tion.

if cause appear, its crew and cargo, is an infraction of the sovereignty, and a violation of the territory of the nation to which the vessel belongs, and a writer on the laws of nations* has even been found to lend the authority of his name to a pretension condemned by all other publicists without except Nevertheless the right of visitation and search is assuredly one of the mildest and the least susceptible of abuse that can be exercised. Its object is to verify the nationality and the neutrality of the vessel visited, and to establish the innocent nature of its voyage. The exercise of this right is a necessary consequence and corollary of any other belligerent right whatever. On land the limits of territory are known and apparent, and its character is established by its situation; but this is not the case with a vessel on the high seas. She may hoist false colours, or she may have false papers, practices which indeed have always been common in all wars. The belligerent man-of-war therefore has the right to assure himself that the vessel he meets is truly a neutral, and that her cargo is of an innocent nature, having an innocent destination. The method of assurance is settled to the merest detail by the law and the practice of nations. In the first place the man-of-war hoists her colours and fires the "affirming gun," which is equivalent to a declaration on honour that the colours are truly those of her sovereign.

sovereign.

Thereupon the

* De Rayneval, De la Liberté des Mers, t. 1, cap. xvi.

merchant vessel in view of which the colours are hoisted and thus affirmed, is bound in turn to proclaim her nationality by displaying the flag under which she navigates. This may be, and may be deemed sufficient-but if not, the man-of-war lowers a boat with an armed crew, and sends it away under the command of an officer, who, on boarding the meachantman may be accompanied at most by two of his men, and who forthwith proceeds to examine the ship's papers. If it should clearly appear from these that the vessel and cargo are bona fide neutral property, and that there is on board no contraband of war destined for an enemy's port-or if only it should not appear that there is any good cause to suspect the contrary-then the merchantman is allowed to proceed. If on the other hand it would seem that the vessel is enemy's property, or that, being neutral, she is engaged in conveying contraband of war, or in traffic of an otherwise unlawful nature, the captain of the man-ofwar may seize her-always at his own risk, and with the certainty, if he fails to prove his case, of having to pay costs and damages.

It would seem to require little argument to show that the right of visitation and search is one which can by no means be abandoned. By it alone can the flag be verified, by it alone can the carrying to the enemy of contraband of war be prevented, by it alone can any safeguard be afforded against the many frauds and deceptions

which the very situation invites. The right is undoubted, the exercise of it is necessarily mild and moderate in character, and it amounts to nothing more in the world than affording an opportunity of proving the alleged character. It may be odious to those who wish to evade the duties of neutrality; but to the honest neutral it will hardly be inconvenient.*

It has also been often declared that the visit, seizure, and despatch to port for judgment of unarmed merchantmen by armed vessels of war or privateers was, when it was practised, accompanied by many grievous abuses; that Privateers especially were occasionally guilty of great barbarities and of acts of lawless violence towards the crews captured, and that they habitually destroyed or altered the papers, embezzled the cargo of, and fraudently gave an inimical colour and character to all vessels that fell into their hands.

Upon this it is to be remarked that the assertion thus made is entirely unsupported by proof, and that, on the contrary, the records of the Admiralty Courts show that, as a rule, the seizure and bringing in were effected regularly and without violence - generally, indeed, without any resistance-whether by king's ships or by privateers.† The same records also show that it was extremely

* See Lord Stowell's Judgment on the Maria (Robinson, 340).

+ See Robinson's Admiralty Reports, passim.

difficult to conceal any irregularity which it was the interest of the captured to disclose, and that wherever misconduct was shown, punishment promptly followed. And now, even if it were true that the capture of property were always accompanied by abuses, that would indeed be a good reason for devising methods to suppress those abuses, but it neither would nor can furnish ground for attacking the right on which those abuses have been engrafted. And here again, that which has already been said must be repeated that the capture and making prize of property at sea is the one operation of warfare which is subject to calm, unimpassioned judicial decision before the act itself is completed; and that, therefore, if it be liable to abuse, it is at any rate of all acts of warfare that in which the abuse is most certain to be detected, and due reparation most certain to be made.

PART II.

THE PRESENT POSITION OF GREAT BRITAIN IN RELATION TO MARITIME WARFARE.

THE DECLARATION OF PARIS.

THUS far I have treated the questions discussed in this work upon general principles applicable equally to all nations having any maritime power capable of being used in time of war against an enemy. It is manifest that these questions are of importance to any nation in direct proportion to the extent of its maritime power; and equally manifest that, to a nation like Great Britain, which must place its main reliance upon maritime power, they are of the very highest importance. I propose, therefore, to give a short statement of the history of the matter as regards this country, and to review the successive steps that have been taken in relation to it as well as the present position in which it stands.

The right of a nation at war with another to fight and kill belligerent men must seem to all reasonable persons to imply at least an equal right to capture and confiscate belligerent property; nor has the exercise of either of these rights ever been questioned on land where to the present moment