by the law of nations ?" Mr.Willcock,
presided. Mr. Clark began by briefly tracing the
origin of the law of neutrals, and remarked that the
difficulties which had lately arisen were occasioned
by the desire, often manifested, not so much to get
as much profit as possible out of other people's
quarrels, but to add to that favour to one belligerent
without justifiably incurring the hostility of the
other. He then vindicated the proposition that a
vessel is part of the country to which it belongs, and
showed that the doubts suggested as to that proposi-
tion arose solely from its being stated as absolute
and definitive without exception, and subject to no
limitation. He asserted the proposition, but assigned
degrees and limits to it. Taken with these its exist-
ence could not be doubted. One of these restrictions
was that any neutral vessel was subject to search for
contraband. That right had long been acknow-
ledged. Military officers and despatches were some-
times treated as contraband of war. But the right
to take them existed only when a vessel, neutral by
its state, had engaged itself in, the special service of
a belligerent, in which case it became by virtue of
that fact a belligerent transport, and as such subject
to capture. Sir W. Scott's decisions on this subject
had been misrepresented in order to draw from them
a justification for the present proceeding. The prin-
ciples were these—that a neutral vessel, specially
engaged to transport munitions, soldiers, or des-
patches between the enemy's country and his colo-
nies, or colourably and fraudulently pretending a
voyage from or to a neutral port, in order to be
enabled to perform this service, was in reality an
enemy's transport, but that a neutral vessel plying
in its ordinary occupation between the enemy's
country and a neutral port, or a fortiori (as was the
case with the Trent) between one neutral port and
another, and taking on board, as casual passengers,
men or officers of a belligerent, or his despatches,
incurred no blame or breach of neutrality, nor
any risk of forfeiture. In support of this last
proposition he especially referred to Hautefeuille,
a French writer, and to the American writers
Kent and Wheaton, and especially to a note
on the book of Mr. Wheaton by Mr. Beach
Lawrence, who had edited it. He also showed
that the convenience of the passengers in the
Trent was not a justification for not taking the
vessel before a Prize Court, but only operated to
save the captain of the San Jacinto and the Govern-
ment he served from a responsibility, a sense of the
existence of which might have prevented the act.
Under these circumstances, he proposed to answer
the question for the evening's discussion by saying
that the act of the San Jacinto was not justifiable.
Mr. Willcock addressed some remarks to the meet-
ing, and was followed by Mr. G. Lushington and
some other gentlemen ; after which the discussion
was, on the motion of Mr. Daniell, Q,C., adjourned
to the next meeting.