CHAPTER XVIII.

CONCLUSION.

By all that has preceded, it has, I submit, been abundantly made clear that the principles assumed to be laid down by the Declaration of Paris are novel innovations in and at variance with the Law of Nations; that the Declaration itself is false both in fact and in principle; that it possesses no sufficient authority; and that it is so highly injurious to the interests of Great Britain as to amount to the deprival of the greater part of her warlike strength.

That this latter conclusion is one shared by competent statesmen, as well British as others, is made clear by the opinions quoted in the Appendix (A) which follows.

On a review of the whole matter it must be evident that Great Britain, so long as she remains bound by this Declaration, is in any war debarred from the exercise of the greater part of her maritime strength. The knowledge that this is so materially affects her position in peace, and deprives her of the preponderant weight and authority which her voice always had, so long as it was known that it was capable of being supported by the tremendous force that so preeminent a maritime power could bring to bear on the resources of an enemy.

This being so it follows that the very first duty of all British statesmen, who have at heart the interest

Р

and the security of their country, is to consider how to free her from the paralyzing fetters of this Declaration. In order to effect this it is necessary that the Declaration should be openly denounced and repudiated; for until it is repudiated it must be held as binding. Its falsity and the want of previous authority and subsequent sanction are not sufficient to allow it to be simply disregarded in time of war; they are more than sufficient to invite its denunciation and repudiation in time of peace.

A simple announcement by diplomatic note to the signatory Powers would suffice for this; and from the day that Great Britain announces her resumption of the maritime rights which made her powerful and kept her secure, from that day and not before it, will she resume her due place among the nations of the earth which are respected because it is known that they are strong.

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX A.

OPINIONS OF BRITISH AND OTHER STATESMEN ON THE DOCTRINE "FREE SHIPS MAKE FREE GOODS," AND ON THE DECLARATION OF PARIS AND ITS EFFECTS.

KING'S SPEECH, FEBRUARY, 1801.

A convention has been concluded by that court [of St. Petersburg] with those of Copenhagen and Stockholm, the object of which, as avowed by one of the contracting parties, is to renew their former engagements for establishing, by force, a new code of maritime law, inconsistent with the rights and hostile to the interests of this country.

In this situation, I could not hesitate as to the conduct which it became me to pursue. I have taken the earliest measures to repel the aggression of this hostile confederacy and to support those principles which are essential to the maintenance of our naval strength, and which are grounded on the system of public laws, so long established and recognized in Europe.'

MR. WILLIAM PITT, 2ND FEBRUARY, 1801.

If, after a full discussion of this question [respecting our differences with the Northern Powers as to the Armed Neutrality] it should appear that the claim which this country has made is founded on the clearest and most indisputable justiceif it should be proved that our greatness, nay, our very existence as a nation, and everything that has raised us to the exalted situation which we hold, depends upon our possessing and

1 Speeches of William Pitt in the House of Commons, London, 1817, p. 221.

exercising this—if, I say, all this should be proved in the most satisfactory manner, still the honourable gentleman (Mr. Grey) is prepared seriously to declare in this House, that such are the circumstances in which we stand, that we ought publicly and explicitly to state to the world that we are unequal to the contest, and that we must quietly give up for ever an unquestionable right, and one upon which not only our character, but our very existence as a maritime power depends.1

MR. WILLIAM PITT, 2ND FEBRUARY, 1801.

With respect to the law of nations, I know that the principle upon which we are now acting, and for which I am now contending, has been universally admitted and acted upon, except in cases where it has been restrained or modified by particular treaties between different states. And here I must observe, that the honourable gentleman has fallen into the same error which constitutes the great fallacy in the reasoning of the advocates for the Northern Powers, namely, that every exception from the general law by a particular treaty, proves the law to be as it is stated in that treaty; whereas the very circumstance of making an exception by treaty, proves what the general law of nations would be, if no such treaty were made to modify or alter it.2

MR. WILLIAM PITT, 2ND FEBRUARY, 1801.

The question is, whether we are to permit the navy of our enemy to be supplied and recruited-whether we are to suffer blockaded forts to be furnished with warlike stores and provisions-whether we are to suffer neutral nations, by hoisting a flag upon a sloop, or a fishing boat, to convey the treasures of South America to the harbours of Spain, or the naval stores of the Baltic to Brest or Toulon ?3

3

MR. FOX, 25TH MARCH, 1801.

I have no hesitation in saying that, as a general proposition, free bottoms do not make free goods, and that, as an axiom, it is supported neither by the law of nations nor of common sense.

1 Speeches of William Pitt in the House of Commons, London, 1817, p. 224.

2 Ibid., pp. 224 and 227.

3 Ibid., pp. 224, 227 and 231.

The law of nations is but a body of regulations founded upon equal justice and applying equally to all nations, for the common interest of all. If a state of war did not involve its own inconveniences, the temptations to war would be endless, and might keep nations in perpetual misery. It is therefore for the general advantage that belligerents should feel the injuries of abridged and restricted trade, because it is an inducement to peace; and if, on the other hand, the commerce of a power at war, as well as the materials of offence, could be legally carried on by a neutral, the benefit of maritime preponderance would be wholly lost- -a thing as much at variance with common sense, as it would be repugnant to reason.1

MR. WILLIAM PITT, 25TH MARCH, 1801.

Let it, however, be granted, that it was an act of sound policy to make that concession to Russia, that it was so at the time when our naval inferiority was too unfortunately conspicuous-when we were at war with France, with Spain, and with Holland, and when the addition of Russian hostility might have been a serious evil; does it follow that, at the present moment, when the fleets of all the Northern powers combined with those of France and Spain, and of Holland, would be unequal to a contest with the great and superior naval power of England-does it follow, that we are to sacrifice the maritime greatness of Britain at the shrine of Russia? Shall we allow entire freedom to the trade of France? -shall we suffer that country to send out her 12,000,000 of exports, and receive her imports in return, to enlarge private capital, and increase the public stock?-shall we allow her to receive naval stores undisturbed, and to rebuild and refit that navy which the valour of our seamen has destroyed?—shall we voluntarily give up our maritime consequence, and expose ourselves to scorn, to derision, and contempt? No man can deplore more than I do the loss of human blood-the calamities and the distresses of war; but will you silently stand by, and, acknowledging these monstrous and unheard-of principles of neutrality, ensure your enemy against the effects of your hostility? Four nations have leagued to produce a new code of maritime laws, in defiance of the established law of nations, and in defiance of the most solemn treaties and engagements, which

Speeches of the Rt. Hon. Charles James Fox in the House of Commons London, 1818, vol. vi., p. 428.