BELLIGERENT RIGHTS.

THE DECLARATION OF PARIS.

CHAPTER VI.

THE "Maritime Rights of Nations," which were very materially modified by the Paris Declaration of 1856,* are of ancient date. For nearly six centuries belligerents were allowed the right of capturing enemies' goods or vessels wherever found on the high seas, and as a consequence they possessed the power of searching for enemies' goods on board neutral ships.

But the exercise of that power, or "right of search," as it has from long usage been questionably styled, did not remain undisputed until 1856, as stated by some writers, who base their arguments on that erroneous assumption. The principle that "free ships make free goods" was stoutly contended for by the Dutch in the early part of the seventeenth century, whose country was then the great bonding warehouse of Europe, and who, when holding the position we now do, as the largest

1. Privateering is, and remains, abolished.

2. The neutral flag covers enemies' goods with the exception of contraband of war.

3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemies' flag.

4. Blockade, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force, sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

To this very important Declaration, all nations may be said to have become parties, with the exception of the United States of America.

carriers by sea, entered, in 1650, into a Treaty with Spain containing that condition. Indeed, Great Britain, who fought so bravely and vigorously against "the world in arms" to maintain the right of search, herself, conceded by Treaty the principle of free ships making free goods, to Portugal in 1654, and to Holland in 1667, and it was likewise introduced into the celebrated Treaties of Utrecht in 1780, as well as into Pitt's Commercial Treaty with France.

It is true, the principle that free ships make free goods, never became the Law of Nations, until the Paris Declaration made it so.

But what is International Law?

I ask this question broadly, because a few writers of the present day, argue that the Parliament of the United Kingdom can deal with it as with its own laws. They forget that as International Law has none of the Statutes or precedents which constitute the laws of individual States, it cannot, if for no other reason, be dealt with by the Legislature of any one country. But there are other

reasons.

International Law appears to me to be simply an agreement, or rather understanding, between nations to secure justice and right for each, or for the subjects of each, and for the benefit and peace of mankind.

Nevertheless, it is of a character which, happily, cannot be broken with impunity, for, it is the grandest and most righteous of all laws. Nor, can it be infringed by any one nation without the sanction of the other nations who have accepted it, or without subjecting that nation to the probabilities of war with all the nations which subscribed the agreement, any more than a law of Great Britain can be repealed without the consent of the Queen, Lords, and Commons.

Some writers are amazed that an agreement of such vast importance as the Declaration of 1856 should have

been entered into by Great Britain without the sanction of Parliament, and I am far from saying that the opinion of Parliament should not have been taken; but the Parliament of the period, must have considered it a necessity or an advantage to ourselves, for had it not been so considered, it must be assumed that, under such circumstances, the Opposition would have marked their dissent by a vote of censure against the Ministry of the day.

There is no assembly in the world more alive to the interests of the country than the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Men, who speak before they think, may talk about the sacrifice, by certain statesmen, of the best interests of their country, but it is idle talk. However much the different sections may disagree, or however long the struggle, whenever it is apparent that a change has become imperatively necessary for the progress of the nation and the welfare and happiness of the people, all parties, either actively or passively, adopt it. In doing so, they set at naught "the wisdom of their ancestors,' ignore the practices of ancient times; and, in recent years, have wisely swept away many traditional superstitions, as regards the modes of conducting both war and commerce:—and, we have prospered in disregard of all the rules formerly laid down to ensure our prosperity.

Grotius, Vattel, and other publicists, were no doubt good authorities in their day and generation, but things have very materially changed since then, and, fortunately, the statesmen and diplomatists, assembled in Paris in 1856, saw this, and resolutely set aside altogether the pedantic maxims, and the precedents of Maritime International Law, which had perplexed the world for centuries. They based their opinions on the circumstances of the times in which they lived; they recollected the old league of the neutral powers in 1780; and, above all, they remembered the Berlin and Milan Decrees of Napoleon in 1806, and our own Orders in Council in 1807, which

paralysed, and almost destroyed the commerce of Great Britain.

Although this country made, during the latter part of the last, and the early portion of this century, vast sacrifices of life and treasure to vindicate its right of search, we soon, afterwards, discovered that that right could be no longer maintained. Since then the intercourse, by sea, between nations has increased to an enormous extent, while the mode of conducting maritime commerce, has undergone a complete revolution; and is carried on with a rapidity of which our forefathers could form no conception. Indeed, the repeal of our own navigation laws, and the changes since 1850 in the navigation laws of other nations, would alone, render the exercise of the right of search altogether impracticable. Great changes have also since then taken place in the relation of the ships of one nation and, the goods of the subjects of another. Formerly, the cargoes were to a much greater extent the property of the subjects of the country under whose flag the ship sailed than they are at present. Now, vessels are laden indiscriminately by the subjects of all nations, so that the difficulty of ascertaining if enemies' goods are on board of neutral ships has, by the changes in the law, as well as by the modes of conducting commerce, greatly increased. In a word, to enforce the right of search against neutrals, would be as intolerable, as it would be found to be impracticable.

Other nations have also become comparatively much more powerful, at sea, than they were three-quarters of a century ago; but, beyond all, a scattered people, on the other side of the Atlantic, have sprung into a great nation. More than half a century ago it had, while in its infancy, bade defiance to our right of search, and would now indignantly, and, without doubt, successfully resist any attempt to enforce it.

But even if any such "rights" had remained undisputed from the date of the Black Book of the Admiralty, or of the Consolato del Mare until 1856, that in itself, would form no reason for their maintenance. If it did, we might, on similar grounds, repudiate all improvement upon the barbarous practices of ancient warfare, and, indeed, ignore every step that has been taken in the advancement of science and commerce.

Although we are still the most powerful nation at sea, that is no valid reason why we should still attempt to maintain these ancient rights. Every person who has read history, and given only a passing thought to events in connection with this subject, must see that we could not, even if we would, resort, in the event of war, to our former practice. It is vain, it is worse than idle to quote in favour of this course, the opinions of statesmen and warriors, however great, of by-gone ages. We must take things as they now are, and deal with them accordingly.

But while we became parties to the Declaration of Paris through necessity, we did so likewise, in our own interests. Unless we are interfered with, when war is being waged between foreign nations, it must be clearly to our advantage to maintain a strict neutrality; and, having by far the largest commerce afloat,* we, as neutrals, are more interested than any other nation in having our merchant ships, and the goods they carry, protected by our flag. But, as belligerents, we are still more interested, for had the right of search, and privateering not been abolished by the Declaration of Paris, the whole of our vast maritime

* Some of my readers may not be aware that the merchant ships of the British Empire, amounted, at the close of 1855, to 7,744,237 tons, about as many as the sea-going merchant ships of all the rest of the world, and that the produce, manufactures, and specie they carry, exceed in value those of all other nations combined. I cannot suppose that the advocates of any retrograde movement have considered these astounding facts.